[Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives (2017 series), Volume 2, Chapters 5 - 6]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
115th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document No. 115-62
PRECEDENTS
OF THE
United States
House of Representatives
By
CHARLES W. JOHNSON, III, J.D.
Parliamentarian of the House,
1994-2004
JOHN V. SULLIVAN, J.D.
Parliamentarian of the House,
2004-2012
THOMAS J. WICKHAM, Jr., J.D.
Parliamentarian of the House,
2012-
VOLUME 2
COVERING PRECEDENTS THROUGH THE OPENING DAY OF
THE 116TH CONGRESS AND EMPLOYING CITATIONS TO THE
RULES AND TO THE HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL OF THAT
CONGRESS
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgement is made with appreciation to the staff of the Office of Compila- tion
of Precedents, Catherine Moran, Bryan Feldblum, and Parliamentarian Emeritus Charles W.
Johnson-and all the staff at the Office of the Parliamentarian-Jason Smith, Anne Gooch,
Kyle Jones, Julia Cook, Lloyd Jenkins, Kristen Donahue, and Matthew Kowalewski for their
diligent annotation and documentation of the prece- dents. Assistance to this work was
provided by details from the Government Pub- lishing Office, Denise Altland and
Allison Torres-Cherry and by interns Krista Viksnins, Brenna Culliton, Kayla Keech, and
Sarah Krom.
THOMAS J. WICKHAM, JR.
ANDREW S. NEAL
MAX A. SPITZER
OCTOBER 2019
iii
Citation Notes for Precedents of the United States House of Representatives
For Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, cite to Parliamen- tarian
last name, chapter, section number:
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 1.1
For Hinds' and Cannon's Precedents, cite to volume, series, section number: 1 Hinds' Precedents
101; 7 Cannon's Precedents 3900
For Deschler's Precedents, Deschler-Brown Precedents, Deschler-Brown-Johnson Precedents, and
Deschler-Brown-Johnson-Sullivan Precedents, cite to Deschler's Precedents, chapter,
section number:
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 11 1.1
v
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS
A. (or A.2d) Atlantic Reporter
ad hoc For a particular purpose or end
A.L.R. American Law Reports Annotated
Am Jur American Jurisprudence
amend. Amendment to the Constitution
Annals of Cong. Annals of Congress (1789-1824)
App. D.C. Appeal Cases, District of Columbia
App. Div. Appellate Division
art. Article of the Constitution
C.A. Court of Appeals
cert. Certiorari
cf. Compare with
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Ch. Chapter
Cir. Circuit Court of Appeals (federal)
Cir. Ct. App. Circuit Court of Appeals (state)
cl. clause
Comm. Committee
Cong. Congress
Cong. Deb. Congressional Debates (1824-1837)
Cong. Globe Congressional Globe (1833-1873)
Cong. Rec. Congressional Record
contra Contradictory authority
Crim. App. Court of Criminal Appeals
Ct. Cl. Court of Claims
D. District Court (federal)
Daily Ed. Daily edition of Record
e.g. For example
et al. Omission of party in case name
et seq. And the following
ex rel. On the relation of . . .
Exec. Comm. Executive Communication
F.2d Federal Reporter
FCA Federal Code Annotated
Fed. Reg. Federal Register
FRD Federal Rules Decisions
F. Supp. Federal Supplement
H. Con. Res. House Concurrent Resolution
H. Doc. House Document
H.J. Res. House Joint Resolution
H. Jour. House Journal
H.R. House Bill
H. Rept. House Report
H. Res. House Resolution
vii
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS
Id. Citation to same authority as in immedi- ately preceding citation
i.e. That is
In re In the matter of . . .
infra Subsequent section or chapter
inter alia Among others
L.Ed (or L.Ed2d) Lawyers' Edition, U.S. Supreme Court Reports
L.J. Law Journal
L. Rev. Law Review
Mem. Disposition of case without opinion
N.E. (or N.E.2d) North Eastern Reporter
N.W. (or N.W.2d) Op. Att'y Gen. Attorney General's Opinions
P. (or P.2d) Pacific Reporter
Per Curiam Disposition of case with short opinion
Priv. L. Private Law
P.L. Uncodified Statute or Session Law
S. Senate Bill
S. Con. Res. Senate Concurrent Resolution
S. Ct. Supreme Court Reporter
S. Doc. Senate Document
S.E. (or S.E.2d) South Eastern Reporter
Sess. Session
[sic] Mistake in original of quoted material
S.J. Res. Senate Joint Resolution
S. Jour. Senate Journal
S. Rept. Senate Report
S. Res. Senate Resolution
So. (or So.2d) Southern Reporter
Stat. Statutes at large
Sup. Ct. Supreme Court
supra Prior section or chapter
S.W. (or S.W.2d) South Western Reporter
U.S. United States Supreme Court Reports
U.S.C. (or U.S.C.A.) United States Code (or United States Code Annotated)
U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News United States Code Congressional and Administrative News
U.S. Const. United States Constitution
U.S.L.W. United States Law Week
vii
Contents
Chapter 5. The House Rules, House Journal, and Congressional Record
A. The House Rules
1. Sources; Judicial Authority
2. The House Rules and Manual
3. Applicability; Construction
4. Abrogation; Waiver
5. Adoption of Rules; General Parliamentary Law
6. Amending the Standing Rules
7. Statutory Rulemaking
8. Separate Orders and Orders of the House
9. The Speaker's Announced Policies
B. House Journal
10. In General
11. Precedence
12. Approving the Journal
13. Reading the Journal
14. Amending or Correcting the Journal
C. Congressional Record
15. In General; Purpose and Status
16. Authority Over the Congressional Record
17. Format
18. Matters Printed in the Congressional Record
19. Correction of Errors
20. Revising and Extending Remarks
21. Insertion of Extraneous Material
22. Deletion of Unparliamentary Remarks
23. Availability; Notice
24. Special Orders of Business
ix
PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE
Chapter 6. Officers, Officials, and Employees
A. The Speaker
1. Definition and Nature of Office
2. Authority and Duties
3. Power of Appointment
4. Restrictions on the Speaker's Authority
5. The Speaker as a Member
6. Preserving Order
7. Ethics Investigations of the Speaker
B. The Speaker Pro Tempore
8. Definition and Nature of Office; Authorities
9. Oath of Office
10. Term of Office
11. Designation of a Speaker Pro Tempore
12. Election of a Speaker Pro Tempore; Authorities
C. Elected House Officers
13. In General
14. The Clerk
15. The Sergeant-at-Arms
16. The Chaplain
17. The Chief Administrative Officer
D. Other House Officials and Capitol Employees
18. The Parliamentarian
19. General Counsel; Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
20. Inspector General
21. Legislative Counsel
22. Law Revision Counsel
23. House Historian
24. House Pages
25. Other Congressional Officials and Employees
x
CONTENTS
E. House Employees As Party Defendant or Witness
26. Current Procedures for Responding to Subpoenas
27. History of Former Procedures for Responding to Subpoenas
F. House Employment and Administration
28. Employment Practices
29. Salaries and Benefits of House Officers, Officials, and Employees
30. Creating and Eliminating Offices; Reorganizations
31. Minority Party Employees
xi
CHAPTER 5
The House Rules, House Journal, and Congressional Record
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary and editing by Andrew S. Neal, J.D. and Max Spitzer, J.D.,
LL.M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The House Rules
Sec. 1. Sources; Judicial Authority
Sec. 2. The House Rules and Manual
Sec. 3. Applicability; Construction
Sec. 4. Abrogation; Waiver
Sec. 5. Adoption of Rules; General Parliamentary Law
Sec. 6. Amending the Standing Rules
Sec. 7. Statutory Rulemaking
Sec. 8. Separate Orders and Orders of the House
Sec. 9. The Speaker's Announced Policies
B. House Journal
Sec. 10. In General
Sec. 11. Precedence
Sec. 12. Approving the Journal
Sec. 13. Reading the Journal
Sec. 14. Amending or Correcting the Journal
C. Congressional Record
Sec. 15. In General; Purpose and Status
Sec. 16. Authority Over the Congressional Record
Sec. 17. Format
Sec. 18. Matters Printed in the Congressional Record
Sec. 19. Correction of Errors
Sec. 20. Revising and Extending Remarks
Sec. 21. Insertion of Extraneous Material
Sec. 22. Deletion of Unparliamentary Remarks
Sec. 23. Availability; Notice
Sec. 24. Special Orders of Business
A. The House Rules
Sec. 1. Sources; Judicial Authority
The parliamentary procedures by which the House conducts its
business derive from a variety of different sources. In the first
instance, the U.S. Constitution provides that the House shall have the
authority to make its own rules of proceeding and also lays out several
additional procedural requirements relating to such matters as: voting
by the yeas and nays; quorums; keeping the House Journal; expulsion of
Members; and adjournments of Congress.(1) Additional
procedural requirements in the Constitution relate to the enactment of
legislation, such as the requirement that all revenue bills originate
in the House, and the President's role in signing or vetoing
legislation (subject to congressional override).(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5.
2. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond these relatively few constitutional requirements, the
primary source of House procedures are the standing rules themselves.
As discussed elsewhere,(3) the standing rules are adopted at
the beginning of each Congress, and are applicable to all House
procedures from the point of adoption until the expiration of that
Congress (unless altered by subsequent House action).(4)
Prior to the adoption of rules, the House is governed by principles of
general parliamentary law,(5) as well as customs or
traditions of the House that its membership considers applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 10 and Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 1.
4. For amending the standing rules of the House, see Sec. 6, infra.
5. See Sec. 5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress also enacts statutes that themselves contain congressional
procedures. For example, the Trade Act of 1974(6) sets out
specific procedures that the House (and Senate) must follow to approve
or disapprove certain trade agreements negotiated by the executive.
This legislative rulemaking contained in statute operates in the same
manner as House rules and are to be read in consonance with the
standing rules of the House. Although congressional procedures
contained in statutes continue beyond the Congress in which they were
enacted (as is the case with any law), each new House must
affirmatively agree to be bound by such procedures. The House typically
does so with language contained in the resolution adopting the standing
rules of the House.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 19 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2191-2194.
7. See Sec. 7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, the resolution adopting the standing rules has
also included a variety of standing ``orders'' of the House that are
functionally equivalent to rules of the House and operate with the same
binding effect. Such orders may create new points of order, vary the
application of statutory rulemaking, or authorize some other action by
the House, its committees or its Members.(8) The number of
such standing orders has increased substantially since the 106th
Congress and any analysis of House procedures must take into account
their provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. 8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules of the House provide a fair amount of discretion to the
Speaker of the House to exercise certain authorities as the Speaker
sees fit. Since the 1980s, Speakers have inserted into the
Congressional Record policy statements announcing in advance how the
Speaker intends to exercise these discretionary authorities. Topics
addressed by such statements typically include the conduct of votes by
electronic device, referral of legislative measures, recognition for
unanimous-consent requests to consider legislation, and
decorum.(9) While such statements offer Members reasonable
expectations in how Speakers will exercise their discretionary
authorities, unlike formal rules or orders of the House, they are not
binding upon the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the House abides by the legal principle of stare decisis,
meaning ``let the decision stand.'' When the Chair interprets a rule of
the House, such as by ruling on a point of order, that interpretation
will stand as a decision of the House regarding that particular
question (subject to appeal to the full House). These decisions
establish precedents which are recorded and published by the House
Parliamentarian in volumes such as this, and are relied upon by
subsequent presiding officers in making rulings. In essence, precedents
establish a ``common law'' of the House. Precedents are considered
binding and as such may be thought of as governing the procedures of
the House in the same manner as formal rules. However, each Speaker has
the authority to review prior decisions and offer a different
interpretation that may diverge from prior precedent. But, in order to
maintain predictability and consistency in House procedures, Speakers
rarely overturn earlier decisions and will do so only in compelling
circumstances.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. On rare occasions, decisions of the Speaker may be reexamined and
reversed (see 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4637), except on
discretionary matters of recognition (see 2 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 1425). See House Rules and Manual Sec. 351 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the broad grant of authority by the Constitution for the
House to adopt rules of its proceedings, it is rare for conflicts over
the interpretation of House rules to rise to the level of a justiciable
controversy. However, such a situation may arise where the application
or construction of a House rule directly affects persons other than
Members of the House. But even in such cases, the role of the courts is
generally a narrow one.(11) Rules of the House may not
violate constitutional requirements or violate fundamental rights. But
beyond these limitations, the House may choose whatever procedural
methods it wishes to adhere to, and a judicial claim that another
method would be better or more just is not admitted.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 4.
12. Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109, 114-15 (1963); United States
v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892).
Parliamentarian's Note: It has been stated that the role of
the courts is not to judge ``what rules Congress may establish
for its own governance'' but rather ``what rules the House has
established and whether they have been followed.'' See
Christoffel v. United States 338 U.S. 88-89 (1949). In
Christoffel, the petitioner had been convicted of perjury
before a House committee under a statute punishing perjury
before a ``competent'' tribunal. The petitioner contended that
that the committee was not a ``competent'' tribunal in that a
quorum was not present at the time of the incident alleged. The
court reversed the conviction, citing an erroneous instruction
that would have allowed to determine competency on the basis of
the situation existing at the time the committee convened
rather than at the time of the actual incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2. The House Rules and Manual
The House Rules and Manual is a House document composed by the
Parliamentarian of the House(1) and published every
Congress.(2) Its contents include: The U.S. Constitution,
Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, the rules of the House
(in the form adopted by the House for that Congress), descriptions of
subsidiary House offices and commissions, descriptions of certain joint
and select committees, excerpts of statutes providing congressional
procedures (including budgetary enforcement mechanisms), and a
comprehensive index.(3) All of this material is heavily
annotated with commentary by the Parliamentarian, historical notes on
the development of each rule, and references to prior rulings and
precedents of the House.(4) By statute, each House may order
as many copies of the House Rules and Manual as desired.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the advent of the position of
Parliamentarian, a ``Digest and Manual of the Rules and
Practice of the House of Representatives'' was prepared by the
Journal Clerk pursuant to an act of March 3, 1877. This
precursor to the current House Rules and Manual contained many
of the same elements as the current version, including an
annotated Constitution of the United States, Jefferson's Manual
of Parliamentary Practice, and the standing rules of the House.
2. See 158 Cong. Rec. 17752, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. (Dec. 19, 2012). See
also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 1.1.
3. Earlier editions of the House Rules and Manual included a variety
of forms for stating questions or offering motions, as well as
a description of the legislative stages of a bill from
introduction to final enactment as law. See, e.g., H. Doc. 416,
94th Cong. 1st Sess. (1975).
4. The Clerk of the House has, for a number of years, published an
unannotated version of the standing rules of the House, which
is available on its website. Recent efforts by the Committee on
Rules and the Government Publishing Office have also expanded
electronic availability of the House Rules and Manual in a
variety of digital formats.
5. 44 U.S.C. Sec. 720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice was composed by Thomas
Jefferson for his personal use as presiding officer of the Senate
during the years of his Vice Presidency. Though intended as a model for
Senate practice, that body never formally incorporated Jefferson's
Manual of Parliamentary Practice into its standing rules. By contrast,
the House adopted a rule in the 25th Congress (1837) providing that the
rules of parliamentary practice embodied in Jefferson's Manual of
Parliamentary Practice shall govern the proceedings of the House in all
cases in which they are not inconsistent with the rules of the
House.(6) This rule has been carried forward as a standing
rule of the House in every subsequent Congress.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6757.
7. The current rule is clause 1 of rule XXIX. See House Rules and
Manual Sec. 1105 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annotations to Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice
included in the House Rules and Manual indicate the extent to which the
parliamentary principles adduced by Jefferson are applicable to current
procedures of the House. Many such principles have become embodied in
the standing rules of the House, or are considered part of general
parliamentary law to govern proceedings prior to the adoption of
rules.(8) Other rules have long since ceased to be
applicable to House proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. For more on general parliamentary law, see Sec. 5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution provides that ``Each House may determine the Rules
of its Proceedings.''(9) Thus, when the House assembles at
the beginning of a new Congress, it is not bound by the rules of any
prior Congress(10) but instead must formally adopt new rules
to govern proceedings for that Congress.(11) As has been
stated, ``While in theory these rules are new in each Congress, yet in
fact the essential portions of the system of rules are continued from
Congress to Congress, and become an existing code, permanent in its
essential provisions.''(12) Traditionally, the rules adopted
each Congress are the rules from the prior Congress with a number of
discrete amendments (usually representing procedural changes favored by
the majority party caucus).(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5.
10. Parliamentarian's Note: Beginning in 1860, the rules of the House
contained a provision ostensibly extending their application
beyond the instant Congress to ``succeeding Congresses'' as
well. This rule was of dubious probity and occasionally
questioned by Members until its repeal in 1890. See 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 6743-6747. For more on applicable
procedures at organization (prior to the adoption of rules),
see Sec. 5, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1.
11. When the House in one Congress agrees to a resolution or order
addressing actions in a subsequent Congress (for example,
authorizing the use of the Capitol Rotunda for presidential
inauguration ceremonies), that resolution or order must be
reaffirmed by the House in the following Congress for it to
have effect. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 7.14 and 143
Cong. Rec. 11900, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. (June 24, 1997).
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6742.
13. For more on the adoption of rules at the beginning of a Congress,
see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 10 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress may enact statutory provisions containing congressional
procedures for expediting a particular kind of business.(14)
Such congressional rulemaking contained in statute is either explicitly
or implicitly authorized as an exercise in the rulemaking power of each
House of Congress, and thus in no way limits the ability of either
House to change its procedures at a later time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2.1 The House by unanimous consent adopted a resolution providing
for the printing of a revised edition of the House Rules and Manual
for the following Congress.
On December 6, 2016,(15) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 162 Cong. Rec. H7255 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR THE PRINTING OF A REVISED EDITION OF THE RULES
AND MANUAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED
FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
Mr. [Kevin] McCARTHY [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I send to
the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(16) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John Katko (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 945
Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of
Representatives for the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress be printed and bound
for the use of the House of Representatives, of which nine hundred eighty
copies shall be bound in leather with thumb index and delivered as may be
directed by the Parliamentarian of the House.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 3. Applicability; Construction
The rules of the House apply to proceedings that take place in the
full House, but also when the House is operating in other forums, such
as the Committee of the Whole. Clause 11 of rule XVIII provides that
the rules of the House ``are the rules of the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union so far as applicable.''(1) A
similar rule provides for the same treatment for committees and
subcommittees of the House. Clause 1(a)(1)(A) of rule XI(2)
provides that the rules of the House ``are the rules of its committees
and subcommittees so far as applicable.'' Committees are permitted to
adopt their own rules of proceedings pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule
XI,(3) but the rule further provides that such committees
rules ``may not be inconsistent with the Rules of the House or with
those provisions of law having the force and effect of Rules of the
House.''(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 992 (2019).
2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 787 (2019).
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 791 (2019).
4. Rule XI, clause 2(a)(1)(B), House Rules and Manual Sec. 791 (2019).
For provisions of law operating as rules of the House, see
Sec. 7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House abides by the ordinary legal principle that in the case
of conflict between two rules, the most recently adopted rule
controls.(5) This is also true where Congress enacts
legislation that contains congressional rulemaking (i.e., the rules
contained in statute apply from the date of enactment and will override
the existing House rules where the two are inconsistent).(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 6.1.
6. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 6.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the House is considering an amendment to the standing rules,
it is not the province of the Chair to interpret the pending
proposition. Rather, it is for Members in debate to address how the
amendment to the rules will operate and how it should be interpreted
(if adopted).(7) The Chair does not rule on the
constitutionality of a House rule, that being a matter for the House to
decide when adopting the rule.(8) The Chair does not
interpret a special order of business resolution while it is
pending.(9) Where a special order provides for consideration
of a measure whose consideration would otherwise be governed by
statutory procedures, the terms of the special order are read in
consonance with the statutory requirements and are interpreted as
compatible wherever possible.(10) The House decides whether
or not a Member has violated ethics rules contained in the Code of
Official Conduct, and such matter is not resolved by a ruling from the
Chair.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 3.4, infra.
8. See Sec. 3.1, infra.
9. See Sec. 3.5, infra.
10. See Sec. 3.2, infra.
11. See Sec. 3.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.1 The Chair does not rule on the constitutionality of the rules
adopted by the House other than to interpret the rules consistently
with constitutional requirements.
On September 12, 1977,(12) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 28800-801, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. See also House Rules
and Manual Sec. Sec. 555, 1029 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
announcement by the speaker
The SPEAKER.(13) The Chair desires to make an
announcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XXVII, the
Chair announces that he will postpone further proceedings today on
each motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the
yeas and nays are ordered, or on which the vote is objected to
under clause 4 of rule
XV. -------------------
point of order
Mr. [John] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House, since there is not a
quorum present and not even close to a quorum present.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is aware of the rule of the House
that the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for a point of no
quorum unless there is a pending question being put to a vote.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is aware of the fact that we are
postponing votes on the suspensions.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
I make a point of order for the record that under the
Constitution of the United States a quorum must be present for
transaction of business notwithstanding the rules.
The SPEAKER. There is no question or business being put to a
vote at the moment, so under clause 6 of rule XV the gentleman's
point is not well taken. . . .
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook)
has just pointed out the fact that there are possibly less than 50
Members present on the floor at this point. He made the further
point that the Constitution, article I, section 5, requires that
the House have a quorum at all times to do business. We are in the
full House. We are not in the Committee of the Whole. I raise again
the question whether or not the House can conduct its business for
4 or 5 hours today or 13 separate bills under suspension without
having a majority of the membership here and recorded present.
I think any legislation we act upon could be challenged in
court as not having been considered by a quorum, and a quorum is
not here.
Also I am under the impression that rule XV requires or permits
at least one quorum call to establish a quorum at the opening of
each day's session.
The SPEAKER. With regard to the gentleman's statement, the
Constitution does require what the gentleman says--a quorum to do
business. The rules of the House reflect this requirement. But
under the circumstances, the chair will recognize a Member to move
a call of the House.
Sec. 3.2 Where a law enacted as a rule of both Houses provides special
procedures for consideration of a joint resolution, and the House
then adopts a special order providing for consideration of such a
joint resolution, the Speaker will interpret the special statutory
provisions to apply if consistent with the special order.
On December 10, 1981,(14) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 127 Cong. Rec. 30477-78, 30483, 30485-86, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Gillis] LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 296 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 296
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 115) to
approve the President's recommendation for a waiver of law pursuant to the
Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976, and to consider said joint
resolution in the House.
The SPEAKER.(15) The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Long) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LONG. This is not an unprecedented rule, Mr. Speaker.
Special orders, or rules, have been used on numerous occasions to
provide for the taking of a Senate bill or resolution from the
Speaker's table and thereafter considering the measure in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. In fact, such procedure, is
routinely provided in rules when a House bill is being considered
for which there is a Senate-passed companion measure being held at
the Speaker's table. This Senate hook-up, as it is commonly
referred to, has been a routine parliamentary technique used by the
Rules Committee to expedite the flow of legislation in the House.
The rationale has been simply that once the House has perfected and
passed a legislative measure, that no single Member of the House
should be able to impede the will of the House by objecting to a
unanimous-consent request to bring up the Senate measure and
passing it or perfecting it by striking the Senate text and
inserting in lieu thereof the House-passed measure.
As my colleagues know, on Tuesday, December 8, 1981, the House
debated House Joint Resolution 41, the Alaska gas pipeline approval
resolution. On Wednesday, the House passed the resolution by a vote
of 233 to 173. After passage of House Joint Resolution 341, a
unanimous-consent request was made to take the Senate companion
measure, Senate Joint Resolution 115, from the Speaker's table for
consideration. An objection was heard to that request.
Consequently, the only means by which the House would be able to
take up the Senate bill and thus complete the procedural
requirements of its earlier decision would be by the adoption of a
rule. The Committee on Rules met late yesterday afternoon and by a
rollcall vote of 13 to 1 ordered a rule reported that would make in
order the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 115 in the
House.
The rule simply provides for the consideration of the joint
resolution. The procedure outlined in section 8 of the Alaska
Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976 would govern the actual
parliamentary situation. I would also like to point out to my
colleagues that section 8 of the act specifically states that--
This subsection is enacted by Congress as an exercise of the rulemaking
power of each House of Congress, respectively, and as such it is deemed a
part of the rules of each House . . . and it supersedes other rules only to
the extent that it is inconsistent therewith . . . and with full
recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules
(so far as those rules relate to the procedure of that House) at any time,
in the same manner and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule
of such House.
Consequently, a special order providing for the consideration
of the joint resolution which is in itself a temporary amendment to
the rules of the House is perfectly in order.
For the benefit of Members, I would like to outline the
procedure for consideration as provided in the Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Act of 1976. The joint resolution would be
considered for 1 hour with the time equally divided between those
favoring and those opposing the resolution. No amendment to, or
motion to recommit the resolution would be in order. In other
words, there would be 1 hour of debate and then an up-or-down vote
on the proposition. . . .
Mr. [Philip] SHARP [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I need to refer
to a couple of things that have been mentioned in debate: First of
all, the claim that is likely to be raised in court should the
waiver package be passed, and that somehow this procedure today
violates the statute and, therefore, involves reconsideration of
the resolution as the statute denies.
Let me say to the Members that that is a tortured
interpretation of the statute. It would nullify the intent of the
statute, and I think it is very important that we just make that
clear here on the record so that when the efforts of the opponents
are made to bring it up in court, there will at least be a note
made here at this point.
The Senate resolution and the House resolution are identical
except for the number. ANGTA never contemplated that the House-
passed and Senate-passed resolution could not be merged for
Presidential signature. It would be contrary to the intent of ANGTA
to prevent the resolution contemplated in it from being enacted on
such a technical misreading of the statute. ANGTA clearly
contemplated the enactment by each House of such a resolution, and
obviously did not contemplate the failure of such a resolution on
the grounds that adopting the number of the other legislation one
would constitute a separate resolution.
What the language of ANGTA intended was that the defeat of the
waiver would not allow the same procedures to be used on a second
waiver within the same period, not that the same waiver, once
passed, could not be sent to the President for his signature.
The opponents of this rule are clearly making a procedural
argument in order to thwart the will of the House and achieve the
defeat of a measure the House has already adopted.
If ANGTA can be read the way these Members would have it be
read--to prevent the adoption of the very resolution it allows--
then ANGTA was defective. Any statute should be interpreted to
remove unintended defects, and certainly should be by the Congress
itself. We should not interpret ANGTA against ANGTA's clear, and
undisputed purpose: The effective enactment of a waiver resolution.
. . .
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. [Morris] UDALL [of Arizona]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
provisions of House Resolution 296 just adopted, I call up from the
Speaker's table the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 115) to
approve the President's recommendation for a waiver of law pursuant
to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976.
The Clerk read the Senate joint resolution, as follows:
S.J. Res. 115
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of American in Congress assembled, That the House of Representatives and
Senate approve the waiver of the provision of law (Public Law 95-158,
Public Law numbered 688, Seventy-fifth Congress, second session, and Public
Law 94-163) as proposed by the President, submitted to the Congress on
October 15, 1981.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(16) Pursuant to section
8(d)(5) of Public Law 94-586, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Udall) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Corcoran) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Harold Ford (TN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [William] DANNEMEYER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the
division of time on this issue was to have been 15 minutes on the
pro side and 15 minutes on the con side on the Democrat side, and
similarly on the Republican side. That was the understanding I had
with the gentleman from Arizona, the gentleman from Indiana and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Corcoran). If I heard the Chair
correctly, I think he indicated something different with respect to
that understanding.
It is my understanding the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Ottinger) would have the 15 minutes on the con side from the
Democrat side of the aisle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona may yield
time. Under the statute, the proponents are given 30 minutes and
the opponents are given 30 minutes. If the gentleman from Arizona
would like to yield 15 minutes of his time, he may do so.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, we propose on this side to yield half
of our 30 minutes to those opposed and half to those who are in
favor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois may yield
15 minutes of his time.
Mr. CORCORAN. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are under a rule at
this point rather than a statute; but, second, I do intend to yield
15 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Lujan) for those who are in support of this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
Sec. 3.3 It is for the House and not the Chair to judge the conduct of
its Members and to determine whether the Code of Official
Conduct(17) or any criminal statute has been violated,
and the Chair will not respond to parliamentary inquiries seeking
an anticipatory ruling on such issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The Code of Official Conduct is now rule XXIII. House Rules and
Manual Sec. 1095 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 17, 1987,(18) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 133 Cong. Rec. 32150, 32152-55, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James] WRIGHT [of Texas]. I am very, very sorry. I was
tied up. I had given the gentleman from California an appointment
to come by with some people at 5 o'clock. I was late getting
started on the meeting before that due to votes on the House floor,
which I am sorry none of us could control, and I apologize to my
friend that I was not able to be in the office, but I am going back
there right now and if it is convenient to him and to his
colleagues, I will just wait right there until they would like to
come, or if it would be more convenient tomorrow, I will be
delighted to reschedule it and talk with my colleagues any time
they wish. . . .
Mr. [Newt] GINGRICH [of Georgia]. Reclaiming my time, I have
one more thing that I was going to ask the Speaker, and I say to
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] that as he goes to the
meeting I would like to give him a document, concerning the Logan
Act and private correspondence with foreign governments.
This is a text that begins,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries
on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any
officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct
of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation
to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the
measures of the United States, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This act was passed by the Founding Fathers in the 1790's and
it is still law. It seems to me it was clearly violated last week.
. . .
With all respect to the Speaker, he just admitted that he was
in effect explaining and mediating and helping the cardinal talk to
the Communist dictator.
This is madness. . . .
And yet, what we see on almost a daily basis on this floor is
an attitude by Members of Congress that we, too, are above the law,
we are above our own rules, we are above the law of the land. And
now we even have it moving into our foreign policy and the
conducting of foreign policy where we have decided that the law of
the land does not apply to individual Members of Congress. . . .
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Georgia has just read, the
law of the land in fact states a certain condition. Is that law
under the precedents and tradition of the House binding upon the
Members of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Owen] Pickett [of Virginia]). The
Chair does not believe that is a proper parliamentary inquiry,
asking for an interpretation of an existing criminal statute.
Mr. WALKER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it
not appropriate to ask in the House about the conduct of the House
of Representatives, and does not the parliamentary body have a need
to understand that which is before it in ways as to how it directly
affects the Members?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would state to the gentleman
that parliamentary inquiries deal with the business of the House
and the issue the gentleman raised may indeed be one for the body
of the House, but not for the Chair.
Mr. WALKER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. The
business of the House presently is a discussion by the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] with regard to the law of the land;
namely, the Logan Act. The gentleman from Georgia has cited
previous debate in the House of Representatives backing up his
point. The business of the House is such then that it seems to me
that the obligation of Members under the law cited by the gentleman
from Georgia is in fact business before the House that can be
interpreted by the Chair, and all this gentleman is asking is,
given what the gentleman from Georgia has told us in debate, the
business before the House at the present time, this gentleman is
simply making a parliamentary inquiry of whether or not the
material as raised by the gentleman from Georgia is in fact binding
upon the Members of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state to the gentleman
this is not a proper parliamentary inquiry for Chair to try to
answer.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, let me go on and develop this
question because it is a very important issue, because my essential
assertion is that what the Speaker has done in the last 2 weeks is
clearly unconstitutional, almost certainly illegal and needs to be
confronted by the House. . . .
Pinckney, who was a Founding Father, was saying the
Constitution by itself made it a criminal act to do what Speaker
Wright did last week, but in fact the Logan Act was then passed to
state what the penalty would be for violating that constitutional
provision. . . .
parliamentary inquiries
I asked the gentleman to yield for further parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, if it is improper for the Chair to rule on matters
and interpret matters with regard to the conduct of individual
Members, could the Chair tell us what the appropriate courses of
action are for the House if, in fact, there is reason to believe
that one of its Members and one of its officers has committed a
felony?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pickett). The appropriate remedy
could be to proceed with the Committee having jurisdiction over
conduct governed by that act and request action by them concerning
the Member's conduct.
In addition, you could also proceed with the committee that has
jurisdiction over the official conduct of Members.
Mr. WALKER. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is there not a
remedy available to the House as a whole rather than going to the
individual committees?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House rules make appropriate
provision for dealing with conduct of Members. If the gentleman is
speaking of enforcement of the statute that can only be taken by
appropriate authorities outside the legislative branch.
Mr. WALKER. A further parliamentary inquiry: Is the Chair
telling us that if Members here have a reason to believe that a
felonious act has been committed and that it has been done in
violation of the Constitution, that there is no remedy available to
the House of Representatives as a whole about that? That we have to
depend upon the executive branch to take appropriate action?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Rule XLIII(19) is the rule
that deals with the official conduct of Members and the House does
have the authority to deal with the conduct of its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The Code of Official Conduct is now rule XXIII. House Rules and
Manual Sec. 1095 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WALKER. That is this gentleman's understanding.
Further parliamentary inquiry: And if it is this gentleman's
understanding and perhaps this gentleman is misinformed that there
are remedies available to the House as a whole beyond just the
committee structures, is that not correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct, that the
House itself would be the ultimate decision maker on the conduct of
the Members but following normal procedure, the committees would
first act on the issue before it is presented to the House as a
whole.
Mr. WALKER. Well, further parliamentary inquiry: The Chair is
saying under normal procedure. But this gentleman is asking whether
or not there are not procedures whereby the normal procedure would
be put aside and that the House as a whole would act upon the
matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can only respond to issues
that are currently before it for decision and trying to give
prospective advice is not within the province of the Chair.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Sec. 3.4 The Chair does not respond to requests to interpret a pending
proposal to amend the rules of the House, but may explain the
application of the procedural status quo to the instant
proceedings.
On February 1, 2006,(20) the following resolution
amending the standing rules of the House was considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 152 Cong. Rec. 540, 541, 548, 109th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIMINATING FLOOR PRIVILEGES OF FORMER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 648) to
eliminate floor privileges and access to Member exercise facilities
for registered lobbyists who are former Members or officers of the
House.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 648
Resolved,
SECTION 1. FLOOR PRIVILEGES OF FORMER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS.
Clause 4 of rule IV of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended to read as follows:
``4. (a) A former Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner; a former
Parliamentarian of the House; or a former elected officer of the House or
former minority employee nominated as an elected officer of the House shall
not be entitled to the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House and
rooms leading thereto if he or she--
``(1) is a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal as those
terms are defined in clause 5 of rule XXV;
``(2) has any direct personal or pecuniary interest in any legislative
measure pending before the House or reported by a committee; or
``(3) is in the employ of or represents any party or organization for the
purpose of influencing, directly or indirectly, the passage, defeat, or
amendment of any legislative proposal.
``(b) The Speaker may promulgate regulations that exempt ceremonial or
educational functions from the restrictions of this clause.''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITING ACCESS TO MEMBER EXERCISE FACILITIES FOR LOBBYISTS WHO
ARE FORMER MEMBERS OR OFFICERS.
(a) In General.--The House of Representatives may not provide access to
any exercise facility which is made available exclusively to Members and
former Members, officers and former officers of the House of
Representatives, and their spouses to any former Member, former officer, or
spouse who is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 or any successor statute or agent of a foreign principal as defined in
clause 5 of rule XXV. For purposes of this section, the term ``Member of
the House of Representatives'' includes a Delegate or Resident Commissioner
to the Congress.
(b) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration shall promulgate
regulations to carry out this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(21) Pursuant to the rule,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter) each will control 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Victor] SNYDER [of Arkansas]. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry, if I might. Because of the State of the Union last night,
and we always have the tradition of lots of former Members, I have
two or three parliamentary inquiries that I would like to ask about
the rules of the House governing this debate today.
Under rule IV, clause 4, if I might read it, because I think
most Members may not have looked at this in a while: ``former
Members, Delegates and Resident Commissioners; former
Parliamentarians of the House; and former elected officers and
minority employees nominated and elected as officers of the House
shall be entitled to the privileges of admission to the Hall of the
House and rooms leading thereto only if,
``(1) they do not have any direct personal or pecuniary
interest in any legislative measure pending before the House or
reported by a committee; and,
``(2) they are not in the employ of or do not represent any
party or organization for the purpose of influencing, directly or
indirectly, the passage, defeat or amendment of any legislative
measure pending before the House reported by a committee or under
consideration in any of its committees or subcommittees.''
In Mr. Dreier's proposal today, it specifically includes all
registered lobbyists, any former Members that are registered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. What is the gentleman's inquiry?
Mr. SNYDER. My inquiry is this: Under the current rules that we
are operating under today, do the rules prohibit any registered
lobbyist who is a former Member from being on the floor of the
House today or in the rooms adjoining thereto?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under certain circumstances, yes.
Does the gentleman have another inquiry?
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like a further amplification
on that. Clearly, a registered lobbyist, since Mr. Dreier's
legislation specifically refers to registered lobbyists, who are
former Members, have a direct personal interest in this legislation
pending today. I am not sure how that application, perhaps I have
not been clear in my question, how a registered lobbyist who is a
former Member could be on the House floor today when Mr. Dreier's
legislation specifically involves registered lobbyists who are
former Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. What is the gentleman's inquiry?
Mr. SNYDER. My inquiry is: Are those Members, former Members,
who are registered lobbyists, are they not under current rules
prohibited from being on the floor today because they would have,
obviously, a personal interest in this, the intent of Mr. Dreier's
bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman restate his
question.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, my question is: If a former Member,
who is currently a registered lobbyist, may that former Member, who
is currently a former lobbyist, be on the floor today during the
consideration of this bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Such a former Member should not be on
the floor given the pendency of this motion.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, that is what my understanding was.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have another
inquiry?
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I do. Under the rules that I just
read, it refers to the Hall of the House and rooms leading thereto.
I assume that means the Speaker's Lobby and the two cloakrooms. Is
that the Speaker's interpretation of that rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. It also
includes the Rayburn Room, just off the House floor.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, my third parliamentary inquiry, under
current rules, I see no exemption, under the current rule, for any
kind of an educational function to occur during the consideration
of this measure; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, my fourth parliamentary inquiry, this
bill is now under our suspension calendar. Is it the Speaker's
ruling that no amendments are allowed to broaden the application of
this rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) may proceed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. . . .
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, this is
a proposal to change the rules, when a provision says the Speaker
may promulgate regulations, under the rules of the House, will
there or will there not be a vote of approval of those promulgated
regulations by the Speaker on the definition of educational
functions?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]). The
Chair will read this.
Mr. SNYDER. You're a great reader, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The degree to which the pending
proposal changes the status quo is a matter for the House to
debate. It is not the function of the Chair to interpret a
legislative proposal while it is under debate.
Mr. SNYDER. I am sorry, when the Speaker promulgates
regulations, regardless of a minor change or a major change, my
inquiry is: Does that or does that not require a vote of the body?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I will stand by what I said. The terms
of the resolution must speak for themselves.
Mr. SNYDER. I will stand with you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Sec. 3.5 The Chair does not interpret a special order prior to or
pending its consideration under guise of parliamentary inquiry.
On April 17, 2012,(22) the following resolution was the
subject of parliamentary inquiries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 158 Cong. Rec. 4937-40, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4089, SPORTSMEN'S HERITAGE
ACT OF 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. [Robert] BISHOP [of Utah]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 614 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 624
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House
resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance
opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in
the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112-19.
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
All points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments
as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the
House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original
text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. (a) Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2013, the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 112, as
adopted by the House, shall have force and effect in the House as though
Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution (with the modifications
specified in subsection (b)).
(b) In section 201(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 112, as adopted by
the House, the following amounts shall apply:
(1) $7,710,000,000 (in lieu of $8,200,000,000) for the period of fiscal
years 2012 and 2013 with respect to the Committee on Agriculture; and
(2) $3,490,000,000 (in lieu of $3,000,000,000) for the period of fiscal
years 2012 and 2013 with respect to the Committee on Financial Services.
point of order
Ms. [Gwen] MOORE [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point
of order against H. Res. 614 because the resolution violates
section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution
contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of
the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the
Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section
426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Steve] Womack [of Arkansas]). The
gentlewoman from Wisconsin makes a point of order that the
resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974.
The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule,
and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
Following debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration
as the statutory means of disposing of the point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
parliamentary inquiry
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not
necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there
are likely some in the underlying bill, H.R. 4089.
But before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state the
inquiry.
Ms. MOORE. The rule clearly states, ``Pending the adoption of a
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013, the
provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 112, as adopted by the
House, shall have the force and effect in the House as though
Congress had adopted such concurrent resolution.''
Does this mean that the rule deems that the Senate will have
passed H. Con. Res. 112?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the
resolution during its pendency. That is a matter for debate.
Ms. MOORE. Okay. We will have to debate this. The language, as
I have construed it, says it shall have force and effect in the
House as though Congress, which would include the Senate, had
adopted such concurrent resolution. That is subject to debate.
So I want the House to be really clear here that, given this
language, there is a real--it seems probable and likely that if we
vote ``yes'' for House Concurrent Resolution 112, the Republican
budget, which ends Medicare for a voucher system, ends the
entitlement under Medicaid, cuts food support, cuts funds by $134
billion over 10 years, that we could be deeming this to be passed.
I am raising again, Mr. Speaker, the question about that use of
``Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution,'' meaning also
the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would reiterate that the
issue is a matter for debate, and the Chair will not interpret the
language of the resolution during its pendency.
Sec. 4. Abrogation; Waiver
The standing rules of the House are applicable to all proceedings
in the House, but the House retains its constitutional authority to
alter or waive those rules at any time. The House conducts a large
amount of its routine business through the use of unanimous-consent
requests, and such requests often waive or render inapplicable whatever
rules may impede or prevent the House from taking the desired
action.(1) Members are protected from arbitrary use of
unanimous-consent requests by the fact that any Member may object, in
which case the business of the request cannot be
transacted.(2) By use of the motion to suspend the rules,
the House frequently passes relatively noncontroversial legislation,
and such motion necessarily involves suspending whatever rules are in
conflict with the consideration of the underlying
measure.(3) A motion to suspend the rules of the House must
be carried by a two-thirds vote.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For more on unanimous-consent requests, see Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 23 Sec. Sec. 42-48 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 23.
2. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker has announced and enforced a
policy of conferring recognition for unanimous-consent requests
for the consideration of certain measures only when assured
that the majority and minority floor and committee leaderships
have no objection. See 163 Cong. Rec. H35 [Daily Ed.], 115th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2017). See also House Rules and Manual
Sec. 956 (2019).
3. For more on suspension of the rules procedures, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 21 Sec. Sec. 9-15 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch.
21.
4. Rule XV, clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 885 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Rules may also report special order of business
resolutions that may waive virtually any of the standing rules of the
House or substitute alternate procedures for those that would normally
apply.(5) No point of order lies against such a resolution
based on the fact that some rule of the House would be abrogated by its
adoption. In modern practice, special orders of business typically
structure the amendment process--allowing only amendments the committee
chooses to permit to be offered. Additionally, all points of order
against the underlying measure are typically waived in order to ensure
that consideration of the measure is not impeded. In earlier practice,
the Committee on Rules would often report special orders of business
that permitted any germane amendment (so-called ``open
rules'')(6) or that only provided selective
waivers.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Parliamentarian's Note: A special order of business is, by
definition, an exception to the regular order of business.
While the standing rules provide for a set order of business
for the House to follow (which in theory lays out when
particular matters may be considered by the House), in practice
the House considers most of its business in the order
prescribed by special orders of business reported by the
Committee on Rules.
6. See, e.g., H. Res. 164, 143 Cong. Rec. 11317, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
(June 18, 1997).
7. See, e.g., H. Res. 489, 134 Cong. Rec. 16779-80, 100th Cong. 2d
Sess. (July 7, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section 7, below, Congress from time to time enacts
legislation that contains congressional procedures--often to expedite a
particular kind of business. Such procedures contained in statute are
considered rules of the House and have the same binding effect.
However, as rules of the House, they may be altered by subsequent
action of the House. The House has chosen to waive or limit the
applicability of certain congressional procedures contained in law on
several occasions.(8) It does not require the enactment of a
new law (or an amendment to the existing law) for the House to alter
those procedures; it may be done by simple resolution of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See, e.g., H. Res. 1368, 154 Cong. Rec. 16431-32, 110th Cong. 2d
Sess. (July 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are few rules of the House that restrict the ability of the
House at a subsequent time to abrogate or waive their application.
Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule IV,(9) the Speaker is
prohibited from entertaining unanimous-consent requests or motions to
suspend the rules regarding admittance to the Hall of the House. The
Speaker is also constrained not to recognize for requests to delete the
name of a sponsor of a measure,(10) or to suspend the rule
against referring to persons in the galleries of the
House.(11) Under clause 9(c) of rule XXI,(12) it
is not in order to consider any rule or order of the House that waives
the earmark point of order contained in clauses 9(a) and 9(b), and the
point of order is disposed of by the House via the question of
consideration. Certain procedures contained in statute have provisions
explicitly restricting the ability of the House to waive or alter those
procedures.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 678 (2019).
10. Rule XII, clause 7(b)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019).
11. Rule XVII, clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 966 (2019).
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1068d (2019).
13. See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1105 note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clause 6(g) of rule XIII(14) requires the Committee on
Rules to include in its report on any special order of business
resolution a description of any waivers of points of order that have
been included in the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 863 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.1 A motion to suspend the rules and pass a measure suspends all
rules which are in conflict with the motion, and no point of order
lies against consideration of the measure on the grounds that
consideration of the measure is prohibited by provisions of
existing law enacted under the rulemaking power of the House
(provisions necessarily waived by the motion to suspend).
On November 1, 1977,(15) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 36309-11, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESSIONAL SALARY DEFERRAL
Mr. [Stephen] SOLARZ [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9282) to provide that
adjustments in the rates of pay for Members of Congress shall take
effect at the beginning of the Congress following the Congress in
which they are approved, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 9282
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) (1) paragraph (2) of
section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31),
relating to congressional salary adjustment, is amended by striking out
``Effective at the beginning of the first applicable pay period commencing
on or after the first day of the month in which'' and Inserting in lieu
thereof ``Effective at the beginning of the Congress following any Congress
during which''. . . .
Sec. 2. (a) It shall not be in order in either the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any appropriation bill, budget,
resolution, or amendment thereto, which directly or indirectly prevents the
payment of increases in pay rates resulting from a pay adjustment deferred
under the amendments made by the first section of this Act.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a), the term ``budget resolution'' means
any concurrent resolution on the budget, as such term is defined in section
3(a) (4) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
(c) The provisions of subsection (a) are enacted by the Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such they shall be
considered as part of the rules of each House, respectively, and such rules
shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent
therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to
change such rules (so far as relating to such House) at any time, in the
same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of
such House.
Sec. 3. The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(16) Is a second
demanded?(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. George Brown (CA).
17. Parliamentarian's Note: Since 1991, the motion to suspend the rules
has not required a second. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 889
(2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
point of order
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I have a point
of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
present consideration of the bill under suspension on the ground
that the bill itself and the manner in which it was considered is
in violation of Public Law 93-344, the Congressional Budget Act,
specifically section 306.
Section 306 of the Budget Act says as follows:
No bill or resolution and no amendment to any bill or resolution dealing
with any matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the
Budget of either House shall be considered in that House unless it is a
bill or resolution which has been reported by the Committee of the Budget
of that House or from the consideration of which such committee has been
discharged, or unless it is an amendment to such bill or resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us specifically, in section 2,
seeks to repeal part of the jurisdiction of the Committee on the
Budget. Specifically it says the following:
Sec. 2. (a) It shall not be in order in either the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any appropriation bill, budget
resolution, or amendment thereto, which directly or indirectly prevents the
payment of increases in pay rates resulting from a pay adjustment deferred
under the amendments made by the first section of this Act.
Mr. Speaker, the Budget Act is very clear that so far as the
rules of procedure governing the Budget Act itself are concerned,
that is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules. This
bill was reported by the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service, the committee of original jurisdiction, and I understand
the jurisdiction was waived by the Committee on Rules.
Nevertheless, section 306 makes it plain that since this bill, if
it becomes statutory law, repeals part of the jurisdiction of the
Committee on the Budget, it should have also been considered, in
the opinion of the gentleman from Maryland, by the Committee on the
Budget or their jurisdiction should have been waived. This was not
done.
I would say further, Mr. Speaker, that if in fact any committee
of the House is able to report a bill which prevents the Committee
on the Budget from dealing with subject matters under that
reporting committee's jurisdiction, then the Committee on the
Budget in fact could be, over a period of time, destroyed as far as
its capability of dealing with the Budget Act.
For all of those reasons, I make a point of order against
consideration of this bill. I would further point out that section
306 does not deal with reporting or with whether or not the House
can suspend the rules, but it forbids consideration by the House at
any time of any legislation that repeals or changes the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget without that
committee's acting upon it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York
desire to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. SOLARZ. I do, Mr. Speaker.
I have unbounded admiration for the parliamentary sagacity of
my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland. Who am I, after all,
to challenge the validity of this rather sophisticated
parliamentary analysis? But may I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the
substantive merits of the gentleman's objection notwithstanding,
the fact is that from a procedural point of view I do believe it
has to be found wanting. The reason for that is that under the
suspension of the rules, which are the terms under which the
legislation is being considered, all existing rules of the House
are waived, and to the extent that the provision to which the
gentleman from Maryland referred is itself incorporated in the
rules of the House, which do, after all, provide for the
consideration of these budget resolutions, I would suggest that his
objection is not relevant to this resolution and, therefore, is not
germane.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further?
The gentleman makes the contention that by making a motion to
suspend the rules of the House, this wipes out a rule against
consideration in any form, including the suspension of the
requirements of the Budget Act. There is ample precedent in the
House for situations in which the Chair has ruled that a bill may
not even be brought up under suspension if it has not in fact been
considered by the committee of proper jurisdiction. I refer the
Chair to Hinds Precedents, volume 5, section 6848, page 925, in
which it was ruled by the Chair that a committee, the Committee on
the Census, could not bring up for consideration under a motion to
suspend the rules a bill relating to the printing of a compendium
of a census, because it had not been brought before the Committee
on Printing.
It is quite obvious that this is a question of consideration.
It is written into the statutory law that no such bill can be
considered, and I am not aware that that rule of consideration can
be suspended or repealed by a simple motion to suspend the rules.
If, in fact, that is the case, the Budget Act is meaningless.
Mr. [Robert] GIAIMO [of Connecticut]. Mr. Speaker, may I be
heard on the point of order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Connecticut.
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, the charge has been made and the
objection has been raised that this legislation, particularly
section 2, invades the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee in that
it purports to prohibit the Budget Committee from exercising its
jurisdiction over budget resolutions insofar as they would apply to
pay raises and cost-of-living increases. I must submit that that is
a proper interpretation.
However, I do believe that the argument of the gentleman from
New York that this matter is being brought up under suspension of
the rules is a very valid one and that the House of Representatives
can in its wisdom by a two-thirds vote suspend the rules and
deprive the Budget Committee and in fact the Appropriations
Committee of jurisdiction in effecting pay raises or cost-of-living
increases by a two-thirds vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [George] Brown of California). Are
there any other Members who desire to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Maryland makes a point of order against the
consideration of the bill H.R. 9282 under suspension of the rules
on the grounds that section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act
states that no bill or resolution nor amendment to any bill or
resolution dealing with any matter which is within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on the Budget of either House shall be considered
in that House unless it is a bill or resolution which has been
reported by the Committee on the Budget of that House or from
consideration of which such committee has been discharged or unless
it is an amendment to such a bill or resolution.
The Chair need not rule on the jurisdictional issue raised by
the gentleman and points out to the gentleman from Maryland that
under the specific provisions of section 904 of the Budget Act, the
provisions of title III including section 306, which he cites, are
stipulated as being an exercise of the rulemaking power of the
House of Representatives with full recognition of the
constitutional right of either House to change such rules so far as
relating to such House at any time in the same manner and to the
same extent as in the case of any other rule of such House. It is
the opinion of the Chair therefore that it is within the discretion
of the Chair under rule XXVII to entertain a motion to suspend the
rules and to consider the bill at this time. Of course, the
precedent cited by the gentleman from Maryland applies only to a
provision which is no longer in rule XXVII relating to motions to
suspend the rules made by committees. Accordingly the point of
order is overruled.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further, at the
sufferance of the Chair?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the Speaker for permitting me to be heard
further.
I would just point out that the Speaker has pointed out that it
is within the prerogatives of the House to change the rules of the
House, but this is not a rule of the House. It is a provision of a
statute which is being waived, and while I would not appeal the
ruling, I do not think that is a proper basis for the ruling.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The specific provision which the
gentleman states has the status of a rule of the House of
Representatives under the statute and under the Constitution.
Sec. 4.2 Language in a special order of business resolution waiving all
points of order against consideration of a measure obviates not
only those points of order arising under the standing rules of the
House but also those arising in statutory provisions enacted as
rules of the House.
On February 21, 1995,(18) the following parliamentary
inquiries were made regarding a pending special order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 141 Cong. Rec. 5282-83, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Charles] RANGEL [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Joel] Hefley [of Colorado]). The
gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that all points
of order have been waived by the Committee on Rules, and my
parliamentary inquiry is that if in fact there is no funding
mechanism for the provision of extending health care for the self-
employed, does the waiver of the point of order prevent anyone from
going into the funding mechanism as it relates to the Budget Act?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule does indeed waive all points
of order against consideration of the bill.
Mr. RANGEL. I knew that.
But I am asking the Chair, when we have a violation of the
Budget Act, and this is something that is very sacred to
Republicans and Democrats, that the only thing that we have to do
when we do not provide the funding for a particular piece of
legislation is go to the Committee on Rules and ask them to waive
any violation that we have as relates to the Budget Act? I mean is
that the Chair's ruling?
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I do not
believe that is a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will respond that the
waiving of all points of order includes waiving of points of order
when it concerns rules under the Budget Act.
Mr. RANGEL. So my last parliamentary inquiry is if we want a
bill funded and we do not have the money for it, all we have to do
is go to the Committee on Rules and tell them to waive it, and then
we do not even have to fund it, is that correct? Is that correct,
Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee on Rules does have the
authority to waive all necessary points of order.
Sec. 4.3 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised that
the operation of a portion of the Code of Official Conduct was not
affected by a special order of business waiving various points of
order against a measure and against its consideration.
On March 22, 2007,(19) the following resolution,
providing for the consideration of H.R. 1591, was considered and
adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 153 Cong. Rec. 7316, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1591, U.S. TROOP READINESS,
VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007
Ms. [Louise] SLAUGHTER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 261 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 261
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) four
hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1591 pursuant to this resolution,
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may
postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the
Speaker.
On March 23, 2007,(20) the resolution was the subject of
the following parliamentary inquiries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 153 Cong. Rec. 7457, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Tom] PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Michael] Capuano [of
Massachusetts]). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on the bill that was just
passed, H.R. 1591, which passed, as I understand it, by a vote of
218-212, was rule XXIII, clause 16, applicable?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, so it is my understanding
the rule under which we operated on H.R. 1591 did not waive House
rule XXIII, clause 16. Is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is referencing the Code
of Official Conduct, the operation of which was not affected by
House Resolution 261.
Sec. 5. Adoption of Rules; General Parliamentary Law
As described in Section 1, above, one of the most important items
of business that the House undertakes on opening day of a new Congress
is the adoption of the standing rules.(1) The resolution
adopting the standing rules is highly privileged, and the only matters
that the House addresses prior to the adoption of rules are typically
the initial quorum call of Members-elect, the election of officers, and
the swearing-in of Members-elect (along with notifications to the
Senate and President of these actions). As the adoption of rules
presents a question of the privileges of the House,(2) it
takes precedence over less privileged matters. When the resolution
adopting the standing rules is called up, and a Member raises another
matter that itself constitutes a question of privilege, the Chair may
exercise discretion to recognize for the resolution adopting rules
first (the two questions being of equal privilege).(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For more on the adoption of rules at the beginning of a Congress,
see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 10 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 6.
2. For questions of privilege generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
11 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 11.
3. See Sec. 5.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the resolution adopting the standing rules of the House is
normally considered under the hour rule, the House may choose to
consider the resolution pursuant to the terms of a separate resolution
(in effect, a special order of business resolution of the type reported
by the Committee on Rules). The resolution providing for such
consideration may divide the resolution adopting rules into separate
portions so that Members vote on each portion
individually.(4) Once one portion of such a divided
resolution is adopted, the particular rules contained in that portion
become applicable to House procedures.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 5.2, infra.
5. Parliamentarian's Note: Under the standing rules of the House, the
offeror of a motion to commit or recommit must declare
opposition to the underlying measure. So while this motion has
been accepted as part of general parliamentary law (and
therefore applicable prior to the adoption of rules), the
requirement of opposition to the underlying measure is not
applicable until the full rule has been adopted. In cases where
the resolution adopting the standing rules is divided and
adopted in portions, it is possible for the standing rule
regarding the motion to commit or recommit to be adopted prior
to the offering of said motion. In those circumstances, the
offeror of the motion must qualify as opposed, as the relevant
rule is already in operation when the motion is offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution adopting the House rules is subject to the motion to
commit,(6) but the minority party has not always availed
itself of this procedural option. Prior to the 97th Congress, the
minority would traditionally advocate for defeating the motion for the
previous question as it applied to the resolution adopting the standing
rules. Were such a motion to be defeated, recognition would pass to
opponents of the majority's resolution, and they would be authorized to
offer an alternate version as an amendment. In debate, members of the
minority party would often describe the alternate version they would
propose, but there were no instances in which the previous question was
defeated and the alternative formally offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. For a discussion of this motion as part of general parliamentary
law, see Sec. Sec. 5.3-5.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in the 97th Congress, the minority party began offering a
motion to commit the resolution adopting the standing rules to a select
committee (whose membership would be determined by the Speaker), often
with instructions to consider a particular amendment and report back
after a set period.(7) In the 101st Congress, the motion to
commit specified that the select committee would be composed of simply
the majority and minority floor leaders,(8) and further
required that the committee report the amendment back to the House
``forthwith.''(9) Beginning in the 112th Congress, the
minority party has availed itself of both procedural options:
advocating for the defeat of the previous question (so that an
amendment to the resolution adopting the standing rules may be offered)
and also offering a motion to commit the resolution to a select
committee with an amendment to be reported back to the House
``forthwith.'' Because the motion to commit follows the ordering of the
previous question, it is a nondebatable motion.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See 127 Cong. Rec. 112-13, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5, 1981).
8. See 135 Cong. Rec. 81, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 1989). For an
anomalous instance where the proposed motion to commit proposed
to send the resolution to the Committee on Rules (which was not
yet then in existence), see 149 Cong. Rec. 19, 108th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 7, 2003). In that instance, unanimous consent was
obtained to modify the motion to instead commit the resolution
to the traditional select committee composed of the floor
leaders.
9. Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to commit ``forthwith'' requires
an immediate reporting of the proposed amendment back to the
House upon adoption of the motion. It does not contemplate an
actual meeting of the select committee.
10. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the adoption of the House's standing rules, its Members
rely on principles of general parliamentary law to govern
proceedings.(11) General parliamentary law is not a written
set of rules, but instead represents principles of procedure common to
legislative bodies and justified by long custom. The House looks to
Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice as one source for common
parliamentary principles, as well as the rules, precedents, and
traditions of the House in prior Congresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For an earlier discussion of general parliamentary law, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement of a quorum to transact business is both a
constitutional imperative(12) and an accepted principle of
general parliamentary law. Thus, points of no quorum may be made in the
House prior to the adoption of rules.(13) Similarly, the
right of one-fifth of the Members to demand the yeas and nays on any
question is based in the Constitution and general parliamentary
law.(14) Basic rules regarding comportment of Members and
decorum are also enforced by the Clerk or the Speaker prior to the
adoption of rules.(15) The Speaker's control of the House
Chamber, including its gallery, has been recognized as a part of
general parliamentary law, and the Speaker may regulate the conduct of
visitors in the gallery prior to the adoption of rules.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1
Sec. 9.8.
13. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1
Sec. Sec. 9.1, 9.2.
14. See Sec. 5.3, infra.
15. See Sec. 5.6, infra.
16. See Sec. 5.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House may entertain unanimous-consent requests prior to the
adoption of rules,(17) and may also receive messages from
the Senate or President.(18) Certain motions have long been
recognized as part of the general parliamentary law of the House. These
include the motion to amend,(19) the motion to
postpone,(20) the motion for the previous
question,(21) the motion to refer a measure to
committee,(22) and the motion to commit (or
recommit).(23) Similarly, the question of consideration has
been raised prior to the adoption of rules with respect to the
resolution adopting the standing rules itself.(24) As noted,
a resolution prescribing the procedures for considering the resolution
adopting rules has been admitted as part of general parliamentary law,
and may be offered as a matter of privilege prior to the adoption of
rules.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.2.
18. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 8.3.
19. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 9.6.
20. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 9.7.
21. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. Sec. 9.3, 9.4.
22. See Sec. 5.9, infra.
23. See Sec. Sec. 5.2, 5.4, and 5.5, infra. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 9.5.
24. See Sec. 5.8, infra.
25. See Sec. 5.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution Adopting Rules as a Question of Privilege
Sec. 5.1 The Speaker has discretion to recognize a Member to offer a
resolution providing for the initial adoption of rules as a
question of privilege in its own right, prior to recognizing
another Member to offer as a question of privilege another
resolution challenging the constitutionality of the rules package
being offered.(26)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Parliamentarian's Note: The alleged constitutional issue that Rep.
Solomon was attempting to raise concerned a new standing rule
that would allow Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to
vote in the Committee of the Whole (and serve as its chair).
For more on the status of Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 7 Sec. 3 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 5, 1993,(27) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. 139 Cong. Rec. 49, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. For remarks challenging the
Speaker's ruling that the competing resolutions were of equal
privilege, see 139 Cong. Rec. 322-24, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 6, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [Richard] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
preferential resolution at the desk involving a question of
privileges of the House, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER.(28) Prior to the adoption of the rules,
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] has offered a privileged
resolution under the Constitution and the Chair, in his discretion,
recognizes the gentleman from Missouri for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the resolution.
Resolution Adopting Rules Considered by Special Order
Sec. 5.2 Before the House adopts rules, a Member may offer for
immediate consideration a special order of business providing for
the consideration of the resolution adopting the
rules.(29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. For an early example of a Member offering a special order of
business resolution prior to the adoption of rules, see 5
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 4, 1995,(30) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. 141 Cong. Rec. 447-48, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAKING IN ORDER IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE
104TH CONGRESS
Mr. [Richard] ARMEY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it be in order immediately to consider in the House a
resolution adopting the rules of the House of Representatives for
the 104th Congress; that the resolution be considered as read; that
the resolution be debatable initially for 30 minutes, to be equally
divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority
leader, or their designees; that the previous question be
considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question, except
that the question of adopting the resolution shall be divided among
nine parts, to wit: Each of the eight sections of title I, and then
title II; each portion of the divided question shall be debatable
separately for 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by
the majority leader and the minority leader, or their designees,
and shall be disposed of in the order stated, but if the yeas and
nays are ordered on the question of adopting any portion of the
divided question, the Speaker may postpone further proceedings on
that question until a later time during the consideration of the
resolution; and, pending the question of adopting the ninth portion
of the divided question, it shall be in order to move the previous
question thereon, and if the previous question is ordered, to move
that the House commit the resolution to a select committee, with or
without instructions, and that the previous question be considered
as ordered on the motion to commit to final adoption without
intervening motion.
The SPEAKER.(31) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Newt Gingrich (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David] BONIOR [of Michigan]. Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, under my reservation I would like to ask the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] several questions about his
unanimous-consent request. . . .
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker. reserving my right to object, let me
just say that given that the gentleman has informed the House that
he is requesting two completely closed rules, two gag rules. I
might add, on the first day of the Congress, I object.
The SPEAKER. An objection has been heard. The Chair now
recognizes the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the House Republican Conference, since there is no Committee on
Rules yet, and the Committee on Rules has not met yet to organize
and will not until tomorrow, by direction of the Republican
Conference, I call up a privileged resolution and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 6) adopting the Rules of
the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Fourth Congress. The
resolution shall be considered as read. The resolution shall be debatable
initially for 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except as
specified in sections 2 and 3 of this resolution.
Sec. 2. The question of adopting the resolution shall be divided among
nine parts, to wit: each of the eight sections of title I; and title II.
Each portion of the divided question shall be debatable separately for 20
minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and
the Minority Leader or their designees, and shall be disposed of in the
order stated.
Sec. 3. Pending the question of adopting the ninth portion of the divided
question, it shall be in order to move that the House commit the resolution
to a select committee, with or without instructions. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the motion to commit to final adoption
without intervening motion.
The SPEAKER. The resolution is a matter of privilege. The
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield 30 minutes to the distinguished minority leader, or in this
case the minority whip, or his designee, pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Similarly, on January 4, 2007,(32) the following
resolution, structuring consideration of the resolution adopting the
standing rules, was agreed to by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. 153 Cong. Rec. 7, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Ms. [Louise] SLAUGHTER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 6) adopting the Rules of
the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Tenth Congress. The
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except as specified in
sections 2 through 4 of this resolution.
Sec. 2. The question of adopting the resolution shall be divided among
five parts, to wit: each of its five titles. The portion of the divided
question comprising title I shall be debatable for 30 minutes, equally
divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or
their designees. The portion of the divided question comprising title II
shall be debatable for 60 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. The portion of
the divided question comprising title III shall be debatable for 60
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the
minority leader or their designees. The portion of the divided question
comprising title IV shall be debatable for 60 minutes, equally divided and
controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their
designees. The portion of the divided question comprising title V shall be
debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the majority
leader and the minority leader or their designees. Each portion of the
divided question shall be disposed of in the order stated.
Sec. 3. Pending the question of adopting the final portion of the divided
question, it shall be in order to move that the House commit the resolution
to a select committee with or without instructions. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the motion to commit to its adoption
without intervening motion.
Sec. 4. During consideration of House Resolution 6 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the
Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time
designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Steny] Hoyer [of Maryland]). The
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
On January 3, 2019,(33) the following resolution,
structuring consideration of the resolution adopting the standing
rules, was agreed to by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. 165 Cong. Rec. H8, H9 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [James] McGOVERN [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 6) adopting the Rules of
the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress. The
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except as specified in
sections 2 and 3 of this resolution.
Sec. 2. The question of adopting the resolution shall be divided among
each of its three titles. The portion of the divided question comprising
title I shall be debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled
by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective
designees. The portion of the divided question comprising title II shall be
debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the Majority
Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective designees. The portion
of the divided question comprising title III shall be debatable for one
hour, equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader or their respective designees. Each portion of the divided
question shall be disposed of in the order stated.
Sec. 3. During consideration of House Resolution 6 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the
Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time
designated by the Speaker.
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider
in the House the bill (H.R. 21) making appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 1 except: (1)
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Lowey
of New York and Representative Granger of Texas or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) making further continuing
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year
2019, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) 30 minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled by Representative Lowey of New York and Representative Granger
of Texas or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
motion to refer
Mr. [Kevin] BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(34) The Clerk will report
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. James Langevin (RI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Brady of Texas moves to refer the resolution to a select committee
composed of the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader with instructions
to report it forthwith back to the House with the following amendment:
At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:
Sec. 6. Not later than January 1, 2019, the Speaker shall, pursuant to
clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 22) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the
increase in the standard deduction, the increase in and modifications of
the child tax credit, and the repeal of the deduction for personal
exemptions contained in Public Law 115-97. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill,
then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of
H.R. 22.
motion to table
Mr. [James] McGOVERN [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McGovern moves to lay on the table the motion to refer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to
table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Kevin] BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
230, nays 197, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 3] . . .
Messrs. KING of New York and ADERHOLT changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the minority leader or his
designee--in this case, Mr. Cole--pending which I yield myself such
time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Parliamentary Law
Sec. 5.3 During debate on a resolution adopting the rules of the House
but prior to the adoption of the rules, any Member may make a point
of order of no quorum based upon general parliamentary law, because
clause 6(e) of rule XV(35) (prohibiting points of no
quorum except where the Chair has put the question) is not yet
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. The current rule is clause 7(a) of rule XX. House Rules and Manual
Sec. 1027 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 15, 1979,(36) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. 125 Cong. Rec. 7, 9-10, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER.(37) The Clerk advises the Chair that
many Members have not picked up their new identification voting
cards. Members should obtain their cards in the lobby prior to the
first electronic vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. Thomas O'Neill (MA). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [James] WRIGHT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
fifth Congress, including all applicable provisions of law which
constituted the rules of the House at the end of the Ninety-fifth Congress,
be, and they are hereby, adopted as the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the Ninety-sixth Congress, with the following amendments
included therein as part thereof, to wit: . . .
Mr. WRIGHT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, in view of the
fact that there are 500 copies of the printed resolution available
to the Members on the floor of the House, I ask unanimous consent
that further reading of the resolution be dispensed with, that it
be printed in the Record at this point, and that I be recognized
for purposes of debate on the resolution. . . .
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I yield, for purposes of debate only,
30 minutes of that hour to the distinguished minority leader, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes), and pending that, I yield
myself such time as I may require.
Mr. Speaker, these are only a few changes recommended by the
Democratic Caucus and brought to the body with the imprimatur of
the Democratic Caucus of the House.
The rules changes we propose are modest. Their thrust is to
assist the House in facilitating the business of the House. I think
basically these changes embodied in this resolution will do four
things:
First, some of the changes would grant authority to the Speaker
to group record votes in clusters in order to expedite the
consideration of relatively noncontroversial legislation. The
purpose of this, quite obviously, is to save time.
The second group of changes would extend to the Speaker
authority to expedite the purely procedural business of the House
by delaying points of order and incidental motions while preserving
the constitutional requirement of a quorum to conduct all business.
Once again, it is an attempt, quite simply, to expedite the
business of the House.
The third group of changes would expedite the voting procedures
in the Committee of the Whole, and the fourth group would require
amendments to the budget resolution to address both the aggregate
totals and the corresponding functional categories in a consistent
manner.
This is all these changes would accomplish. Each year at this
time it is the responsibility of the majority party in the House to
bring to the House such changes in the rules as its Members in
their wisdom deem appropriate. This we do on this occasion.
We anticipate that the Members of the minority party, our
friends from the other side of the aisle, will wish to debate the
propriety of some of these changes and will wish to assert their
objections to some of them, and thereafter there will be a vote on
the previous question.
We would anticipate that all of the Members on the Democratic
side, as has been the tradition unbrokenly in the past, will
support the decision of the Democratic Caucus and of the majority
party. Basically, the purpose of these changes is to save the time
of the House, to save the taxpayers waste of that valuable time,
and to save Members the harassment that has sometimes come from
procedural demands that they present themselves and vote on
meaningless votes. . . .
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker pro tem, I think
it is interesting that the House should proceed to debate the first
major issue facing the House of Representatives with probably 90
percent of the Members absent. Having taken the oath they have
simply left the scene. I hope it is not a true commentary on the
attitude of the House of Representatives.
In view of these absences a quorum call might be in order--is
that not right, Mr. Speaker?--and it might be one of the last times
a Member could produce a quorum under our new rules. I make that as
a parliamentary inquiry: Is a quorum call in order at this time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Daniel] Rostenkowski [of
Illinois]). According to the precedents, prior to the adoption of
the rules, a point of order would be in order.
Mr. BAUMAN. That is correct under general parliamentary law. I
just wanted to make the point, that this may be one of the last
times we could get a quorum to hear anything debated in the House.
Sec. 5.4 Under general parliamentary law prior to adoption of the
rules, the motion to commit is in order after the previous question
has been ordered on a resolution, and such motion is not debatable
and is itself subject to the motion for the previous question.
On January 5, 1981,(38) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. 127 Cong. Rec. 98, 103, 111-13, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [James] WRIGHT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
sixth Congress, including all applicable provisions of law which
constituted the Rules of the House at the end of the Ninety-sixth Congress,
be, and they are hereby, adopted as the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the Ninety-seventh Congress, with the following
amendments included therein as part thereof, to wit: . . .
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(39) The Chair would like to
announce that any Member-elect who failed to take the oath of
office may present himself or herself in the well of the House
prior to the vote on the previous question . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. William Alexander (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Texas withhold
moving the previous question until after the Speaker has resumed
the chair for the swearing in of Members-elect?
Mr. [James] WRIGHT [of Texas]. I withdraw the motion, and I
will offer it after the administration of the oath of office.
swearing in of members
The SPEAKER.(40) Members who have not taken the oath
of office will kindly step to the well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Members will raise their right hand, the Chair will now
administer the oath of office.
The Speaker administered the oath of office to the following
Members-elect: Hon. Phil Gramm; Hon. Sam B. Hall, Jr.; Hon. Charles
Whitley; Hon. Martin Olav Sabo; Hon. Dan Mica; Hon. Anthony C.
Beilenson, and Hon. Floyd Spence.
The SPEAKER. The gentlemen are now Members of Congress.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Wright).
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The SPEAKER. The question is on ordering the previous question.
Mr. [Robert] MICHEL [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 179, not voting 24, as follows: . . .
motion to commit offered by mr. michel
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MICHEL moves to commit the resolution (H. Res. 5) to a select
committee to be appointed by the Speaker and to be composed of nine
members, not more than five of whom shall be from the same political party,
with instructions to report the same back to the House within 7 calendar
days with the following amendment:
On page 10, after line 8, add the following:
(19) In rule X, clause 6(a) is amended by adding the following new
subparagraph:
``(3) The membership of each committee (and of each subcommittee, task
force or subunit thereof), shall reflect the ratio of majority to minority
party members of the House at the beginning of this Congress. This
subparagraph shall not apply to--
``(A) the Committee on Appropriations, three-fifths of whose members
shall be from the majority party and two-fifths of whose members shall be
from the minority party;
``(B) the Committee on the Budget, three-fifths of whose members shall be
from the majority party and two-fifths of whose members shall be from the
minority party;
``(C) the Committee on Rules, two-thirds of whose members shall be from
the majority party and one-third of whose members shall be from the
minority party;
``(D) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which shall be
constituted as provided for in subparagraph (2); and
``(E) the Committee on Ways and Means, three-fifths of whose members
shall be from the majority party and two-fifths of whose members shall be
from the minority party.''
Mr. MICHEL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]).
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. [Trent] LOTT [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, I will not object except to ask the distinguished
Republican leader to explain the motion.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LOTT. I yield to the distinguished minority leader.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, as indicated, this motion is not a
debatable motion. Most of my colleagues have been conversant with
motions to recommit. This is a motion to commit to a select
committee of nine members, five of whom would be Members of the
majority party, to accomplish several goals.
Let me briefly-while I am no better reader than the reading
clerk-outline for my colleagues what these things are and then, if
there are any questions, I can answer and respond to the inquiries.
. . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to
commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
180, nays 220, not voting 19, as follows: . . .
Sec. 5.5 Prior to the adoption of the rules, a motion to commit is in
order after the previous question has been ordered on the
resolution adopting the standing rules(41) and it is the
prerogative of the minority to offer said motion.(42)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. For a 1893 precedent discussing the availability of this motion
under general parliamentary law, see 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 5604.
42. Parliamentarian's Note: Under clause 2(a) of rule XIX, a Member
offering a motion to recommit (or commit) must qualify as
opposed to the underlying measure in order for the Speaker to
accord such Member priority in recognition. See House Rules and
Manual Sec. 1001 (2019). Prior to the adoption of rules,
however, this aspect of the rule is not yet applicable (and it
not recognized as part of general parliamentary law). Thus, as
noted in the Congressional Record, a minority Member offering a
motion to commit the resolution adopting the standing rules
need not evince opposition in order to secure recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 3, 1989,(43) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. 135 Cong. Rec. 81, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Marvin] EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Dale] Kildee [of Michigan]). The
Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Motion to Commit offered by Mr. Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Edwards moves to
commit the resolution H. Res. 5 to a select committee to be comprised of
the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader with instructions to report
back the same to the House forthwith with only the following amendment:
At the end of the resolution, add the following new paragraph:
RESTRICTIVE RULE LIMITATION
``(15) In Rule XI, clause 4 is amended by adding the following new
paragraph:
``(e) It shall not be in order to consider any resolution reported from
the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of any bill or
resolution otherwise subject to amendment under House rules if that
resolution limits the right of Members to offer germane amendments to such
bill or resolution unless the chairman of the Committee on Rules has orally
announced in the House, at least four legislative days prior to the
scheduled consideration of such matter by the Committee on Rules, that less
than an open amendment process might be recommended by the Committee for
the consideration of such bill or resolution.''.
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Oklahoma?
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
from New York for yielding me this time and giving me this
opportunity to explain to the Members of the House what we are
going to vote on in just a moment.
Sec. 5.6 Prior to adoption of the rules, the Speaker may maintain
decorum as part of general parliamentary law by directing a Member
who had not been recognized in debate beyond an allotted time to be
removed from the well, or by directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to
present the mace as the traditional symbol of order.
On January 3, 1991,(44) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. 137 Cong. Rec. 39-40, 58-59, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [Richard] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One
Hundred First Congress, including all applicable provisions of law and
concurrent resolutions adopted pursuant thereto which constituted the Rules
of the House at the end of the One Hundred First Congress, be, and they are
hereby, adopted as the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One
Hundred Second Congress, with the following amendments included therein as
part thereof, to wit: . . .
Mr. GEPHARDT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous-consent that the resolution be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER.(45) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker. I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon], for the purposes of debate only,
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(46) The gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon] has 1 minute remaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. Steny Hoyer (MD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I yield such
time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Johnson].
Mrs. [Nancy] JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the substance of
this proposal, and with deep concern for the subversion of the
legislative process contained in this package.
The substance strikes at the heart of the budget agreement. The
process strikes at the heart of democracy, and so I am going to use
such time as I may consume, and I am not going to recognize the
authority of the Speaker's gavel, because I want to make very clear
the implications of what is happening here.
First of all, this House is operating under precedent, not
under rule. Precedent is something that we honor because we hold
ourselves to a standard of ethical conduct that requires honoring
our rules.
If we do not hold ourselves to that standard of ethical
conduct, then the line between self-government and chaos
disintegrates. If we cannot operate ethically, we cannot govern
ourselves as a free nation. So, honor is everything; word is bond.
I choose not to be governed by the gavel, because I want to
demonstrate that where word is not bond, democracy cannot survive.
. . .
If we were doing that here today, democracy in its gut and at
the level of trust that it demands would not be at risk; but the
majority party is not proposing a statutory change for which they
could be held accountable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. The majority party is proposing a
rules change.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would state to the
gentlewoman that whatever point she is trying to make that the
Chair is going to make a point.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. It does not change the law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will operate under proper
decorum.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Rather through the rule, they are
intending to abrogate the content and meaning of the law. One could
ask one's self, why is this happening today? It is happening for a
very simple reason. It is happening for the same simple reason that
Wall Street was crippled by greed. On Wall Street individual greed
took precedence over that code of conduct that had in the past
regulated business decisions, the conduct of business, on Wall
Street.
What is happening here is that individual desire for spending
programs is overriding the public interest in deficit reduction.
Mr. [Gerald] SIKORSKI [of Minnesota]. Mr. Speaker, regular
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is out of order. The
gentlewoman is making the point of not following the rules.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I know
this is unpleasant.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will remove herself
from the well within 30 seconds.
point of order
Mr. [Henry] GONZALEZ [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point
of order. I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. As I said, I am not going to talk
at length but only for the very few minutes necessary to make clear
my concern with the substance and process violations in this rules
proposal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. GONZALEZ. The gentlewoman is out of order and is defying
the Chair's ruling and, therefore, I am imploring the Chair to
exercise its authority to enforce the rules of the House by
summoning the Sergeant at Arms and presenting the mace.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair may do that.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I regret that the majority party
on such an important matter refused to allow Members the time we
need, and I particularly regret this demonstration of oppression of
the minority as democracy simply cannot survive if the minority's
right to debate is deeply compromised. We must do better than this
in the months ahead. We must reject these rules. We must come back
with a rules package that honors statutory law and that does not
seek to change law through the subterfuge of rules changes. We must
come back with a package that honors the standard of ethical
conduct on which this House has always depended.
I thank the Speaker.
Sec. 5.7 Prior to adoption of the rules, the Speaker quells
demonstrations of approval or disapproval by visitors in the
gallery.
On January 4, 1995,(47) the following announcement was
made prior to the adoption of the standing rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. 141 Cong. Rec. 454, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
announcement by the speaker
The SPEAKER.(48) There are to be no demonstrations
in the gallery. Those in the gallery are here as guests of the
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Newt Gingrich (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David] BONIOR [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson].
Sec. 5.8 Prior to adoption of the rules, the question of consideration
is available upon the offering of a resolution adopting the rules
and before debate thereon.
On January 4, 2005,(49) the question of consideration
(admitted as a matter of general parliamentary law) was raised with
regard to the resolution adopting the standing rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. 151 Cong. Rec. 42, 44-46, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [Thomas] DeLAY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One
Hundred Eighth Congress, including applicable provisions of law or
concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end of the
One Hundred Eighth Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, with amendments to the
standing rules as provided in section 2 and with other orders as provided
in section 3. . . .
Mr. DeLAY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER.(50) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. Dennis Hastert (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
point of order
Mr. [Brian] BAIRD [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a
constitutional point of order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are preparing to
consider, the proposed rules for the 109th Congress, in my judgment
violates the United States Constitution which we were just sworn to
uphold and defend. It does so by allowing a very limited number of
Members, potentially only a handful, to constitute the House of
Representatives.
Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution states that ``each
House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and
Qualifications of its Members, and a majority of each shall
constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a small Number adjourn from
day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of
absent Members.''
Unfortunately, H. Res. 5 seeks to allow a small number not just
to adjourn or compel attendance, as the Constitution stipulates,
but to enact laws, declare war, impeach the President, and fulfill
all other article I responsibilities.
The very first act of the very first Congress of the United
States was to recess day after day after day because they lacked a
quorum. Just moments ago everyone in this body took an oath to
uphold and defend the Constitution, and now our first official vote
is by rule to undermine a fundamental principle of that
Constitution, i.e., what is a quorum. It is my understanding that
the Speaker is reluctant to judge on matters of constitutionality.
I respect that. But I would reserve and inform the Speaker it is my
intent to ask the question of consideration to be put.
The SPEAKER. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, let me respond
by saying that the gentleman is absolutely right when he states
that the Chair does not rule on questions of constitutionality.
I would also like to say that on this question that is being
brought forward by my friend, it is very clear to me based on
statements that have been made by a wide range of constitutional
scholars that what we are doing in the rules package that we are
about to consider is in fact constitutional. In fact, before the
Committee on Rules the very distinguished former Solicitor General
Walter Dellinger said the following: ``It is simply inconceivable
that a Constitution established to provide for the common defense
and promote the general welfare would leave the Nation unable to
act in precisely the moment of greatest peril. No constitutional
amendment is required to enact the proposed rule change because the
Constitution as drafted permits the Congress to ensure the
preservation of government.''
Let me further, Mr. Speaker, say that the Committee on Rules
intends to conduct further examination of the best way for the
House to assure a continuity of government during a national
emergency, and it is our hope that as we proceed with this work
that further discussions will take place with the members of that
very distinguished panel, the Continuity Commission, which included
our former colleague, Senator Simpson, and Speakers Foley and
Gingrich and former minority leader Bob Michel, Leon Panetta,
Kweisi Mfume, and I believe we will have a chance to proceed with
this; but I think it would be very appropriate for us to proceed
with consideration of the rules package that we have.
The SPEAKER. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. [Jerrold] NADLER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of the point of order. The Constitution defines a quorum to
conduct business as the majority of each House.
The question of course before us in this debate is, a majority
of what? What is the denominator in that equation?
The precedent holds that the total number of the membership of
the House is those Members who are chosen, sworn and living and
whose membership has not been terminated by action of the House.
Removal by action of the House is also a defined term, expulsion by
a vote of two-thirds in article 1, section 5.
The Constitution also gives the House the authority to compel
attendance when Members do not answer the call of the Chair in such
manner and under such penalties as each House may provide. And, in
fact, the Sergeant at Arms has been sent to gather Members by force
on prior occasions.
This amendment before us to the rules gives the Speaker nearly
unfettered authority to change the number of the Members of the
whole House to exclude Members who are chosen, sworn, and living
but who do not answer the call of the Chair. This would seem to
amount to a constructive expulsion without a two-thirds vote of the
whole House.
For example, suppose the House is at its full complement of 435
Members. A quorum would then be 218. Now, suppose only 400 Members
answer the Speaker's call for whatever reason. They are still
living. They are still chosen. They are still sworn. They have not
been expelled. Now a quorum by order of the Speaker would be 200.
The House may conduct its business with only 200 Members present.
If this is triggered in a time of national emergency, the
consequences could be dire.
Mr. Speaker, we heard the distinguished chair, or maybe he is
only the presumptive chair, of the Committee on Rules, at this
point; but in any event, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
said a moment ago that this proposed rules change is constitutional
because the Constitution could not have contemplated that the House
could not function. But the Constitution did not contemplate that
the majority of the Members of the House might in fact be the
victims of an act of mass terrorism. Those things were not
contemplated at the time.
The fact is we do need to amend the Constitution to take care
of this very serious question; but this provision for the reasons
stated by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), for the
reasons that I stated a moment ago, is clearly unconstitutional.
Certainly, before we take such a measure, it deserves much more
extensive debate and hearings and discussion than it can have by
three or four speakers in this context now.
So I urge that Members take careful consideration to the
question of constitutionality here. This may provoke court action,
and we should not adopt this now in the context of an overall rules
change with this very serious amendment to the Constitution, which
is what it amounts to; it cannot receive adequate consideration in
terms of its constitutionality either in terms of its merit.
The SPEAKER. Does any other Member wish to be heard on this
point of order?
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. [Gene] TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I realize that
September 11 was a tragic day in America, certainly a wake-up call
within the States.
I also remind the Members of this body that in the War of 1812
this building was occupied by a foreign army. So for the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier) to say that they could not have
foreseen these circumstances taking place, what in the heck is he
talking about? This building was occupied and set on fire by a
foreign army. And yet the Congress at that time did not try to
change the rules so that a minority within a minority could govern.
If we are going to amend the Constitution, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird) is exactly right: someone should offer a
constitutional amendment. If we are going to change the law, then
someone should offer a change to the law; but let us not through
the House rules try to rewrite the Constitution of this Nation.
This Nation has been around for a long time. It is going to be
around for a long time, but only if we continue to do things as the
Founding Fathers would have wanted us to do them and not some
backdoor-approach like this.
The SPEAKER. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Washington makes a point of order that the
resolution adopting the rules of the House for the 109th Congress
is not in order because it contains a provision that the House does
not have the constitutional authority to propose.
As recorded in section 628 of the House Rules and Manual,
citing numerous precedents including volume 2 of Hinds' Precedents
at sections 1318-1320, the Chair does not determine the
constitutionality of a proposition or judge the constitutional
competency of the House to take a proposed action, nor does the
Chair submit such a question to the House as a question of order.
Rather, it is for the House to determine such a question by its
disposition of the proposition, such as by voting on the question
of its consideration, as recorded in volume 2 of Hinds' Precedents
of section 1255, or by voting on the question of its adoption, as
recorded in volume 2 of Hinds' Precedents at section 1320. The
Chair would apply these precedents even before the adoption of the
Rules of the House as a matter of general parliamentary law.
As such, the House may decide the issues raised by the
gentleman by way of the question of consideration of the resolution
or the question of adopting the resolution. The point of order is
not cognizable.
announcement by the speaker
The SPEAKER. Before the gentleman proceeds, the Chair would
like to announce that any Member-elect who failed to take the oath
of office may present himself or herself in the well of the House
prior to any vote.
swearing in of members-elect
The SPEAKER. Will the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), kindly come to the
well of the House and take the oath of office at this time.
Ms. Slaughter, Mrs. Maloney and Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida
appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath of office, as
follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that you take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are
about to enter. So help you God.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, consistent with the oath of office that
I just took, I would request that the question of consideration be
put to the body.
The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House now consider House
Resolution 5.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, this will be an electronic vote
on the question of consideration.
There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
224, nays 192, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows: .
. .
Sec. 5.9 Prior to the adoption of the rules, the motion to refer is in
order as a matter of general parliamentary law upon the offering of
a resolution adopting the rules and prior to debate thereon,
subject to the motion to lay on the table.
On January 5, 1993,(51) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. 139 Cong. Rec. 49, 51-52, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [Richard] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
preferential resolution at the desk involving a question of
privileges of the House, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER.(52) Prior to the adoption of the rules,
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] has offered a privileged
resolution under the Constitution and the Chair, in his discretion,
recognizes the gentleman from Missouri for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One
Hundred Second Congress, including applicable provisions of law or
concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end of the
One Hundred Second Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the One Hundred Third Congress, with the following
amendments to the standing rules, to wit: . . .
Mr. GEPHARDT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I was
looking for a copy of the final resolution that is before us. I
have just been handed House Resolution 00, dated January 00, 1993.
Mr. Speaker, is this the final resolution?
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the Clerk has
the resolution available.
Mr. SOLOMON. Further reserving the right to object, Mr.
Speaker, we were given earlier a change dealing with the Delegate
voting, and that is incorporated in this copy; is that correct?
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri?
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, we have not really had a chance to review this.
As I understand, Mr. Speaker, we have just been delivered these
rules moments ago, we have not seen them, and I understand there
were changes made earlier today in the caucus. We have a copy here
of one change that was made with regard to the Delegate issue. Is
that the only change made by the caucus this morning?
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
Mr. WALKER. That is correct, and so virtually everything else
in the package is exactly the same as it has been discussed before,
with the exception of the Delegate issue, and that is in this
package in the modified form from this morning; is that right?
Mr. GEPHARDT. That is correct.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri?
There was no objection. . . .
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to refer at the desk,
and I am seeking to be recognized for that purpose.
The SPEAKER. A motion to refer the resolution would be an
appropriate motion.
motion to refer offered by mr. solomon
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Solomon moves to refer the resolution to a select committee of five
members, to be appointed by the Speaker, not more than three of whom shall
be from the same political party, with instructions not to report back the
same unit it has conducted a full and complete study of, and made a
determination on, the constitutionality of those provisions which would
grant voting rights in the Committee of the Whole to the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico and the Delegates from American Samoa, the
District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands.
motion to table offered by mr. gephardt
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gephardt moves to lay on the table the motion to refer
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] to lay on the table the
motion to refer offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
224, nays 176, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 3] . . .
Similarly, on January 5, 2011,(53) a motion to refer the
resolution adopting the standing rules was made (and laid on the table)
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. 157 Cong. Rec. 80, 83-84, 112th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [Eric] CANTOR [of Virginia]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One
Hundred Eleventh Congress, including applicable provisions of law or
concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end of the
One Hundred Eleventh Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, with amendments to the
standing rules as provided in section 2, and with other orders as provided
in sections 3, 4, and 5. . . .
Mr. CANTOR (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(54) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. Steven A. LaTourette (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
motion to refer
Ms. [Eleanor Holmes] NORTON [of District of Columbia]. Mr.
Speaker, I rise to offer a motion that is at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Norton moves to refer the resolution to a select committee of five
members, to be appointed by the Speaker, not more than three of whom shall
be from the same political party, with instructions not to report back the
same until it has conducted a full and complete study of, and made a
determination on, the constitutionality of the provision that would be
eliminated from the Rules that granted voting rights in the Committee of
the Whole to the Delegates from the District of Columbia, American Samoa,
Guam, the Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands and the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico, including the decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Michel v. Anderson (14
F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1994)), which upheld the constitutionality of these
voting rights.
motion to table
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cantor moves to lay on the table the motion to refer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to
table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
223, nays 188, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 3] . . .
On January 3, 2013,(55) a motion to refer the resolution
adopting the standing rules was also laid on the table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. 159 Cong. Rec. 25, 28, 113th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [Eric] CANTOR [of Virginia]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One
Hundred Twelfth Congress, including applicable provisions of law or
concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end of the
One Hundred Twelfth Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, with amendments to
the standing rules as provided in section 2, and with other orders as
provided in sections 3, 4, and 5. . . .
Mr. CANTOR (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Patrick] Tiberi [of Ohio]). Is
there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
motion to refer
Ms. [Eleanor Holmes] NORTON [of District of Columbia]. Mr.
Speaker, I rise to offer a motion that is at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Norton moves to refer the resolution to a select committee of five
members, to be appointed by the Speaker, not more than three of whom shall
be from the same political party, with instructions not to report back the
same until it has conducted a full and complete study of, and made a
determination on, whether there is any reason to deny Delegates voting
rights in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union in
light of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia in Michel v. Anderson (14 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1994))
upholding the constitutionality of these voting rights, and the inclusion
of such voting rights in the Rules for the 103rd, 110th and 111th
Congresses.
motion to table
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to table at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cantor moves to lay on the table the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to
table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
224, nays 187, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 3] . . .
Sec. 6. Amending the Standing Rules
As noted earlier, the House adopts a set of rules on opening day of
a new Congress, and those rules remain applicable for the duration of
that Congress. However, the House may amend those standing rules at any
point, and the rules in their amended form will govern from the point
at which the amendments are adopted.(1) In the 106th
Congress, the standing rules of the House were recodified in order to
present a more logical organization by grouping together related rules,
standardizing language across rules, eliminating obsolete provisions,
and renumbering rules accordingly.(2) The recodification was
not intended to effect any substantive amendment to the standing rules,
and the rules in their revised format were adopted prior to the
consideration of substantive amendments thereto.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In rare instances, the House has adopted changes to the standing
rules on a contingent basis or with a delayed effective date.
See Sec. Sec. 6.16, 6.17, infra.
2. 145 Cong. Rec. 47-223, 106th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6, 1999).
3. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments to the standing rules of the House have been considered
by a variety of methods. The Committee on Rules has jurisdiction over
the rules of the House,(4) and proposals to amend the
standing rules emanating from the committee are accorded privileged
status.(5) The Committee on Rules is required to provide a
comparative print (``Ramseyer'') of the proposed amendment, showing how
the current rules would be changed by the amendment.(6) When
a proposal to amend the House rules is under debate, the Chair will not
attempt to interpret the content of the proposed changes in response to
a parliamentary inquiry,(7) but may explain the application
of the procedural status quo to the instant proceedings.(8)
The House has, by unanimous consent, re-referred a proposal to amend
the House rules back to the Committee on Rules after it had been called
up for consideration.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Rule X, clause 1(o)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 733 (2019).
5. Rule XIII, clause 5(a)(4), House Rules and Manual Sec. 853 (2019).
For an example of a resolution proposing to amend the standing
rules being called up as a privileged matter, see Sec. 6.1,
infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 5.1, 5.3.
For procedures for amending such resolutions when they are
called up, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 5.7, 5.8.
6. Rule XIII, clause 3(g), House Rules and Manual Sec. 848 (2019). For
an earlier ruling made before this requirement was applied to
changes in House rules, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. 5.5.
7. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 5.12.
8. See Sec. 6.8, infra.
9. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 5.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Rules may also provide a special order of business
resolution to structure debate on a proposed amendment to the House
rules.(10) The resolution adopting the standing rules may
itself contain a separate order (in the form of a special order of
business) providing for the consideration of a specified amendment to
those rules(11) (whereby the issue of the amendment could be
isolated for a separate vote on its provisions only).(12) A
special order of business resolution providing for the consideration of
an ordinary legislative measure may also (in a separate section of the
resolution) effect a change in House rules.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 6.2, infra.
11. See Sec. 6.4, infra.
12. See Sec. 6.5, infra.
13. See Sec. 6.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A resolution to amend the standing rules, though privileged, has
also been offered in the House by unanimous consent.(14) The
House has also considered such resolutions by suspension of the
rules(15) and by discharge petition
procedures.(16) Amendments to the standing rules have been
considered in the House, the Committee of the Whole,(17) and
the House ``as in'' Committee of the Whole.(18) The question
of consideration has been applied to a resolution proposing to amend
the standing rules.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 6.7, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 5.2.
15. See Sec. 6.8, infra.
16. See 139 Cong. Rec. 20361-62, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. (Sept. 8, 1993).
See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 5.10, 5.11.
17. See Sec. 6.5, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 5.6.
18. See Sec. 6.6, infra. For more on this type of forum for conducting
House business, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 19 Sec. 1 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 19.
19. See Sec. 6.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, the Committee on Rules has jurisdiction over amendments
to House rules. However, rule XXIII (known as the ``Code of Official
Conduct'') involves rules relating to House ethics requirements, and as
such falls under the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on
Ethics.(20) The Committee on Ethics may report changes to
that House rule that have been referred to it, but such reports are not
privileged (unlike proposals to change other House rules reported by
the Committee on Rules).(21) The House has also used select
committees to review House rules and propose changes, specifically
conferring on such select committees the appropriate
jurisdiction.(22) Pursuant to section 301(c) of the Budget
Act, any budget resolution reported by the Committee on the Budget that
proposes to change a rule of the House must be referred to the
Committee on Rules so that the committee may review the proposed
changes and offer amendments altering or striking such
provisions.(23) In one instance, a resolution containing a
directive to the Speaker and the Committee on Rules to institute
closed-circuit broadcasting of House proceedings was called up as a
privileged matter as necessarily involving a change in House procedures
(though not actually amending the standing rules of the
House).(24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule X, clause 1(g), House Rules and Manual Sec. 721b (2019).
21. See Sec. 6.12, infra.
22. See Sec. 6.14, infra.
23. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 632(c).
24. See Sec. 6.13, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. 6.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While amendments to House rules are normally made through simple
resolutions of the House (such changes being a purely internal House
matter), occasionally a bill will contain both statutory provisions and
amendments to House rules.(25) In one instance, the House
amended the standing rules by incorporating by reference provisions of
statutory text: Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was
formally incorporated into the House rules by a reference to the
statute in clause 2 of rule XXVI.(26) Thus, amendments to
that title of the Ethics in Government Act will necessarily result in a
change in House rules.(27)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. For an example of a government ethics bill that made changes in law
as well as House rules, see 135 Cong. Rec. 29468-69, 29473-75,
29479-83, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov. 16, 1989).
26. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1103 (2019). The pertinent part of the
rule reads: ``For purposes of this rule, the provisions of
title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 shall be
considered Rules of the House as they pertain to Members,
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and employees
of the House.'' For the House adoption of the conference report
on the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, see 124 Cong. Rec.
36459-61, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 12, 1978).
27. Parliamentarian's Note: On November 16, 1995, the House passed a
lobbying disclosure bill which, inter alia, made changes to the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (and would thus be
incorporated by reference in clause 2 of rule XXVI). See 141
Cong. Rec. 33471, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although rare, the House has on occasion adopted changes to House
rules on a contingent basis, or with a delayed effective date. For
example, in the 94th Congress, the House adopted a change to a rule
regarding conference procedures contingent upon the Senate adopting a
similar rule.(28) Upon notice to the House that the Senate
had in fact adopted a corresponding change to its rules, the amendment
to the House rules became effective. In the 105th Congress, the House
passed a bill containing both changes in statute and changes to House
rules, with the changes to House rules only becoming effective as of a
date certain.(29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. See Sec. 6.16, infra.
29. See Sec. 6.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House has sometimes chosen to vacate or reverse a change in the
standing rules subsequent to the adoption of the amendment. In the 99th
Congress, a resolution amending the House rules was adopted by
unanimous consent.(30) On the following legislative day, the
Committee on Rules reported a resolution vacating the adoption of
previous day's resolution amending the standing rules and laying that
resolution on the table (to return the rules to their earlier
form).(31) In the 109th Congress, the Committee on Rules
reported a resolution to reverse changes to House ethics rules that
were adopted on opening day of that Congress, to return such rules to
the form they had taken in the previous Congress.(32)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. See Sec. 6.18, infra.
31. Id.
32. See Sec. 6.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposal to amend the standing rules of the House is a relatively
narrow subject for purposes of clause 7 of rule XVI (the germaneness
rule).(33) For amendments to such a proposal to be germane,
they must be focused solely on the rules of the House and not address
other matters. Where the proposed rules change only affects a limited
area of House procedure, an amendment would need to confine itself to
that area in order to be germane.(34) Where legislation does
not touch upon the rules of the House, any amendment that would change
House rules would likely not be germane.(35) But where the
amendment merely calls for changes in, for example, congressional
security protocols, and does not directly amend the standing rules of
the House, the amendment may be germane.(36)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. House Rules and Manual Sec. 928 (2019).
34. See Sec. Sec. 6.20, 6.21, infra.
35. See Sec. 6.22, infra.
36. See 137 Cong. Rec. 14207, 102d Cong. 1st Sess. (June 11, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An amendment to an appropriation bill that has the effect of
changing any rules of the House will generally be subject to a point of
order under clause 2 of rule XXI(37) for legislating on an
appropriation bill.(38) However, a limitation amendment that
merely places restrictions on the Speaker's discretionary authorities,
and does not amend the rules of the House, does not violate the
rule.(39)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1036-1059 (2019). For more on this
point of order, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 26 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 26.
38. See Sec. 6.24, infra.
39. See Sec. 6.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question of the privileges of the House may be based on an
alleged violation of the rules of the House or the improper abuse of
the authorities granted by the rules.(40) However, a
question of privilege may not be raised to effect a change in House
rules or their interpretation, nor may a question of privilege be
raised to collaterally attack a rule or order.(41)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. For questions of privilege generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
11 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 11.
41. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 11 Sec. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method of Consideration
Sec. 6.1 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules proposing to
amend the standing rules of the House may be offered as a
privileged matter.
On November 12, 1997,(42) the following resolution
amending the standing rules was offered as privileged:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. 143 Cong. Rec. 26040-41, 26211, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE TO REPEAL EXCEPTION TO
REQUIREMENT THAT PUBLIC COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS BE OPEN TO ALL
MEDIA
Mr. [Porter] GOSS [of Florida]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 301 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 301
Resolved, That (a) clause 3(f) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by repealing subdivision (2) and by
redesignating subdivisions (3) through (13) as subdivisions (2) through
(12), respectively.
(b) Clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by striking ``, except as provided by clause
3(f)(2)''.
(d) The first sentence of clause 3(e) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended by striking ``, except as provided in
paragraph (f)(2)''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]). The
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. . . .
House Resolution 301 is a straightforward rule. It is a
straightforward rule change to repeal the exception to the
requirement that public committee proceedings be open to all media,
all types of media. This resolution continues the process we began
in 1995 of opening up our committee proceedings to enhance public
scrutiny and greater accountability. The resolution repeals clause
3(f)(2) of House rule XI, known inside this building as the camera
rule.
As Members recall, when we began the 104th Congress under new
management for the first time in 40 years, we instituted an
openness policy that said that committee meetings and hearings that
are open to the public shall also be open to the media. This
sunshine rule reaffirms the right of the public to have all types
of media cover most of our proceedings, making it clear that such
coverage is no longer treated as a privilege to be granted and
taken away at the discretion of a committee or subcommittee.
The only deviation from this policy has been the exception
found in clause 3(f)(2) giving subpoenaed witnesses the absolute
right to decide, for whatever reason, to pull the plug on certain
types of media coverage of their testimony at an otherwise public
hearing.
Mr. Speaker, this exception to the sunshine rule is a holdover
from another era. We heard testimony in the Committee on Rules from
the distinguished dean of this House, the gentleman from Michigan,
[Mr. John Dingell], who is one of the most respected and probably
one of the most feared committee chairmen ever to serve in this
body. Mr. Dingell cautioned us not to repeal this exception for
subpoenaed witnesses, and he raised the specter of the McCarthy
hearings that took place nearly half a century ago. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]). The
pending business is the question de novo on agreeing to House
Resolution 301.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. [John] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
241, noes 165, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 632] . . .
Sec. 6.2 A resolution proposing to amend the standing rules of the
House, while itself privileged for consideration in the House, may
also be considered pursuant to the terms of a special order of
business resolution reported by the Committee on Rules.
On September 18, 1997,(43) the following special order
of business, providing for the consideration of amendments to the
standing rules, was considered and adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. 143 Cong. Rec. 19302-303, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. For adoption of the
underlying resolution amending the standing rules, see 143
Cong. Rec. 19317-23, 19325, 19331, 19335, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Sept. 18, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 168, IMPLEMENTING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF BIPARTISAN HOUSE ETHICS REFORM TASK FORCE
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 230 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 230
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House
resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 168) to implement the
recommendations of the bipartisan House Ethics Reform Task Force. The first
reading of the resolution shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be
confined to the resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided
and controlled by Representative Livingston of Louisiana and Representative
Cardin of Maryland or their designees. After general debate the resolution
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The
resolution shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. Each amendment may be considered only in the order printed
in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. At
the conclusion of consideration of the resolution for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution and amendments thereto to final
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question
except one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Joel] Hefley [of Colorado]). The
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
Sec. 6.3 A resolution proposing to amend the standing rules of the
House has been considered as adopted pursuant to a special order of
business resolution reported by the Committee on Rules (the House
having decided, by a two-thirds vote on the question of
consideration, to consider the special order on the same day that
it was reported).(44)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Parliamentarian's Note: A special order of business resolution
reported by the Committee on Rules may not be considered the
same legislative day that it is reported to the House, unless
the House agrees (by a two-thirds vote) to the question of
consideration (which the Chair puts to the body sua sponte).
This requirement is found in clause 6(a) of rule XIII. House
Rules and Manual Sec. 857 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2005,(45) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. 151 Cong. Rec. 8036, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO REINSTATE
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE RULES RELATING TO PROCEDURES OF THE
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT TO THE FORM IN WHICH
THOSE PROVISIONS EXISTED AT THE CLOSE OF THE 108th CONGRESS
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California], from the Committee on
Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 109-59) on the
resolution (H. Res. 241) providing for the adoption of the
resolution (H. Res. 240) amending the Rules of the House of
Representatives to reinstate certain provisions of the rules
relating to procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to the form in which those provisions existed at the close
of the 108th Congress, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 241 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 241
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, House Resolution 240 is
hereby adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]). The
question is, Will the House now consider House Resolution 241.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 241.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
Sec. 6.4 A resolution proposing to amend the standing rules has been
considered pursuant to the terms of a special order of business
contained in a separate section of the resolution adopting standing
rules on opening day of a new Congress.(46)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. Parliamentarian's Note: This procedural situation reflected the
desire to isolate one particular ethics rule (the so-called
``gift rule'') for a separate vote following the adoption of
the standing rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 1999,(47) the following special order of
business was adopted as part of the resolution adopting the standing
rules of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. 145 Cong. Rec. 76, 106th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 5 . . .
Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in
the House a resolution amending clause 5 of rule XXVI, if offered by the
Majority Leader or his designee. The resolution shall be considered as read
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for
division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their
designees.
Later on January 6, 1999,(48) the special order was
called up as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. 145 Cong. Rec. 237, 239-40, 106th Cong. 1st Sess. For a similar
procedure used to consider an amendment to the standing rules,
see H. Res. 6, Sec. 506, 153 Cong. Rec. 19-24, 110th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 4, 2007) (order providing for the consideration of
a resolution amending the standing rules to enhance
intelligence oversight authority), and 153 Cong. Rec. 567,
110th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 9, 2007) (consideration of said
amendment to the standing rules pursuant to the earlier order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE GIFT RULE AMENDMENT
Mr. [James] HANSEN [of Utah]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section
3 of House Resolution 5 and as the designee of the majority leader,
I offer a resolution (H. Res. 9) amending clause 5 of rule XXVI,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 9
Resolved, That subparagraph (1) of clause 5(a) of rule XXVI is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``A Member''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subdivision:
``(B) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of
the House may accept a gift (other than cash or cash equivalent) that the
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee reasonably
and in good faith believes to have a value of less than $50 and a
cumulative value from one source during a calendar year of less than $100.
A gift having a value of less than $10 does not count toward the $100
annual limit. Formal recordkeeping is not required by this subdivision, but
a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the
House shall make a good faith effort to comply with this subdivision.''.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]).
Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 5, the resolution is
considered read for amendment, and the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
Sec. 6.5 A resolution proposing to amend the standing rules may be
considered pursuant to a special order of business resolution that
provides for its consideration in the Committee of the
Whole.(49)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. Parliamentarian's Note: While some legislative matters are required
under the rules to be considered in the Committee of the Whole,
propositions to amend the standing rules do not fall into that
category and are normally considered in the full House.
However, the Committee on Rules may propose a special order of
business that provides for consideration in the Committee of
the Whole, especially if the special order provides amendments
to the proposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 7, 1973,(50) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. 119 Cong. Rec. 6700, 6705-706, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Claude] PEPPER [of Florida]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 272 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 272
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution (H. Res.
259) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to strengthen the
requirement that committee proceedings be held in open session. After
general debate, which shall be confined to the resolution and shall
continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the
resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the
conclusion of the consideration of the resolution for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. . . .
The SPEAKER.(51) The question is on ordering the
previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 197, nays 196,
answered ``present'' 1, not voting 38, as follows:
[Roll No. 36] . . .
So the previous question was ordered. . . .
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 6.6 A resolution proposing to amend the standing rules of the
House has been considered pursuant to a special order of business
resolution that provides for consideration in the House as in
Committee of the Whole.(52)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. For more on consideration of measures in the House as in Committee
of the Whole, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 19 Sec. 1 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 10, 1976,(53) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. 122 Cong. Rec. 17322, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] BOLLING [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1272 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1272
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
to consider the resolution (H. Res. 1260) to amend the Rules of the House
of Representatives to allow all expenses of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct to be obtained directly from the contingent fund of the
House of Representatives upon vouchers signed by its chairman and ranking
minority member, in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. It shall be
in order to consider the amendment recommended by the Committee on Rules
now printed in the resolution, the provisions of clause 7, Rule XVI to the
contrary notwithstanding.
The SPEAKER.(54) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we are now
considering makes in order the resolution introduced by the
chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, with an
amendment made by the Committee on Rules. This resolution has to do
with the ability of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
to get funded for the various investigations that are pending
before it, and it is in that sense a very unusual and important
resolution.
The rule provides for the consideration of that resolution in
the House as in the Committee of the Whole, so that the only
general debate will be on the rule. That is now proceeding. When
the rule is adopted, we will consider the matter from the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole, which means that we will automatically be under the
5-minute rule.
It further means that the manager of the resolution is
empowered to move the previous question, not only on amendments to
the resolution but on all amendments and the resolution itself to
final passage. Of course, the gentleman who is managing it does not
intend to move the previous question unless the debate becomes
onerous from the point of view of the House.
Sec. 6.7 A resolution proposing to amend the standing rules of the
House, though privileged, may also be considered by unanimous
consent.
On January 28, 2009,(55) a resolution amending the
standing rules to increase the membership of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence was considered by unanimous consent as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. 155 Cong. Rec. 1946-47, 111th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGING THE SIZE OF THE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE
Ms. [Louise] SLAUGHTER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I send to
the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(56) Is there objection to
the request of the gentlewoman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. John H. Adler (NJ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 97
Resolved, That clause 11(a)(1) of rule X is amended by--
(1) striking ``21'' and inserting ``22''; and
(2) striking ``12'' and inserting ``13''.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 6.8 A resolution proposing to amend the standing rules of the
House may be considered by a motion to suspend the rules.
On February 1, 2006,(57) a resolution amending the
standing rules with regard to floor privileges was considered by a
motion to suspend the rules as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. 152 Cong. Rec. 540-41, 549, 580-81, 109th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIMINATING FLOOR PRIVILEGES OF FORMER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 648) to
eliminate floor privileges and access to Member exercise facilities
for registered lobbyists who are former Members or officers of the
House.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 648
Resolved,
SECTION 1. FLOOR PRIVILEGES OF FORMER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS.
Clause 4 of rule IV of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended to read as follows:
``4. (a) A former Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner; a former
Parliamentarian of the House; or a former elected officer of the House or
former minority employee nominated as an elected officer of the House shall
not be entitled to the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House and
rooms leading thereto if he or she--
``(1) is a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal as those
terms are defined in clause 5 of rule XXV;
``(2) has any direct personal or pecuniary interest in any legislative
measure pending before the House or reported by a committee; or
``(3) is in the employ of or represents any party or organization for the
purpose of influencing, directly or indirectly, the passage, defeat, or
amendment of any legislative proposal.
``(b) The Speaker may promulgate regulations that exempt ceremonial or
educational functions from the restrictions of this clause.''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITING ACCESS TO MEMBER EXERCISE FACILITIES FOR LOBBYISTS WHO
ARE FORMER MEMBERS OR OFFICERS.
(a) In General.--The House of Representatives may not provide access to
any exercise facility which is made available exclusively to Members and
former Members, officers and former officers of the House of
Representatives, and their spouses to any former Member, former officer, or
spouse who is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 or any successor statute or agent of a foreign principal as defined in
clause 5 of rule XXV. For purposes of this section, the term ``Member of
the House of Representatives'' includes a Delegate or Resident Commissioner
to the Congress.
(b) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration shall promulgate
regulations to carry out this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(58) Pursuant to the rule,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter) each will control 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California. . . .
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-
thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and
the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this
question will be postponed. . .
. -------------------
ELIMINATING FLOOR PRIVILEGES OF FORMER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(59) The pending business is
the question of suspending the rules and agreeing to the
resolution, H. Res. 648.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. Mark A. Foley (FL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 648, on
which the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
379, nays 50, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 3] . . .
So (two-thirds of those voting having responded in the
affirmative) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed
to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 6.9 The House has agreed to a unanimous-consent request to
dispense with consideration of a privileged motion on the Discharge
Calendar to discharge the Committee on Rules from consideration of
a resolution amending the rules of the House, and to consider that
resolution, under the same terms as if discharged, if called up by
its sponsor or designee at a time certain on a subsequent
day.(60)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. Parliamentarian's Note: The underlying resolution proposing to
amend the standing rules of the House had garnered the
requisite 218 signatures under the discharge petition rule
(rule XV, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2019)),
allowing it to be considered pursuant to the terms of that
rule. This unanimous-consent request was used to expedite
consideration, including altering the 20 minutes of debate on
the motion to discharge (and vote thereon), as well as waiving
restrictions on the time at which the resolution could be
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 23, 1993,(61) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. 139 Cong. Rec. 22220, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. Consideration of the
resolution was postponed on several occasions, and the
resolution eventually agreed to on September 28, 1993. See 139
Cong. Rec. 22698-704, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAKING IN ORDER ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1993, CONSIDERATION OF
HOUSE RESOLUTION 134, RELATING TO PUBLICATION OF MEMBERS
SIGNING A DISCHARGE MOTION
Mr. [James] INHOFE [of Oklahoma]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the business in order pursuant to clause 3 of rule
XXVII, immediately after the approval of the Journal on Monday,
September 27, 1993, be dispensed with and that it shall instead be
in order at 4 p.m. or thereafter that day for Representative
Inhofe, or his designee, to call up House Resolution 134 for
consideration under the same terms as if discharged from the
Committee on Rules pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXVII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(62) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. Michael R. McNulty (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 6.10 A special order of business resolution, in addition to
providing for the consideration of a legislative measure, may also
contain a separate section proposing an amendment to the standing
rules of the House, such that adoption of the special order would
effectuate that amendment to the House rules.
On May 24, 2007,(63) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. 153 Cong. Rec. 14156-57, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. For a similar
example, see H. Res. 544, 155 Cong. Rec. 15281, 111th Cong. 1st
Sess. (June 16, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2317, LOBBYING TRANSPARENCY
ACT OF 2007 AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2316,
HONEST LEADERSHIP AND OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2007
Ms. [Kathy] CASTOR [of Florida]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 437 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 437
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution it shall
be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2317) to amend the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require registered lobbyists to file
quarterly reports on contributions bundled for certain recipients, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary
now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Speaker may, pursuant
to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2316) to provide more rigorous requirements with respect to
disclosure and enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII,
no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
be in order except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand
a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of
the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. During consideration of H.R. 2317 or H.R. 2316 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the
Chair may postpone further consideration of either bill to such time as may
be designated by the Speaker.
Sec. 4. Subparagraph (3)(Q) of clause 5(a) of rule XXV is amended to read
as follows:
``(Q) Free attendance at an event permitted under subparagraph (4).''.
Sec. 6.11 The question of consideration may be raised with respect to a
resolution proposing to amend the standing rules of the House.
On January 24, 2007,(64) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. 153 Cong. Rec. 2140-41, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. For consideration of
the special order of business that provided for the
consideration of this resolution, see 153 Cong. Rec. 2127-30,
110th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 24, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMITTING DELEGATES AND THE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER TO CAST
VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Mr. [Alcee] HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to
House Resolution 86, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 78) amending
the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates and
the Resident Commissioner to the Congress to cast votes in the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
Mr. [Patrick] McHENRY [of North Carolina]. Madam Speaker, I
demand the question of consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. [Ellen] Tauscher [of
California]). The gentleman from North Carolina demands the
question of consideration. The question is: Will the House consider
the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
224, noes 186, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 56] . . .
So the question of consideration was decided in the
affirmative.
Jurisdiction and Privilege
Sec. 6.12 The Committee on Rules has general jurisdiction over the
standing rules (and proposed amendments thereto), with the
exception of rule XXIII (the Code of Official Conduct) which falls
under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ethics.(65)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. Parliamentarian's Note: At the time of the events described here,
the Code of Official Conduct was found in rule XLIII, and the
Committee on Ethics was known as the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. While a proposal to amend the rules is
privileged if offered by the Committee on Rules, no such
privilege attaches to amendments to the Code of Official
Conduct reported by the Committee on Ethics. Thus, the
amendments here were made in order via a special order of
business resolution (House Resolution 396).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 1975,(66) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. 121 Cong. Rec. 10339-40, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO AMEND THE CODE OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF RULES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. [Spark] MATSUNAGA [of Hawaii]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 396 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 396
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
to consider the resolution (H. Res. 46) to amend the Code of Official
Conduct of the Rules of the House of Representatives, in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER.(67) The gentleman from Hawaii is
recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Quillen), pending which I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 396 provides for consideration of
House Resolution 46, which, as reported by our Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, would add a new paragraph 10 to
House Rule XLIII, the Code of Official Conduct. . . .
After 1 hour of debate on House Resolution 396 and upon the
adoption of House Resolution 396, the House, as in the Committee of
the Whole, would then proceed into the 5-minute rule for amendments
to House Resolution 46.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Resolution 396 in
order that House Resolution 46 may be considered.
Sec. 6.13 A proposal to change long-standing House protocols or
procedures (even if not codified in the standing rules) has been
accepted as privileged for immediate consideration in the same
manner as formal proposals to amend the standing rules of the
House.(68)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. Parliamentarian's Note: This proposal would have altered a long-
standing policy of the House that had previously prohibited all
audio-visual broadcasting from the House floor, in order to
allow an experiment in closed-circuit broadcasting to Members'
offices. While not a direct amendment to the standing rules,
this resolution was nevertheless called up as a privileged
matter (as a change in established House procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 27, 1977,(69) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. 123 Cong. Rec. 35425-26, 35428, 35437, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bernice] SISK [of California]. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 866 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 866
Resolved, That it is the purpose of this resolution to provide for a
system for closed circuit viewing of the proceedings of the House and to
provide for the orderly development of a system for audio and visual
broadcasting thereof.
ESTABLISHMENT OF CLOSED CIRCUIT SYSTEM
Sec. 2. The Speaker shall devise and implement a system subject to his
direction and control for closed circuit viewing of floor proceedings of
the House of Representatives in the offices of all Members and committees
and in such other places in the Capitol and the House office Buildings as
he deems appropriate. Such system may include other telecommunications
functions as he deems appropriate.
STUDY OF BROADCASTING
Sec. 3. The Committee on Rules shall conduct a study of all alternative
methods of providing complete and unedited audio and visual broadcasting of
the proceedings of the House of Representatives. The committee shall report
its findings and recommendations as soon as practicable but not later than
February 15, 1978.
ESTABLISHMENT OF BROADCASTING SYSTEM
Sec. 4. (a) As soon as practicable after receipt of the report of the
committee, the Speaker shall devise and implement a system subject to his
direction and control for complete and unedited audio and visual
broadcasting and recording of the proceedings of the House of
Representatives. He shall provide for the distribution of such broadcasts
and recordings thereof to news media and the storage of audio and video
recordings of the proceedings.
(b)(1) All television and radio broadcasting stations, networks,
services, and systems (including cable systems) which are accredited to the
House Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries, and all radio and
television correspondents who are accredited to the Radio and Television
Correspondent's Galleries shall be provided access to the live coverage of
the House of Representatives.
(2) No coverage made available under this resolution nor any recording
thereof shall be used for any political purpose.
(3) Coverage made available under this resolution shall not be broadcast
with commercial sponsorship except as part of bona fide news programs and
public affairs documentary programs. No part of such coverage or any
recording thereof shall be used in any commercial advertisement.
AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE
Sec. 5. The Speaker may delegate any of his responsibilities under this
resolution to such legislative entity as he deems appropriate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(70) The gentleman from
California (Mr. Sisk) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. Jim Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. . . .
House Resolution 866 provides for the establishment of a closed
circuit system for viewing floor proceedings in the offices of all
Members and committees and in other places in the House Office
Buildings and the Capitol. Again, the Speaker is vested with all
authority to devise and implement the system.
This provision was included in the resolution to insure that
the Speaker would be able to undertake installation of the cabling
for the closed circuit system during the upcoming recess. Testimony
by both Mr. Brooks and Mr. Cleveland at the Rules Committee hearing
on October 13 indicated that this was the prime reason for taking a
broadcast resolution to the floor at this time since it would be
impossible from a technical standpoint to make the broadcast
coverage available to the public until sometime in the second
session of this Congress.
The resolution also requires the Committee on Rules to conduct
a study of all possible alternatives for providing broadcasting and
to report their findings no later than February 15, 1978. The
committee believed that the Speaker received as much information as
possible on all alternatives for broadcasting before he made a
decision on which system to choose. At this time, two
alternatives--providing for broadcasting by a network pool
arrangement and by in-house system--have been analyzed in depth,
but other possible alternatives have not been investigated
extensively. Such alternatives might include a system operated by
the Public Broadcasting System or by a commission on broadcasting
established by the House.
As soon as practicable after receipt of the report of the
Committee on Rules, the Speaker would devise and implement a system
subject to his discretion and control for the complete and unedited
recordings of all the proceedings of the House. The Speaker shall
provide for distribution of the broadcastings and recordings to the
public and the news media. All of the television and radio
broadcasting stations, networks, services, systems, and individual
correspondents which are accredited to the House Radio and
Television Correspondents' Gallery will have access to the live
coverage of the House.
The resolution prohibits the use of any of the coverage for
political or commercial advertising purposes.
Under the resolution, the Speaker may delegate any of his
responsibility for broadcasting to any legislative entity he deems
appropriate.
The resolution does not provide for a permanent change in the
Rules of the House as did House Resolution 821. The Committee on
Rules made this change to allow more time to evaluate a broadcast
system before a permanent change in the rules was made. The
resolution would provide for broadcasting for the rest of this
Congress, and at the adoption of the rules for the next Congress,
the change in the rules could be made. . . .
Mr. [John] ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to make
clear at the outset that I supported sending this resolution to the
floor under an open rule. But it was the will of a majority of the
Rules Committee to report this as a privileged resolution, and I
accept that decision and support the adoption of House Resolution
866. During our markup on the original resolution we considered,
House Resolution 821, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brooks), the gentleman from California, (Mr. Sisk), and others, I
offered a substitute which, among other things, would have
expressed the sense of the House that broadcast coverage should be
carried by a network pool. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Lott) offered an alternative approach, expressing the sense of the
House that the Public Broadcasting Service should be invited to
provide the coverage. Those two amendments failed.
At that point, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott)
offered the substitute which is before us today as House Resolution
866, which had been developed by him and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sisk), in the spirit of bipartisan compromise. It
is not every thing that many of us may have wanted, but I think it
represents an historic and reasonable beginning.
Last March 15, when the closed-circuit broadcast test began, I
offered a resolution as a question of privilege, directing the
Rules Committee to evaluate the test and report to the House its
findings and recommendations, including a recommendation as to
whether this broadcast coverage should be made available to the
public. This resolution fulfills that mandate. The Rules Committee
has recommended, in this resolution, that as soon as possible after
next February 15, the Speaker shall devise and implement a system
for the broadcast coverage of all our proceedings and make that
coverage available to the public and the news media. Thus, by
adopting this resolution, the House will have the first real
opportunity to go on record in favor of permitting the American
people to view and listen to our debates on their television sets
and radios. . . .
The resolution before us today does not commit the House or the
Speaker to one means of coverage or another, nor did the resolution
introduced by Chairman Brooks. We all recognize that this decision
must ultimately be made by the Speaker. What this resolution does
do is to authorize and direct the Speaker to complete the closed-
circuit broadcast system to all House offices as soon as possible.
In the meantime, the Rules Committee is directed to study the
various alternatives for providing coverage and report its findings
and recommendations to the House no later than February 15, 1978.
As soon thereafter as possible, the Speaker shall devise an
implement a system for broadcast coverage and make this available
to the public and news media. I think it is important to note that
the Speaker will in no way be bound to accept the recommendations
of the Rules Committee, anymore than he will be bound to accept the
recommendations of the select committee. But, it was our feeling in
the Rules Committee that we should fully explore the various
options available--in-House, network pool, and public
broadcasting--lay these out before the House and the Speaker, and
give him the benefit of our best judgment based on our study.
It would also be my hope that the Rules Committee could then
develop and report a House broadcast rule providing guidelines for
broadcasting our proceedings, without in any way impairing the
right of the Speaker to choose the best means for coverage as he
sees fit, or, for that matter, of changing to another method later
on if he thinks it is advisable. . . .
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(71) The question is on the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. John Murtha (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [John] ROUSSELOT [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
342, nays 44, not voting 48, as follows:
[Roll No. 709] . . .
Sec. 6.14 The House has conferred jurisdiction over proposed amendments
to the standing rules of the House to a select committee, which
then reported a resolution embodying various changes to the rules
regarding the House committee structure.
On March 19, 1979,(72) the House adopted the following
resolution creating a select committee to study the committee structure
of the House and report thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. 125 Cong. Rec. 5423-24, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTABLISHING A SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
Mr. [Richard] BOLLING [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up a privileged resolution (H.
Res. 118) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 118
Resolved, That there is hereby established in the House of
Representatives a select committee to be known as the Select Committee on
Committees (hereinafter referred to as the ``select committee'').
functions
Sec. 2. (a) The select committee is authorized and directed to conduct a
thorough and complete study with respect to the operation and
implementation of rules X, XI, and XLVIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives including committee structure of the House, the number of
committees and their jurisdiction, committee rules and procedures, media
coverage of meetings, staffing, space, equipment, and other committee
facilities.
(b) The select committee is authorized and directed to report to the
House by bill, resolution, or otherwise, with respect to any matters
covered in subparagraph (a): Provided, however, That the select committee
shall not report to the House by bill or resolution recommendations
relating to the optimum size of committees, the appropriate committee and
subcommittee assignments, per Member, or the number of subcommittees or
their jurisdictions, but such recommendations may be made to the respective
party caucuses.
appointment and membership
Sec. 3. (a) The select committee shall be composed of fifteen Members of
the House, who shall be appointed by the Speaker; ten from the majority
party and five from the minority party, one of whom he shall designate as
chairman.
(b) Any vacancy occurring In the membership of the select committee shall
be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
authority and procedures
Sec. 4. (a) For the purposes of this title, resolution, the select
committee or any subcommittee thereof is authorized to sit and act during
sessions of the House and during the present Congress at such times and
places whether or not the House has recessed or adjourned.
(b) The provisions of clauses 1, 2, and 3 of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, except the provisions of clause 2(m) relating to
subpoena power, and clause 2(i), shall apply to the select committee.
(c) The majority of the members of the select committee shall constitute
a quorum for the transaction of business, except that two or more shall
constitute a quorum for the purpose of taking testimony.
administrative provisions
Sec. 5. (a) Subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as required by
clause 5 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
select committee may incur expenses in connection with its duties under
this resolution.
(b) In carrying out its functions under this resolution, the select
committee is authorized--
(1) to appoint, either on a permanent basis or as experts or consultants,
such staff as the select committee considers necessary;
(2) to prescribe the duties and responsibilities of such staff;
(3) to fix the compensation of such staff at a single per annum gross
rate which does not exceed the highest rate of basic pay, as in effect from
time to time, of level V of the Executive Schedule in section 5316 of title
5, United States Code; and
(4) to terminate the employment of any such staff as the select committee
considers appropriate.
(c) The select committee and all authority granted in this resolution
shall expire ninety days after the filing of the report of the select
committee with the House.
reports and records
Sec. 6. (a) The select committee shall report to the House on the matters
referred to in section 2 as soon as practicable during the present
Congress, but not later than February 1, 1980.
(b) Any such report which is made when the House is not in session shall
be filed with the Clerk of the House.
(c) The records, files, and materials of the select committee shall be
transferred to the Committee on Rules.
Mr. BOLLING (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Charles] Rose [of North
Carolina]). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
On January 30, 1980,(73) the select committee filed its
report as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
73. 126 Cong. Rec. 1332, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. On March 18, 1980, the
House adopted a special order of business resolution to
structure consideration of this resolution amending the House
rules. See 125 Cong. Rec. 5752, 5755, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. The
amendments to House rules were finally adopted on March 25,
1980. See 126 Cong. Rec. 6405, 6406, 6408-10, 96th Cong. 2d
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were
delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper
calendar, as follows:
Mr. [Jerry] PATTERSON [of California]: Select Committee on
Committees. House Resolution 549. Amending the Rules of the House
of Representatives to establish a standing committee on energy
(Rept. No. 96-741). Referred to the House Calendar.
Sec. 6.15 Pursuant to section 301(c) of the Congressional Budget
Act,(74) a concurrent resolution on the budget reported
from the Committee on the Budget is to be sequentially referred to
the Committee on Rules for not more than five legislative days if
the resolution includes any procedure or matter having the effect
of changing any rule of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
74. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 632(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although this procedure is rarely invoked in modern practice, the
following referral on May 13, 1986,(75) is an example of one
such sequential referral of a concurrent resolution on the budget to
the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. 132 Cong. Rec. 10440, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT ON CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 1987, 1988, AND 1989
Mr. [Kenneth] GRAY of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on the
Budget, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 99-598, Part I) on
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 337) setting forth the
congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years
1987, 1988, and 1989, which was referred to the Committee on Rules
pursuant to subsection 301(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended (Public Law 93-344, as amended by Public Law 99-
177), for a period not to exceed 5 legislative days, for
consideration of such portions of the concurrent resolution as fall
within that committee's jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1(q), rule
X,(76) and ordered to be printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. Parliamentarian's Note: The jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules
is now contained in clause 1(o) of rule X. House Rules and
Manual Sec. 733 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contingent Amendments
Sec. 6.16 Clause 6 of rule XXVIII (now clause 12 of rule
XXII)(77) of the rules of the House, adopted on opening
day of the 94th Congress, became effective by its terms upon
adoption by the Senate of an identical rule relating to open
conference committee meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1093 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 5, 1975,(78) the Senate adopted a rule
relating to conference committee meetings that was identical to a rule
adopted by the House (which the House had adopted on a contingent
basis, to become effective upon notification of the requisite Senate
action):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. 121 Cong. Rec. 35203, 35208-209, 35217-18, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] ROTH [of Delaware]. Mr. President, I call up
amendment No. 968.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.(79) The clerk will report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. William Brock (TN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legislation clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) proposes for himself and others
amendment No. 968.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense
with the further reading of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the resolution, add the following new section:
Sec. . (a) Rule XXVII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
``3. Each conference committee between the Senate and the House of
Representatives shall be open to the public except when the managers of
either the Senate or the House of Representatives in open session determine
by a rollcall vote of a majority of those managers present, that all or
part of the remainder of the meeting on the day of the vote shall be closed
to the public.''.
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not become effective until
a similar rule is adopted by the House of Representatives.
(c) The caption of such rule XXVII is amended to read as follows: . . .
``conference committees; reports; open meetings''.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, amendment No. 968 would require House-
Senate conference committees to be open to the public except when a
majority of either the House or the Senate managers present voted
to close the conference. Similar language has already been adopted
by the House, so that if the Senate passes this amendment and the
resolution, open conference committees would become the rule, not
the exception. . . .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Delaware.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. . . .
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 6, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 469 Leg.] . . .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the
resolution, as amended. On this question the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll. . . .
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 470 Leg.] . . .
Sec. 6.17 The House considered and passed a bill (later enacted into
law) containing statutory House procedures and also directly
amending House rules to require ``tax complexity analysis'' to
accompany certain legislation.(80)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
80. Parliamentarian's Note: A change in the rules of the House that is
proposed in a bill does not become effective until the bill
becomes law. This bill became law on July 22, 1998 (P.L. 105-
206; 112 Stat. 685). The new clause 2(l)(8) of rule XI (now
clause 3(h) of rule XIII) became effective January 1, 1999. See
House Rules and Manual Sec. 849 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 5, 1997,(81) the House considered and passed
a bill containing the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
81. 143 Cong. Rec. 24564, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. For House adoption of
the conference report on this bill, see 144 Cong. Rec. 13573-
74, 13601, 13661-62, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (June 24, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle C--Tax Law Complexity . . .
SEC. 422. TAX COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS.
(a) Requiring Analysis to Accompany Certain Legislation.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 92 (relating to powers and duties of the Joint
Committee on Taxation) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 8024. TAX COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS.
``(a) In General.--If--
``(1) a bill or joint resolution is reported by the Committee on Finance
of the Senate, the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives, or any committee of conference, and
``(2) such legislation includes any provision amending the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986,
the report for such legislation shall contain a Tax Complexity Analysis
unless the committee involved causes to have the Tax Complexity Analysis
printed in the Congressional Record prior to the consideration of the
legislation in the House of Representatives or the Senate (as the case may
be).
``(b) Legislation Subject to Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in
the Senate to consider any bill or joint resolution described in subsection
(a) required to be accompanied by a Tax Complexity Analysis that does not
contain a Tax Complexity Analysis.
``(c) Responsibilities of the Commissioner.--The Commissioner shall
provide the Joint Committee on Taxation with such information as is
necessary to prepare Tax Complexity Analyses.
``(d) Tax Complexity Analysis Defined.--For purposes of this section, the
term `Tax Complexity Analysis' means, with respect to a bill or joint
resolution, a report which is prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation
and which identifies the provisions of the legislation adding significant
complexity or providing significant simplification (as determined by the
Joint Committee) and includes the basis for such determination.''
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 92 is amended
by adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 8024. Tax complexity analysis.''
(b) Legislation Subject to Point of Order in House of Representatives.--
(1) Legislation reported by committee on ways and means.--Clause 2(l) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(8) The report of the Committee on Ways and Means on any bill or joint
resolution containing any provision amending the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 shall include a Tax Complexity Analysis prepared by the Joint
Committee on Taxation in accordance with section 8024 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 unless the Committee on Ways and Means causes to have
such Analysis printed in the Congressional Record prior to the
consideration of the bill or joint resolution.''.
(2) Conference reports.--Rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``7. It shall not be in order to consider the report of a committee of
conference which contains any provision amending the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 unless--
``(a) the accompanying joint explanatory statement contains a Tax
Complexity Analysis prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation in
accordance with section 8024 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or
``(b) such Analysis is printed in the Congressional Record prior to the
consideration of the report.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to
legislation considered on or after January 1, 1998.
Vacating or Reversing Amendments to Rules
Sec. 6.18 Following House consideration (by unanimous consent) and
adoption of a resolution amending the standing rules, the House
later reversed that action by adopting a special order of business
resolution (reported by the Committee on Rules) vacating the
adoption of the original resolution and laying said resolution on
the table.
On April 22, 1986,(82) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request to consider a resolution amending the rules of the
House (which was adopted):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
82. 132 Cong. Rec. 8328, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE TO INCREASE AMOUNT OF OUTSIDE
EARNED INCOME WHICH A MEMBER MAY ACCEPT
Mr. [John] MURTHA [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 427) amending the Rules of the House of
Representatives to increase the amount of outside earned income
which a Member may accept, and I ask unanimous consent for its
immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER.(83) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 427
Resolved, That clause 1 of rule XLVII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by striking out ``which is in excess'' and all
that follows in both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) and inserting in lieu
thereof in each instance ``in excess of the percentage of the aggregate
salary as a Member, paid to the Member during such calendar year, to which
such outside earned income is limited by law.''.
Sec. 2. The amendments made by the first section of this resolution shall
take effect on January 1, 1986.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
Mr. [John] HILER [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right
to object, could we be enlightened as to what the gentleman's
resolution is about?
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HILER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, this has been cleared by the
leadership on both sides. It just changes the rules to bring them
into closer compliance with the Senate rules.
The intent of this amendment to the House rule is to change the
current 30-percent limitation to 40 percent.
Mr. HILER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
On April 23, 1986,(84) a Member asked unanimous consent
to consider a resolution reversing this change to the House rules, but
such request was objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
84. 132 Cong. Rec. 8443, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] DURBIN [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 431) amending clause 1, rule XLVII of the Rules
of the House, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate
consideration.
The SPEAKER.(85) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
85. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 431
Resolved, That clause 1 of Rule XLVII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives be amended to read as follows:
1. (a) Except as provided by paragraph (b), no Member may, in any
calendar year beginning after December 31, 1978, have outside earned income
attributable to such calendar year which is in excess of 30 per centum of
the aggregate salary as a Member paid to the Member during such calendar
year.
(b) In the case of any individual who becomes a Member during any
calendar year beginning after December 31, 1978, such Member may not have
outside earned income attributable to the portion of that calendar year
which occurs after such individual becomes a Member which is in excess of
30 per centum of the aggregate salary as a Member paid to the Member during
such calendar year.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Illinois?
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. [Trent] LOTT [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman who offered the objection
stand?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman objects. Objection is heard.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, is there any procedure presently
available before the House to consider this resolution which would
restore the language of rule XLVII to exactly the same language as
it was?
The SPEAKER. The matter may be referred to the Rules Committee,
and if there is a report, a two-thirds vote will bring it to the
floor today, and if there is approval on the minority side we will
bring the matter to the floor this afternoon.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, will it be brought to the floor this
afternoon?
The SPEAKER. It is the intention to refer the matter to the
Rules Committee. The Chair cannot dictate what the Rules Committee
is going to do, but it will recommend to the Rules Committee.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Speaker.
Later on the same day,(86) the Committee on Rules
reported a special order of business resolution that vacated the
adoption of the original resolution amending the rules, and laid said
resolution on the table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86. 132 Cong. Rec. 8474-75, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at 2:30 p.m. -------------------
VACATING THE PROCEEDINGS BY WHICH HOUSE RESOLUTION 427 WAS
ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE ON APRIL 22, 1986 AND PROVIDING THAT SAID
RESOLUTION SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN LAID ON THE TABLE
Mr. [Claude] PEPPER [of Florida], from the Committee on Rules,
reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 432, Rept.
99-553) which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed:
H. Res. 432
Resolved, That the proceedings by which H. Res. 427 was adopted by the
House on April 22, 1986 are hereby vacated, and said resolution shall be
considered to have been laid on the table.
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 432 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution.
The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House now consider House
Resolution 432?
The question was taken.
Mr. [John] MURTHA [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. The resolution
requires a two-thirds vote for passage.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
333, nays 68, not voting 32, as follows: . . .
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House agreed
to consider House Resolution 432.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. . . .
Mr. PEPPER. House Resolution 427 was adopted yesterday and lays
the resolution on the table. As my colleagues are aware, yesterday
a resolution passed this House that had the effect of lifting the
limitation on outside earned income for Members. The resolution now
before the Members would restore the limitations that were in place
before yesterday's action. In other words, House Resolution 432
would reimpose the 30-percent limitation on outside earned income
for Members by vitiating the action taken by the House.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Members are concerned about the
absence of full legislative scrutiny of the amendment to the rules
of the House adopted yesterday. There is a general consensus that
the sensitive issues of Members' compensation and outside income
should be addressed through careful study and deliberation.
The committee wishes to make the legislative intent in this
matter clear. The committee's action in reporting this resolution
should not be viewed as an endorsement of the previous rule setting
a ceiling on outside income of 30 percent of a Members' pay. Nor
should it be viewed as a rejection of the 40-percent limit adopted
by the House yesterday, or of any other higher or lower limit which
might be proposed in any subsequent legislation, subject to the
normal procedure. The resolution presented today simply responds to
the concerns I have discussed, by restoring the status quo. The
committee views it as important to do so promptly, to avoid
arousing passions about matters which should be reviewed with care
and sensitivity.
The controversy surrounding the previous resolution, and the
pending matter, make it clear that the current limit on outside
income, and the disparate practices of the two Houses, are issues
of some importance, which deserve to be addressed through
subsequent hearings and study in appropriate legislative fora.
The Committee on Rules, and other committees of appropriate
jurisdiction, will continue their legislative and oversight reviews
of the issues of Members' pay and allowances, limitations and
standards governing honoraria and other outside income, and
comparability of these matters between the two Chambers.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 6.19 The House adopted a special order of business ``hereby''
adopting a resolution returning certain ethics rules of the House
to their status quo ante from the previous Congress.(87)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
87. Parliamentarian's Note: On opening day of the 109th Congress, the
House adopted standing rules that made several changes to the
operation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
(now the Committee on Ethics) as compared to the prior
Congress. These changes proved controversial and the House
later agreed to this special order returning the rules to their
earlier form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2005,(88) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
88. 151 Cong. Rec. 8036, 8044-46, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO REINSTATE
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE RULES RELATING TO PROCEDURES OF THE
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT TO THE FORM IN WHICH
THOSE PROVISIONS EXISTED AT THE CLOSE OF THE 108th CONGRESS
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California], from the Committee on
Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 109-59) on the
resolution (H. Res. 241) providing for the adoption of the
resolution (H. Res. 240) amending the Rules of the House of
Representatives to reinstate certain provisions of the rules
relating to procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to the form in which those provisions existed at the close
of the 108th Congress, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 241 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 241
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, House Resolution 240 is
hereby adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]). The
question is, Will the House now consider House Resolution 241.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 241.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from
Rochester, New York, the distinguished ranking minority Member of
the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides that upon its adoption, House
Resolution 240 will be adopted. This will take us back to the 108th
Congress's rules with regard to ethics, word for word, comma for
comma, exactly the same rules that existed in the 108th Congress. .
. .
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. [Louise] SLAUGHTER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
406, nays 20, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 145] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House
Resolution 241, House Resolution 240 is adopted.
The text of H. Res. 240 is as follows:
H. Res. 240
Resolved, That clause 3 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives (relating to the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct) is amended as follows:
(1) Subparagraph (2) of paragraph (b) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Except in the case of an investigation undertaken by the committee
on its own initiative, the committee may undertake an investigation
relating to the official conduct of an individual Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House only--
``(A) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, in writing and
under oath, from a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner and
transmitted to the committee by such Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner; or
``(B) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, in writing and
under oath, from a person not a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
provided that a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner certifies in
writing to the committee that he believes the information is submitted in
good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the committee.
If a complaint is not disposed of within the applicable periods set forth
in the rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the
chairman and ranking minority member shall establish jointly an
investigative subcommittee and forward the complaint, or any portion
thereof, to that subcommittee for its consideration. However, if at any
time during those periods either the chairman or ranking minority member
places on the agenda the issue of whether to establish an investigative
subcommittee, then an investigative subcommittee may be established only by
an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the committee.''.
(2) Paragraph (k) is amended to read as follows:
``Duties of chairman and ranking minority member regarding properly filed
complaints
``(k)(l) The committee shall adopt rules providing that whenever the
chairman and ranking minority member jointly determine that information
submitted to the committee meets the requirements of the rules of the
committee for what constitutes a complaint, they shall have 45 calendar
days or five legislative days, whichever is later, after that determination
(unless the committee by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members
votes otherwise) to--
``(A) recommend to the committee that it dispose of the complaint, or any
portion thereof, in any manner that does not require action by the House,
which may include dismissal of the complaint or resolution of the complaint
by a letter to the Member, officer, or employee of the House against whom
the complaint is made;
``(B) establish an investigative subcommittee; or
``(C) request that the committee extend the applicable 45-calendar day or
five-legislative day period by one additional 45-calendar day period when
they determine more time is necessary in order to make a recommendation
under subdivision (A).
``(2) The committee shall adopt rules providing that if the chairman and
ranking minority member jointly determine that information submitted to the
committee meets the requirements of the rules of the committee for what
constitutes a complaint, and the complaint is not disposed of within the
applicable time periods under subparagraph (1), then they shall establish
an investigative subcommittee and forward the complaint, or any portion
thereof, to that subcommittee for its consideration. However, if, at any
time during those periods, either the chairman or ranking minority member
places on the agenda the issue of whether to establish an investigative
subcommittee, then an investigative subcommittee may be established only by
an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the committee.''.
(3) Paragraphs (p) and (q) are amended to read as follows:
``Due process rights of respondents
``(p) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that--
``(1) not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote by an
investigative subcommittee on a statement of alleged violation, the
subcommittee shall provide the respondent with a copy of the statement of
alleged violation it intends to adopt together with all evidence it intends
to use to prove those charges which it intends to adopt, including
documentary evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness interviews,
and physical evidence, unless the subcommittee by an affirmative vote of a
majority of its members decides to withhold certain evidence in order to
protect a witness; but if such evidence is withheld, the subcommittee shall
inform the respondent that evidence is being withheld and of the count to
which such evidence relates;
``(2) neither the respondent nor his counsel shall, directly or
indirectly, contact the subcommittee or any member thereof during the
period of time set forth in paragraph (1) except for the sole purpose of
settlement discussions where counsel for the respondent and the
subcommittee are present;
``(3) if, at any time after the issuance of a statement of alleged
violation, the committee or any subcommittee thereof determines that it
intends to use evidence not provided to a respondent under paragraph (1) to
prove the charges contained in the statement of alleged violation (or any
amendment thereof), such evidence shall be made immediately available to
the respondent, and it may be used in any further proceeding under the
rules of the committee;
``(4) evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (1) or (3) shall be made
available to the respondent and his or her counsel only after each agrees,
in writing, that no document, information, or other materials obtained
pursuant to that paragraph shall be made public until--
``(A) such time as a statement of alleged violation is made public by the
committee if the respondent has waived the adjudicatory hearing; or
``(B) the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing if the respondent has
not waived an adjudicatory hearing;
but the failure of respondent and his counsel to so agree in writing, and
their consequent failure to receive the evidence, shall not preclude the
issuance of a statement of alleged violation at the end of the period
referred to in paragraph (1);
``(5) a respondent shall receive written notice whenever--
``(A) the chairman and ranking minority member determine that information
the committee has received constitutes a complaint;
``(B) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an investigative
subcommittee;
``(C) an investigative subcommittee votes to authorize its first subpoena
or to take testimony under oath, whichever occurs first; or
``(D) an investigative subcommittee votes to expand the scope of its
investigation;
``(6) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a statement of
alleged violation and a respondent enters into an agreement with that
subcommittee to settle a complaint on which that statement is based, that
agreement, unless the respondent requests otherwise, shall be in writing
and signed by the respondent and respondent's counsel, the chairman and
ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and the outside counsel, if
any;
``(7) statements or information derived solely from a respondent or his
counsel during any settlement discussions between the committee or a
subcommittee thereof and the respondent shall not be included in any report
of the subcommittee or the committee or otherwise publicly disclosed
without the consent of the respondent; and
``(8) whenever a motion to establish an investigative subcommittee does
not prevail, the committee shall promptly send a letter to the respondent
informing him of such vote.
``Committee reporting requirements
``(q) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that--
``(1) whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a statement
of alleged violation and transmits a report to that effect to the
committee, the committee may by an affirmative vote of a majority of its
members transmit such report to the House of Representatives;
``(2) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a statement of
alleged violation, the respondent admits to the violations set forth in
such statement, the respondent waives his or her right to an adjudicatory
hearing, and the respondent's waiver is approved by the committee--
``(A) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for transmittal to the
committee, a final draft of which shall be provided to the respondent not
less than 15 calendar days before the subcommittee votes on whether to
adopt the report;
``(B) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding the final
draft to the subcommittee within seven calendar days of receipt of that
draft;
``(C) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the committee regarding
the statement of alleged violation together with any views submitted by the
respondent pursuant to subdivision (B), and the committee shall make the
report together with the respondent's views available to the public before
the commencement of any sanction hearing; and
``(D) the committee shall by an affirmative vote of a majority of its
members issue a report and transmit such report to the House of
Representatives, together with the respondent's views previously submitted
pursuant to subdivision (B) and any additional views respondent may submit
for attachment to the final report; and
``(3) members of the committee shall have not less than 72 hours to
review any report transmitted to the committee by an investigative
subcommittee before both the commencement of a sanction hearing and the
committee vote on whether to adopt the report.''.
Germaneness
Sec. 6.20 To a resolution amending several clauses of a rule of the
House, but confined in its scope to the issue of access to
committee meetings and hearings, an amendment to another clause of
that rule relating to committee staffing was held not germane.
On March 7, 1973,(89) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
89. 119 Cong. Rec. 6714, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of Illinois: On page 2, line 24, add a
new section 4, to read as follows:
Clause 32(c) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) The minority party on any such standing committee is entitled, upon
request of a majority of such minority, to up to one-third of the funds
provided for the appointment of committee staff pursuant to each primary or
additional expense resolution. The committee shall appoint any persons so
selected whose character and qualifications are acceptable to a majority of
the committee. If the committee determines that the character and
qualifications of any person so selected are unacceptable to the committee,
a majority of the minority party members may select other persons for
appointment by the committee to the staff until such appointment is made.
Each staff member appointed under this subparagraph shall be assigned to
such committee business as the minority party members of the committee
consider advisable.''
point of order
Mr. [John] McFALL [of California]. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make
a point of order against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN.(90) The gentleman will state his point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
90. Joseph Waggonner (LA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McFALL. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the matter that
we are considering. The matter that we are considering has to do
with access to committee meetings, and the amendment has to do with
staff makeups, and they are entirely two different subject matters.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois wish to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be
heard on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 259,
the resolution we are considering today amends two clauses in rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. I am proposing
another amendment to rule XI, namely the provision dealing with
minority staffing of committees.
I contend this amendment is germane and in order. Having only
Cannon's Procedure of the 87th Congress available to me, I quote
from page 201 of that volume dealing with germaneness:
But where the bill proposes to amend existing law in several particulars,
no arbitrary rule can be laid down either admitting or excluding further
amendments to the law not proposed in the pending bill, but the question of
the germaneness of such additional amendments must be determined in each
instance on the merits of the case presented (VIII, 2938).
This ruling was made by Chairman Sydney Anderson of Minnesota
on June 10, 1921. I quote from volume VIII of the Precedents:
The Chair does not think that the general rule can be laid down that
where several portions of a law are amended by a bill reported by a
committee, it is not in any case in order to amend another section of the
bill not included in the bill reported by the committee, nor does the Chair
think that the opposite rule can be laid down and rigidly applied in every
instance. The Chair thinks that a question of this kind must be determined
in every instance in the light of the facts which are presented in the
case. In the particular case under consideration it appears that the
committee has reported a bill which amends several sections of Title IV of
the bill in various particulars. The Chair does not feel that he can hold
that no amendment to a section not dealt with by the committee is not in
order.
Mr. Chairman, I feel my amendment would clearly be in order.
Mr. Chairman, the substitute rule would not make it possible
for any other amendments to be made to rule XI.
It seems to me this further argues in favor of the germaneness
of this particular amendment. I ask that the point of order be
overruled.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Waggonner). The Chair is prepared to rule.
House Resolution 259, while it technically amends two different
clauses of rule XI, relates solely to the single subject of public
access to House committee meetings and hearings. Thus, amendments
to other portions of rule XI pertaining to committee jurisdiction
such as staffing, and procedures other than access to hearings and
meetings would not be germane.
Under the precedents, the fact that a bill amends several
sections of a law does not necessarily open the whole law to
amendment. The purpose and scope of the bill must be considered. In
the 89th Congress, the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration a bill amending the National Labor Relations Act to
repeal section 14(b) of that law. On that occasion, in several
rulings by Chairman O'Brien of New York, the principle was
reintegrated that where a bill is amendatory of existing law in
several particulars, but relates to a single subject affected
thereby, amendments proposing to modify the law but not related to
the bill are not germane (Congressional Record, volume 111, part
14, pages 18631-18645).
For this reason, the chair holds that the amendment is not
germane and sustains the point of order.
Sec. 6.21 To a proposition reorganizing House committees and dealing
with the committee stage of the legislative process, an amendment
relating to voting procedures in the Committee of the Whole was
held not germane.
On October 8, 1974,(91) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. 120 Cong. Rec. 34415-16, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jonathan] BINGHAM [of New York]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bingham to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington: On page 53, after line 2,
insert the following:
``PAIRS IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.
``Sec. 209. The first sentence of clause 2 of rule VIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives is amended by inserting `by the House or
Committee of the Whole' immediately before the first comma.''
point of order
Mr. [Neal] SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN.(92) The Chair will be glad to hear the
gentleman's point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
92. William Natcher (KY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the amendment for the reason that it is an amendment to
rule VIII, whereas the principal resolution under consideration
here, House Resolution 988, attempts to amend rules X and XI only.
Therefore, the amendment is not germane.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. BINGHAM. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the amendment was sufficiently
noncontroversial so that the point of order would not be made, and
I do want to be heard on it.
This would amend title II of the resolution, which is headed,
``Miscellaneous and Conforming Provisions.'' That title of the
resolution is not limited to changes in rules X and XI. It affects
other rules, section 207, for example, amendment to rule XVI, and
under the heading of ``Miscellaneous and Conforming Provisions,''
it would seem to me that a simple amendment to rule VII would
clearly be in order.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Natcher). The Chair is ready to rule.
On hearing the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham), the Chair is of the opinion
that there is nothing in the Hansen amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as perfected, relating to voting procedures in the
Committee of the Whole. The miscellaneous provisions in the Hansen
amendment, as perfected by the Waggonner amendment, do not broaden
the Hansen amendment to the extent suggested by the gentleman from
New York.
Therefore, the point of order must be sustained, and the point
of order is sustained.
Sec. 6.22 To a bill authorizing funding for the intelligence community
for one fiscal year and making diverse changes in permanent law
relating to sundry authorities of the Central Intelligence Agency
and the Department of Defense (but devoid of any changes to House
rules), an amendment proposing a change in the rules of the House
relating to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not
germane.
On June 11, 1991,(93) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
93. 137 Cong. Rec. 14206-207, 102d Cong. 1st Sess. For another
germaneness ruling on this bill regarding the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, see 137 Cong. Rec. 14207, 102d Cong.
1st Sess. (June 11, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amendment offered by mr. shuster
Mr. [Bud] SHUSTER [of Pennsylvania]. Madam Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster: Page 8, after line 15, add the
following new section at the end of Title IV:
SEC. 403. OATH OF SECRECY.
In order to promote an enhanced consciousness by the Members and staff of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of their special
responsibilities for the protection of sensitive classified intelligence
information, and thereby to promote an increased readiness on the part of
the Executive Branch to provide information to the Committee necessary for
it to most effectively carry out its legislative and oversight
responsibilities for programs for which funds are authorized in this Act,
Rule XLVIII (Rule 48) of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended--
(a) at the end of clause 1 by adding the following new paragraph:
``(d) At the time a Member is appointed to serve on the select committee,
or within thirty days after the adoption by the House of this provision,
whichever is later, the member shall take the following oath:
``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not directly or indirectly
disclose to any unauthorized person any classified information received in
the course of my duties on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
except with the formal approval of the committee or of the House.''
The oath shall be administered by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. The Clerk of the House of Representatives of the One
Hundred Second Congress and each succeeding Congress shall cause this oath
to be printed, furnishing two copies to each Member appointed to the select
committee who has taken this oath, which shall be subscribed to by the
Member, who shall deliver them to the Clerk, one to be filed in the records
of the House of Representatives, and the other to be recorded in the
Journal of the House and in the Congressional Record.'':
(b) at the end of clause 5 by adding the following new sentences: ``Each
employee of the select committee and any person engaged by contract or
otherwise to perform services for or at the request of the select committee
who is required to subscribe to the agreement in writing referred to in the
first sentence of this clause shall, at the time of signing or within
thrifty days after the adoption by the House of this provision, whichever
is later, also take the oath set out in clause 1(d) of this rule. The oath
shall be administered by the chairman or by any member of the committee or
of the committee staff designated by the chairman. The Clerk of the House
of Representatives of the One Hundred Second and each succeeding Congress
shall cause this oath to be printed, furnishing two copies to each of such
persons taking this oath, which shall be subscribed by each such person,
who shall deliver them to the Clerk, one to be filed in the records of the
House of Representatives, and the other to be recorded in the Journal of
the House and in the Congressional Record.'':
(c) in clause 7(d) by inserting immediately after the words ``paragraph
(c)'' the words ``or of the oath required by clause 1(d) or by clause 5,''
and by adding immediately after the last sentence of clause 7(d) the
following new sentences: ``The select committee may refer cases of
unauthorized disclosure and violations of the required oaths to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for investigation. While a
member of the committee is the subject of such a pending investigation, the
select committee may determine by majority vote that the member shall not
be given access to classified information.'': and
(d) by adding the following new sentence at the end of clause 7(e): ``If
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct determines that any member
of the select committee or any person on its staff who is the subject of
any such investigation has violated the oath required by clause 1(d) or
clause 5, such person shall be permanently expelled from membership on the
select committee or have his employment in any capacity by the select
committee terminated permanently, as the case may be, in addition to being
subject to such other actions as the House may determine are
appropriate.''.
Mr. SHUSTER (during the reading), Madam Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN.(94) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
94. Louise Slaughter (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
point of order
Mr. [David] McCURDY [of Oklahoma]. Madam Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment.
Madam Chairman, the amendment proposes a change in the rules of
the House. Changes in House rules are outside of the jurisdiction
of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules. H.R. 2038 therefore
contains no changes to House rules.
The amendment fails the test of committee jurisdiction under
section 798c of the Rules and Practices of the House of
Representatives by including matters within the jurisdiction of a
committee not reporting the bill, the Committee on Rules. As a
result, the amendment is not germane, and therefore it violates
clause 7 of rule XVI (16).
Madam Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I regret that once again the House
will not apparently be given the opportunity to vote on this
amendment, and I am prepared for the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Madam Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to speak on the point of
order?
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Chairman, did the gentleman reserve a point
of order or did he make a point of order?
Mr. McCURDY. I made a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has made a point of order.
Mr. SOLOMON. So it is not debatable and I cannot engage in a
colloquy with the sponsor of the amendment then?
The CHAIRMAN (Ms. Slaughter of New York). The gentleman is
correct.
The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order of the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy].
For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Oklahoma, and
based on the Chair's ruling of May 1, 1991, on the question, the
Chair agrees that this amendment is not germane to the bill before
the committee and, accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
Amendments as Legislation on Appropriation Bills
Sec. 6.23 While an amendment to a general appropriation bill which has
the direct effect of changing a rule of the House may be ruled out
as legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI,(95)
an amendment which merely restricts the availability of funds in
the bill for the implementation of one aspect of a discretionary
authority conferred upon a House official by rule (but which does
not by its terms directly change that authority) may be in order as
a proper limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
95. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1038 (2019). For an earlier
annunciation of this principle regarding changes to House rules
constituting legislation, see 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3819.
See also generally, Deschler's Precedents Ch. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 14, 1978,(96) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
96. 124 Cong. Rec. 17661-62, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Adam] BENJAMIN [of Indiana]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Benjamin: On page 32, after line 7, insert the
following:
Sec. 306. No funds in this bill may be used to implement a system for
televising and broadcasting the proceedings of the House pursuant to House
Resolution 866, 95th Congress, under which the TV cameras in the Chamber
are controlled and operated by persons not in the employ of the House.
Mr. [William] ARMSTRONG [of Colorado]. Mr. Chairman, I reserve
a point of order against the amendment. . . .
The CHAIRMAN.(97) Before the Chair hears other
Members, the Chair would like to determine what the point of order
is and dispose of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
97. Daniel Rostenkowski (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the gentleman's amendment that it is violative of the rules of the
House, in this respect: That if the amendment were adopted, it
would alter a rule of the House. I refer to that rule of the House
which was adopted on October 27, 1977, in House Resolution 866. In
3 pages, more or less, the House on that date adopted a rule
providing for the implementation of a system of audio and visual
broadcasting, and so on.
In this proposed amendment, very clearly, we are changing that
existing rule, perhaps in a way that some Members will consider to
be desirable, but, nonetheless, we are making a change in the rule
itself. It is the equivalent of legislation on an appropriation
bill.
I would suggest to the Chair and to my colleagues that if we
would permit this to happen, other rules of the House could be
similarly amended and, certainly, that is a precedent the Chair
does not want to set.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Chair rule the amendment out
of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Benjamin).
Mr. BENJAMIN. Mr. Chairman, to respond to the point of order
raised by our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Armstrong), House Resolution 866, adopted on October 27, 1977,
provided for amending the rules of the House. It was a resolution
adopted by this body, indicating the procedure by which the Speaker
of the House was entitled to devise and implement a system for
broadcast coverage. The resolution provided that the Speaker could
make his determination, and a report by the Committee on Rules was
to be delivered no later than February 15, 1978. That has been
accomplished.
The gentleman from Indiana, who has offered this amendment,
does not believe that we really need to have an amendment, because
he believes that the Speaker has the authority. However, the
question has been raised by Members of this body on a continuing
basis, as late as last evening in a special order delivered by the
gentleman from Illinois, that there has been a promise of a vote
and a determination by this body.
This is a restriction on funding within the appropriations
bill. The restriction is merely that no funds could be used for the
operation of cameras by a non-employee of the House. These
restrictions on funding are allowed along with the rules. It has no
relationship to House Resolution 866, and I would urge the Chair to
find that the amendment is in order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Benjamin) clearly does not amend any rule of the House, as he has
very carefully stated. It is a negative restriction on the use of
funds in the fiscal year covered by the bill.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 6.24 An amendment to a general appropriation bill requiring random
drug testing of legislative branch personnel was held to propose
legislation and ruled out of order under clause 2 of rule
XXI.(98)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
98. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1038 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 5, 1991,(99) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
99. 137 Cong. Rec. 13587-88, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amendment offered by mr. solomon
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 40, after line 21, insert the
following new section:
``Sec. 313. (a) Each House of Congress, and each other entity within the
legislative branch, shall establish and implement a random controlled
substances testing program for employees and officers, whether appointed or
otherwise, within their respective bodies.
(b) For the purpose of this section, the term ``controlled substance''
has the meaning given such term by section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act.
Mr. [Victor] FAZIO [of California]. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order against the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN.(100) The gentleman from California
[Mr. Fazio] reserves a point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
100. Brian Donnelly (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
point of order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]
wish to be heard on his reservation of a point of order?
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the House does
feel very deeply about the problem of drug abuse. We have a policy
which has been promulgated by our Speaker, put into effect on
October 2, 1990. I will place that in the Record:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 2, 1990.
Dear Colleague: Substance abuse is a serious problem affecting
many Americans throughout our Nation. The House of Representatives,
as a governmental institution employing several thousand
individuals, is committed to providing our employees, and those we
serve, with a drug-free workplace. This statement is intended to
articulate the policy designed to meet that goal.
The unauthorized possession, use, or distribution of controlled
substances in the offices of the House of Representatives is
violative of applicable laws. Furthermore, if such violations occur
in the offices of the House of Representatives, it does not reflect
creditably on the House of Representatives. Each employing
authority in the House shall take appropriate action which may
include termination or other properly available employment action,
when such use, possession, or distribution occurs, depending upon
the specific facts and circumstances of any such instance. It is
fundamental to the employer-employee relationship that any policy
concerning remedies with respect to possession or use of controlled
substances in the workplace be administered in a humanitarian
fashion. Therefore, in the administration of this drug-free
workplace policy, remedial measures, such as counseling and
rehabilitation, as well as the full range of properly available
employment actions, may be and should be considered. With respect
to counseling and rehabilitative services the Employee Assistance
Program which is being established under the auspices of the Clerk
of the House will provide one internally available resource for
such services.
This policy is designed to ensure that workplaces in the House
of Representatives be, in a manner consistent with law, free from
the illegal use, possession, or distribution of controlled
substances (as defined by the Controlled Substances Act) by the
Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker.
But at this point, I cannot accept the authorization language
on this appropriation bill.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment,
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violated
clause 2 of rule XXI.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I recognized that
a point of order legitimately lies against the amendment, and
rather than appeal to the Chair on something I know is correct,
why, I am going to accept the ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Donnelly). The Chair will rule that, for the
reason stated by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the
point of order is sustained.
Sec. 7. Statutory Rulemaking
In prior years, it was rare for Congress to enact legislation that
contained provisions involving congressional rulemaking. The rationale
was simply that the procedural rules of the House or Senate are
internal matters for each body, to be adopted by simple resolution of
each House (rather than by bills or joint resolutions enacted into
law).(1) Notable exceptions came in the form of major
legislative branch reorganizations, such as the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946(2) and the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Parliamentarian's Note: In the early years of Congress, the House
and Senate would sometimes adopt joint rules to govern
situations that required concurrent action (primarily
addressing the enrollment and certification of legislative
measures). 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3430. However, in 1876,
these rules were abrogated and subsequent attempts to reinstate
them were unsuccessful. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6782-
6789. Joint rules are not used in modern practice, with the
exception of the law governing the counting of electoral votes
for President and Vice President (whose procedures are made a
joint rule of the two Houses by incorporation by reference in a
concurrent resolution). See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 3
and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 10 Sec. 2.6. The Committee on
Rules retains jurisdiction over joint rules. Rule X, clause
1(o)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 733 (2019).
2. P.L. 79-601; 60 Stat. 812.
3. P.L. 91-510; 84 Stat. 1140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in the 1970s, however, Congress began to more fully
assert its power of review over executive branch and independent
agencies of the government. One method of exercising that power was to
provide, in law, the possibility of a ``congressional veto'' in
response to certain actions taken by executive branch officials. One of
the more noteworthy early examples of this type of law is the War
Powers Resolution,(4) which provides procedures for Congress
to direct the removal of military forces engaged in hostilities. The
intent was to provide a more active role for Congress in supervising
the use of military force by the executive branch in the absence of a
formal declaration of war. Many other laws containing congressional
procedures have been enacted since the 1970s, and the House Rules and
Manual currently carries 35 separate laws containing some form of
expedited procedures for congressional consideration of
legislation.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 50 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1544-1546.
5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1130 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the House adopts new rules at the beginning of each Congress, it
is not bound by legislative procedures contained in law unless it
affirmatively agrees to be so bound. The House routinely does so in the
resolution adopting the standing rules of the House, which typically
states that ``applicable provisions of law or concurrent resolution
that constituted rules of the House'' at the end of the previous
Congress shall be considered rules of the House in the current
Congress.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See, e.g., 163 Cong. Rec. H7 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These provisions of law regarding congressional procedure have
provided for action by both Houses of Congress (in the form of a joint
or concurrent resolution), one House of Congress alone (by simple
resolution), or a committee of one of the Houses. However, the Supreme
Court's decision in the Chadha case(7) rendered
unconstitutional certain types of actions that could be taken by one
House alone. The Court also affirmed several lower court decisions
invalidating provisions involving mere simple or concurrent
resolutions, or actions taken by committees of Congress.(8)
In response, Congress has updated some of these earlier laws to provide
that the ``congressional veto'' may be exercised only by joint
resolution signed by the President.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919
(1983).
8. See, e.g., Consumer Energy Council of America, et al. v. FERC, 673
F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1982), aff'd 463 U.S. 1216 (1983).
9. See, e.g., P.L. 101-382; 104 Stat. 629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The particular procedures vary from statute to statute, but most
can be described as expediting some kind of congressional action. For
example, statutory procedures may mandate the introduction of some
particular piece of legislation (such as a resolution of disapproval)
and referral to a particular committee.(10) They may also
provide deadlines for committees to report legislation back to the
House, with discharge procedures available for committees that fail to
report.(11) Another common procedure contained in such
statutes is to give privileged status to particular motions to expedite
floor consideration.(12) Once on the floor for debate,
statutory procedures may restrict the amount of debate,(13)
who may be recognized to debate,(14) and/or what amendments
may be offered.(15) Finally, statutory procedures may
restrict the offering of particular motions that may cause delay, such
as the motion to reconsider.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. Sec. 910(a).
11. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1306(b)(4).
12. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2159(a).
13. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1823(c)(4)(A).
14. See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2191(f)(2).
15. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2160e(e)(4)(C).
16. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. Sec. 912(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the House has always reiterated its acceptance of these
statutory procedures (by affirmatively making them applicable as rules
of the House when adopting the standing rules), nothing prevents the
House from altering or waiving those congressional procedures contained
in law at a later time. As they operate as mere rules of the House,
they can be changed by a simple resolution of the House or other House
order, and need not be addressed by the enactment of a law. Thus, the
House has, from time to time, adopted resolutions waiving or altering
statutory procedures.(17) The House has also adopted
separate orders (contained in the resolution adopting the standing
rules) that waive or alter the applicability of statutory procedures,
often for the duration of that Congress.(18) The Committee
on Rules retains jurisdiction over statutory rulemaking.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See, e.g., H. Res. 231, 161 Cong. Rec. 6002-6003, 114th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Apr. 30, 2015); H. Res. 391, 159 Cong. Rec. 16368, 113th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Oct. 29, 2013); and H. Res. 1092, 154 Cong.
Rec. 5640, 110th Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 10, 2008).
18. See Sec. 8, infra.
19. For an exchange of letters between the Committee on Rules and a
legislative committee regarding expedited congressional
procedures contained in proposed legislation, see 160 Cong.
Rec. 8528, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 20, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 104th Congress, after a significant reorganization of the
committee system, Congress enacted a law to update the names of
committees contained in various statutory rulemaking
provisions.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See H.R. 1421, 141 Cong. Rec. 10698-99, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr.
6, 1995). The bill was signed into law as P.L. 104-14; 109
Stat. 186. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 6 Sec. 30.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germaneness
Sec. 7.1 While an amendment affecting the rules of the House to
establish a special disapproval procedure would not ordinarily be
germane to a proposition which merely granted certain authority to
the executive (but did not contain a provision affecting
congressional procedures), such an amendment is germane where the
section of law being amended by that proposition contains a
comparable provision regarding congressional procedures.
On December 14, 1973,(21) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 119 Cong. Rec. 41716-18, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. For similar
germaneness rulings involving statutory rulemaking and the
rules of the House, see 122 Cong. Rec. 12344-48, 94th Cong. 2d
Sess. (May 4, 1976), 125 Cong. Rec. 28097-99, 96th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Oct. 12, 1979), and 128 Cong. Rec. 20969, 20975-78, 97th
Cong. 2d Sess. (Aug. 13, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry] HEINZ [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
point of order
Mr. [Robert] PRICE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN.(22) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Richard Bolling (MO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PRICE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thought the agreement was
to alternate amendments between members of the Committee and
members who are not on the Committee. This is another example of
what we have here today.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Permit the Chair to say in respect to the point
of order, that the procedure mentioned by the gentleman from Texas
was discussed but not agreed to. The Chair had hoped that procedure
would be followed.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Heinz to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Mr. Staggers. Page 8, after line 18, insert the
following new subsection: (e) Section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum
Allocation Act of 1973 is amended by inserting at the end thereof the
following new subsections:
``(1)(1) The President shall transmit any rule (other than any technical
or clerical amendments) which amends the regulation (promulgated pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section) with respect to end-use allocation
authorized under subsection (h) of this section.
``(2) Any such rule with respect to end-use allocation shall, for
purposes of subsections (m) and (n) of this section, be treated as an
energy action and shall take effect only if such actions are not
disapproved by either House of Congress as provided in subsections (m) and
(n) of this section.
``(m) Disapproval of Congress.--
``(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term `energy action' means any
rule under subsection (1) or repeal of such rule.
``(2) The President shall transmit any energy action (bearing an
identification number) to the Congress. The President shall have such
action delivered to both Houses on the same day and to each House while it
is in session.
``(3) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (4) of this subsection,
an energy action shall take effect at the end of the first period of 15
calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date on which the
plan is transmitted to it unless, between the date of transmittal and the
end of the 15-day period, either House passes a resolution stating in
substance that that House not favor the energy action.
``(4) For the purpose of subsection (1) of this section--
``(A) continuity of session is broken only by an adjournment of Congress
sine die; and
``(B) the days on which either House is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain are excluded in the
computation of the 15-day period.
``(5) Under provisions contained in an energy action, a provision of the
plan may be effective at a time later than the date on which the action
otherwise is effective.
``(6) An energy action which is effective shall be printed in the Federal
Register.
``(n) Disapproval Procedure.--
``(1) This subsection is enacted by Congress--
``(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House
of Representatives, respectively, and as such they are deemed a part of the
rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the
procedure to be followed in that House in the case of resolutions described
by paragraph (2) of this subsection; and they supersede other rules only to
the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
``(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House
to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at
any time, in the same manner and to the same extent as in the case of any
other rule of that House.
``(2) For the purpose of this subsection, `resolution' means only a
resolution of either House of Congress, the matter after the resolving
clause of which is as follows: `That the -- does not favor the energy
action numbered -- transmitted to Congress by the President on
, 19 ', the first blank space therein being filled with the name of the
resolving House and the other blank spaces therein being appropriately
filled; but does not include a resolution which specifies more than one
energy action.
``(3) A resolution with respect to an energy action shall be referred to
a committee (and all resolutions with respect to the same plan shall be
referred to the same committee) by the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives as the case may be.
``(4)(A) If the committee to which a resolution with respect to an energy
action has been referred has not reported it at the end of 5 calendar days
after its introduction, it is in order to move either to discharge the
committee from further consideration of the resolution or to discharge the
committee from further consideration of any other resolution with respect
to the energy action which has been referred to the committee.
``(B) A motion to discharge may be made only by an individual favoring
the resolution, is highly privileged (except that it may not be made after
the committee has reported a resolution with respect to the same energy
action), and debate thereon shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the resolution.
An amendment to the motion is not in order, and it is not in order to move
to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
``(C) If the motion to discharge is agreed to or disagreed to, the motion
may not be renewed, nor may another motion to discharge the committee be
made with respect to any other resolution with respect to the same energy
action.
``(5)(A) When the committee has reported, or has been discharged from
further consideration of, a resolution with respect to an energy action, it
is at any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the
same effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration
of the resolution. The motion is highly privileged and is not debatable. An
amendment to the motion is not in order, and it is not in order to move to
reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
``(B) Debate on the resolution shall be limited to not more than 10
hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring and those
opposing the resolution. A motion further to limit debate is not debatable.
An amendment to, or motion to recommit, the resolution is not in order, and
it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution
is agreed to or disagreed to.
``(6)A) Motions to postpone, made with respect to the discharge from
committee, or the consideration of a resolution with respect to an energy
action, and motions to proceed to the consideration of other business,
shall be decided without debate.
``(B) Appeals from decisions of the Chair relating to the application of
the rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may
be, to the procedure relating to a resolution with respect to an energy
action shall be decided without debate.'' . . .
The Clerk continued to read the amendment.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert] ECKHARDT [of Texas] (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for me to
press my point of order at this time?
The CHAIRMAN. Did the Chair understand the gentleman to say, to
press his point of order?
Mr. ECKHARDT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Would it be in order for me to
urge my point of order at this time?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair feels that the reading of the amendment
should be concluded. . . .
point of order
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the
amendment is not germane to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute. Further, the amendment is not germane to the material
of the bill.
I should further like to argue on the point of order if I may
be heard at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will proceed.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, what the amendment purports to do
is create additional machinery with respect to the allocation
section of the bill which is covered in section 103 of that bill so
as to provide that the powers which are to be exercised in
allocation, including end use allocation, shall be subject to
presentation to the Congress during a I day period in which, if
they are not vetoed by one or the other House, such provisions may
be canceled by having been denied by the two Houses.
There is nothing in the original bill or in the amendment that
provides for any procedure by which the matter shall be resubmitted
to the Congress. There is nothing in the amendment in the nature of
a substitute that has any such procedure in it.
The amendment offered here provides an extensive amendment of
the procedures of both the House and Senate with respect to the
manner in which this is accomplished.
I should like to point out to the Chair that this is not a
small change in policy or in law but an extremely large one. What
it purports to do, in effect, is to change the role of the
Presidency and that of the Congress and to afford a special
procedure by which this bill reserves to the Congress the
administrative position, a position in which as a condition
subsequent to the passage of this bill this bill may require a
second look at the entire question and a determination on the
question of policy by the Congress.
The major thrust of my point of order does not go to any
question of constitutionality.
It indicates too the fact that the matter contained herein so
sweepingly alters the procedures of the House, and the work to
accommodate itself to this peculiar and unusual problem, that it is
far beyond the scope of any provision in the bill. It does not in a
minor manner change the bill, but it changes it in an extremely
substantial manner because it calls upon the House to make a deep
and complete policy determination with respect to the question of
allocation at a time subsequent to the passage of the bill, and
give that policy determination the effect of law as a condition
subsequent to its particular enactment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz)
desire to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. HEINZ. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas contends on the one hand
that my amendment is not constitutional, and on the other that it
is not germane to the bill.
On the first point I would like to indicate, Mr. Chairman, that
there are already on the statute books two laws, the War Powers
Act, and the Procedure for Approving Executive Reorganizations.
They use the same procedure for the two items I mentioned.
Therefore I do not feel that the point of constitutionality can
stand the test.
Second, the gentleman from Texas argues that my amendment and
the disapproval portion thereof is not germane to the bill. Were
this the case it would seem to me inconsistent, Mr. Chairman,
because we would not have had, as we did 2 days ago, a vote on the
Broyhill amendment which included the exact same procedures as
exist in my amendment.
Admittedly, section 105 is not section 103 but, nonetheless,
both amendments were offered to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, H.R. 11882. I do not believe, therefore, Mr. Chairman,
that the point of order has merit.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I should like to urge one other
point aside from the germaneness question, and that is that the
amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend the Rules of
the House.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, I just do
not think that the gentleman from Texas is correct. What is in this
amendment is simply no different from writing into the bill, which
we could do at any time, for any section, a provision which might
say ``notwithstanding anything in Section 103 or any other section,
the Executive Branch has to come back to the Congress for enactment
or approval or determination, or anything.''
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]). The Chair
is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) makes a very
interesting and strong argument. The Chair in its ruling is
persuaded that the question is a narrow question. The Chair does
not rule on the constitutional questions raised in this argument;
but there are two aspects of the matter that the Chair takes into
consideration in its decision. One, which the Chair believes to be
the lesser one, is the fact that in the original bill there is a
similar provision which in turn was offered as an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute. But the Chair relies
primarily on the fact that the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz) is in fact an amendment to section 4
of Public Law 93-159, the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act which,
in a different manner, does provide for a procedure whereby the
President shall make submissions to the Congress. And hereby either
House may disapprove of such submissions.
Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 8. Separate Orders and Orders of the House
In addition to the standing rules of the House, the House may adopt
resolutions that represent ``free-standing'' orders of the House. Such
resolutions are functionally equivalent to amendments to the standing
rules, but do not formally amend the standing rules of the House. They
may address specific areas where the House rules may be silent or
provide broad grants of discretionary authority. For example, the 95th
Congress adopted two resolutions providing for short-term
experimentation in closed-circuit broadcasting of House floor
proceedings--an area not explicitly addressed by the standing rules at
that time, but previously regulated by the Speaker exercising
discretionary authority over control of the Chamber.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 3.1. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 6.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Often, these free-standing orders are temporary measures that are
later codified in the standing rules themselves, usually in a
subsequent Congress. In the 96th Congress, for example, a free-standing
order was adopted providing for a new process by which Members and
officers of the House would respond to subpoenas--a process that would
be formally incorporated into the standing rules in the following
Congress.(2) In the 100th Congress, the House adopted a
resolution creating an Office of Fair Employment Practices--a free-
standing order that was renewed in the 101st Congress and incorporated
into the standing rules in the 102d Congress.(3) In the
110th Congress, the House adopted a resolution creating a new point of
order regarding the practice of congressional earmarks.(4)
That point of order was made part of the standing rules in the 111th
Congress.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See H. Res. 722, 126 Cong. Rec. 25777-78, 25785, 25787-90, 96th
Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 17, 1980), and H. Res. 5, 127 Cong. Rec.
98-99, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5, 1981).
3. See H. Res. 558, 134 Cong. Rec. 27840-41, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
(Oct. 3, 1988), H. Res. 15, 135 Cong. Rec. 85, 101st Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 3, 1989), and H. Res. 5, 137 Cong. Rec. 40, 102d
Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 1991).
4. See H. Res. 491, 153 Cong. Rec. 16163, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. (June
18, 2007).
5. See H. Res. 5, 155 Cong. Rec. 7, 111th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free-standing orders may be used to create or waive points of
order. In the 106th Congress, Congress enacted a bill regarding
aviation funding which contained a point of order against reducing that
funding.(6) This point of order was continued in subsequent
enactments but is not currently incorporated into the standing rules of
the House.(7) Limits on the number of Members who may serve
on a certain committee,(8) or on the service of the chair of
a committee,(9) may be waived by an order of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See P.L. 106-181; 114 Stat. 61.
7. See P.L. 108-176; 117 Stat. 2490 and P.L. 112-95; 126 Stat. 11.
8. See 129 Cong. Rec. 1791-92, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (Feb. 7, 1983).
9. See H. Res. 213, 135 Cong. Rec. 16457, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. (July
27, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in the 104th Congress, the House has typically included a
variety of free-standing orders in the resolution adopting the standing
rules of the House. These additional orders of the House are included
in a separate section (or sections) of such resolution, but do not
amend the rules of the House. The subjects addressed by these separate
orders include a broad range of parliamentary topics and House
procedures. One of the more common types of separate orders is
authority to continue an investigation, inquiry, or other judicial
proceeding commenced in a prior Congress.(10) Commissions or
other offices may also be continued or reauthorized by a separate order
of the House.(11) Frequently, separate orders are used to
authorize actions or create additional restrictions related to the
congressional budget process.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The House has, by separate order, continued ethics resolutions
(see, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 3(a), 147 Cong. Rec. 26, 107th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2001)), contempt of Congress
proceedings (see, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 3(f), 155 Cong. Rec.
10, 111th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6, 2009)), and intervention by
the House in other judicial proceedings (see, e.g., H. Res. 5,
sec. 4(a)(1), 159 Cong. Rec. 27, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3,
2013). In the 115th Congress, the House adopted a new rule
(clause 8(c) of rule II) permitting the House, Speaker,
committee, or committee chair to act as the ``successor in
interest'' with respect to litigation matters authorized during
a prior Congress, thus obviating the need for the ad hoc
reauthorizations described above. House Rules and Manual
Sec. 670b (2019).
11. For example, the House Democracy Partnership, the Tom Lantos Human
Rights Commission, and the Office of Congressional Ethics. 163
Cong. Rec. H10, H11 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3,
2017).
12. For more on the budget process generally, see Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 41 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate orders sometimes address rules regarding the operation of
committees of the House. Separate orders have reauthorized or created
select committees,(13) permitted committees to exceed
subcommittee limitations contained in the standing
rules,(14) waived term limits,(15) expanded staff
deposition authorities,(16) and created new requirements for
committee reports.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 4(a), 155 Cong. Rec. 9, 111th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 6, 2009).
14. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 3(k), 157 Cong. Rec. 82, 112th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 5, 2011).
15. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 2(b), 145 Cong. Rec. 75, 106th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 6, 1999).
16. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 3(b), 161 Cong. Rec. 35, 114th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 6, 2015).
17. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 3(k), 159 Cong. Rec. 27, 113th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 3, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate orders may provide for the consideration of ordinary
legislative measures, either by proposing special orders of
business,(18) authorizing measures to be taken up by
suspension of the rules procedures,(19) or expanding the
number of suspension days for a set period.(20) Bill
sponsorship and numbering is also an area frequently addressed by
separate orders (e.g., reserving particular bill numbers for the
Speaker or Minority Leader).(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 5, 155 Cong. Rec. 10, 111th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 6, 2009). For an earlier example of legislation
considered (by unanimous consent) prior to the adoption of
rules, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 3 (fn. 2).
19. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 5(b), 157 Cong. Rec. 83, 112th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 5, 2011).
20. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 3(d), 149 Cong. Rec. 11, 108th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 7, 2003).
21. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 3(k), 163 Cong. Rec. H10 [Daily Ed.],
115th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to altering or waiving requirements of the standing
rules, separate orders may also address rulemaking contained in
statute. The House has, for example, rendered certain congressional
procedures contained in statute inapplicable for the duration of a
Congress.(22) Finally, separate orders may provide for any
number of miscellaneous authorities not otherwise addressed by the
rules of the House. These have included: providing for a reading of the
U.S. Constitution,(23) providing for alternative electronic
availability of House documents,(24) and authorizing the
publication of state memorials for constitutional
conventions.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 3(a), 161 Cong. Rec. 35, 114th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 6, 2015).
23. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 5(a), 163 Cong. Rec. H9 [Daily Ed.],
115th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2017).
24. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 3(n), 157 Cong. Rec. 83, 112th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 5, 2011).
25. See, e.g., H. Res. 5, sec. 3(c), 161 Cong. Rec. 35, 114th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9. The Speaker's Announced Policies
As noted in Section 1, above, the rules of the House provide a
number of general authorities to the Speaker, and leave it to the
Speaker's discretion as to how such authorities will be exercised.
Since the 1980s, Speakers have typically made formal announcements to
the House on opening day of a new Congress (or soon thereafter)
detailing policies that the Speaker intends to abide by in exercising
these discretionary authorities. Such policy statements have addressed
such topics as: the introduction and referral of bills and resolutions;
unanimous-consent requests to consider legislation; the format for non-
legislative debate (such as one-minute speeches, morning-hour debate,
and special-order speeches); the exercise of floor privileges;
protocols regarding decorum; the conduct of votes by electronic device;
committee jurisdictional issues; the appointment of conferees; the use
of handouts and electronic equipment on the floor of the House; and the
use of the House Chamber while not in session.(1) While not
formal rules of the House (and therefore not binding on the Speaker),
these announced policies of the Speaker function in a similar manner by
providing Members with certain expectations as to what procedures will
govern a particular area, how rules will be interpreted, and what
actions will or will not be permitted on the floor of the House. A new
Speaker elected during a Congress may choose to formally reiterate the
policies articulated by the preceding Speaker in order to preserve
their continuity for the remainder of the Congress.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See, e.g., 163 Cong. Rec. H34-H36 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 3, 2017). See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 6
Sec. 2.5.
2. See, e.g., 161 Cong. Rec. H7340 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Oct. 29, 2015). See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 6 Sec. 2.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. House Journal
Sec. 10. In General
The House is required by the U.S. Constitution to keep a Journal of
its proceedings and to publish the same ``from time to time,''
excepting whatever parts are determined must remain
secret.(1) The Journal represents the formal ``minutes'' of
the House and thus is the official record of actions taken by the
House.(2) As such, it is accorded judicial notice by both
Federal and state courts.(3) The Congressional Record, by
contrast, is intended to be a verbatim transcript of debates in the
House, and while it is therefore a more complete record of the
proceedings of the House, its lack of constitutional imprimatur gives
it a lower evidentiary status as compared to the Journal.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5. See also House Rules and Manual Sec. 69
(2019).
2. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2727.
3. For judicial decisions interpreting the evidentiary status of the
House Journal, see Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649
(1892) and Prevost v. Morgenthau, 106 F.2d 330 (70 App. D.C.
306, 1939). See also 31 CJS Evidence Sec. 43 and 4 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 2810.
4. See Division C, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By statute, copies of extracts of the Journal (certified by the
Clerk) are to be received in evidence by judicial authorities with the
same effect as originals.(5) Members are required to sign a
copy of the oath of office, and this signed copy is included in the
Journal, to be used as ``conclusive proof'' that the Member ``duly took
the oath of office in accordance with law.''(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1736.
6. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 25. For more on the administration of the oath of
office, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 2 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By House rule, the Clerk is required to distribute the final
Journal to all Members at the close of a session.(7) A copy
of the Journal is also sent to the executive.(8) Formerly,
the Clerk was also required to send a copy to each branch of the state
legislature of each state, but this requirement was amended in the
104th Congress to require a formal request by state officials to
receive the Journal.(9) By statute, copies of the House
Journal are to be deposited in the Library of Congress,(10)
the House Library and document room,(11) and sent to other
governmental officials, agencies and departments.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Rule II, clause 2(c)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 647 (2019).
According to Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice,
every Member has a right to inspect the Journal and to publish
votes from them. House Rules and Manual Sec. 582 (2019).
8. Rule II, clause 2(c)(4), House Rules and Manual Sec. 647 (2019).
9. See H. Res. 254, 141 Cong. Rec. 35077-78, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Nov. 30, 1995).
10. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 146.
11. 44 U.S.C. Sec. 713.
12. 44 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1714, 1718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution mandates that certain matters be included in the
House Journal. Veto messages of the President are required to be
entered in the Journal,(13) as are votes by the yeas and
nays when demanded by one-fifth of the membership.(14)
Certain statutes require that particular information be entered in the
Journal, including the oath of office subscribed to by
Members,(15) and the electoral vote totals for President and
Vice President.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. U.S. Const, art. I, Sec. 7. See Sec. 10.4, infra. For a description
of the Senate Journal, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. 8.1. For further information as to what is required to be
carried in the House Journal, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. Sec. 10.1-10.10.
14. U.S. Const., art. I, Sec. 5. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. 10.4.
15. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 25. See Sec. 10.6, infra.
16. 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. Sec. 10.5, 10.6. For the counting of electoral votes for
President and Vice President generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 10 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House rules contain many provisions requiring inclusion of
particular material in the Journal. The Clerk is responsible for noting
all questions of order in an appendix to the Journal,(17) as
well as the hour at which the House adjourns each legislative
day.(18) When the Clerk designates another official in the
Office of the Clerk to assume certain responsibilities of the Clerk in
the case of absence of disability, this designation is entered in the
Journal.(19) Senate messages and messages from the President
are entered in the Journal,(20) as are petitions, memorials,
and private bills submitted by Members.(21) Titles of
introduced bills and resolutions, along with the names of committees to
which they have been referred, are also required by House rules to be
entered in the Journal.(22) When measures are introduced
``by request,'' those words are also required by rule to be entered in
the Journal.(23) Additions or deletions of cosponsors of
legislation are also included in the Journal as of the date of addition
or deletion,(24) but unanimous-consent requests to list new
cosponsors as having been added on the date on introduction are not
entertained.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule II, clause 2(c)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 647 (2019).
18. Rule II, clause 2(c)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 647 (2019).
19. Rule II, clause 2(g), House Rules and Manual Sec. 651 (2019).
20. Rule XII, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 815 (2019).
21. Rule XII, clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 818 (2019).
22. Rule XII, clause 7(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019).
23. Rule XII, clause 7(b)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 826 (2019).
See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 10.7.
24. Rule XII, clause 7(b)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019).
For adoption of this rule, see H. Res. 86, 124 Cong. Rec.
34929, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 10, 1978).
25. See Sec. 10.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee reports are not themselves entered as part of the
Journal, but the title and subject of each report is required to be
included by House rule.(26) Discharge motions under rule XV
are entered in the Journal when they receive the requisite number of
signatures.(27) Discharge motions are considered in the
order they appear in the Journal.(28) All motions made in
the House are entered in the Journal, along with the name of the Member
making the motion (unless withdrawn the same day).(29) In
addition to the constitutional requirement of entering the yeas and
nays in the Journal,(30) other recorded votes and quorum
calls (conducted by electronic device(31) or
tellers)(32) are also included in the Journal pursuant to
House rule. Members present in the Chamber who do not respond to a
quorum call are nevertheless counted for purposes of establishing a
quorum, and their names are entered in the Journal pursuant to clause
4(b) of rule XX.(33) The House Journal reflects actions
taken by the House, and as such, does not include actions which the
House has declined to take (such as when a unanimous-consent request is
objected to).(34) The Journal does not carry the
deliberations of the Committee of the Whole, except for recorded votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Rule XIII, clause 2(a)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 831 (2019).
27. Rule XV, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 892. For discharging
matters from committee generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
18 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 18. For the rules change that
made signatories to discharge petitions a matter of public
record, see 139 Cong. Rec. 22698-704, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
(Sept. 28, 1993).
28. Rule XV, clause 2(d)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2019).
29. Rule XVI, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (2019).
30. See Sec. 10.3, infra.
31. Rule XX, clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 1014 (2019).
32. Rule XX, clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 1019 (2019).
33. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1020 (2019). For a history of this
rule, see 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2905.
34. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 10.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Journal Clerk, a Member of the Clerk's staff is tasked with
maintaining the Journal, updating it to reflect the official actions of
the House, and including matters required by House rules, statutes, or
the Constitution.(35) The Journal Clerk also keeps custody
of discharge petitions under rule XV,(36) as well as motions
to discharge authorized by congressional rulemaking contained in
statute.(37)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the advent of the position of
House Parliamentarian, the Journal Clerk was charged with
publishing a ``Digest and Manual of the Rules and Practice of
the House of Representatives'' pursuant to an act of March 3,
1877. The Parliamentarian now prepares the successor
publication: the House Rules and Manual. See Division A, supra.
36. See Sec. 10.5, infra.
37. For an example of a discharge motion filed under statutory
procedures (the Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act), see
127 Cong. Rec. 30765, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 10, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content of the Journal
Sec. 10.1 The Speaker laid before the House a copy of a letter (to be
included in the Journal) from a Member transmitted to the Governor
of his state during the August recess announcing his resignation
from the House.
On September 3, 1975,(38) the following letter of
resignation was printed in the Congressional Record and entered into
the House Journal:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. 121 Cong. Rec. 27201, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. See also H. Jour. 1358,
94th Cong. 1st Sess. (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION AS REPRESENTATIVE IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM
TENNESSEE'S FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication,
which was read:
Washington, DC, August 14, 1975.
Hon. Ray Blanton,
Governor, State of Tennessee,
Nashville, Tenn.
Dear Governor Blanton: This is to respectfully inform you that
I am hereby resigning my seat as Tennessee's Fifth District
Representative to the United States House of Representatives
effective this date.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Fulton.
Sec. 10.2 Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII (now clause 7 of rule
XII)(39) which permits an original sponsor to add
additional cosponsors to a bill or resolution for entry in the
Journal and Congressional Record as of a subsequent date, the Chair
will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to list an
additional original cosponsor as of the date of original
introduction where such name had been inadvertently omitted by the
original sponsor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 28, 1985,(40) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. 131 Cong. Rec. 1141, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. ANTHONY asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Beryl] ANTHONY [of Arkansas]. Mr. Speaker, I introduced
H.R. 531. It is a piece of legislation to repeal the
contemporaneous recordkeeping to claim the business use of not only
automobiles, but airplanes, computers, and other business
equipment.
Unfortunately, when that piece of legislation was introduced,
Congressman Harold Volkmer of Missouri was inadvertently left off.
Mr. Speaker, I ask now unanimous consent for Congressman
Volkmer to be listed as an original cosponsor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]).
The gentleman should submit a new list of cosponsors as of today.
Mr. ANTHONY. Mr. Speaker, I will submit a new list with
Congressman Volkmer's name on it.
Similarly, on May 23, 1985,(41) the Speaker declined to
entertain a unanimous-consent request for a Member to be included as an
original cosponsor on a House resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. 131 Cong. Rec. 13421, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION TO INCLUDE NAME OF MEMBER AS ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF
HOUSE RESOLUTION 2573
Mr. [Herbert] BATEMAN [of Virginia]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the name of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Anderson] be added as one of the original cosponsors of the
bill, House Resolution 2573, his name having been omitted from that
list by an oversight.
The SPEAKER.(42) The Chair would advise the
gentleman that the name may be added as an additional sponsor as of
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BATEMAN. But it cannot be included as an original sponsor?
The SPEAKER. It cannot be included as an original sponsor.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Sec. 10.3 Although the Constitution and the rules of the House require
that votes taken by the yeas and nays be spread upon the Journal,
neither requires that a Member's vote be made public immediately
during the vote.
On September 19, 1985,(43) the following parliamentary
inquiries were made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. 131 Cong. Rec. 24245, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 76, 1014a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, it would be my intention to ask for a recorded
vote on the final passage of this bill. However, it has come to my
attention that the electronic voting system that we typically use
in the House of Representatives is not functioning, and under the
rule XV, clause 5, the Speaker does in fact have the discretion to
have the vote be by rollcall vote of the Members rather than by
electronic means.
It is my reading that the intent of the Constitution and the
intent of the rules of this House is to assure that Members of
Congress, when casting their vote, do so wholly in public so that
the Member's vote is in fact known to the public at the time he or
she casts that vote.
It seems to me that if we have an electronic voting system
which is not giving the American people that opportunity to
understand the votes of their Representatives at the time that vote
is cast that we ought to revert to the system that is the
underlying system of the House of a voice vote, which in fact that
record the Member's vote precisely that way. I would ask, Mr.
Speaker, that under the discretion given the Chair in rule XV, the
Chair exercise that particular authority with regard to the
upcoming vote.
The SPEAKER.(44) In response to the gentleman, the
Chair would state that the Chair by utilizing the electronic system
is following precedent of June 1, 1977, June 21, 1978, July 18,
1979, October 21, 1981, and September 18, 1985. So there are
several precedents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution requires that the yeas and nays be spread upon
the Journal, and that is what the rules of the House have always
guaranteed, both prior to and subsequent to electronic voting.
Consequently, the Chair believes that the proper method is being
used and that there are precedents therefor.
The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote will be taken by electronic device.
announcement by the speaker
The SPEAKER. The Chair has been advised that while the
electronic display panels are not working, all voting stations are
operating. The Chair will direct that all vote-monitoring stations
be staffed with personnel so that any Member may go to another
monitor and verify his or her vote.
Members may also verify their votes, as they should on any
vote, by reinserting their card at the same or at another voting
station.
The Chair has now been informed that the voting stations are
not working. The House will revert to a standby procedure.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 290, nays 128, not
voting 16, as follows:
Sec. 10.4 Pursuant to a previous order of the House,(45) a
veto message was laid before the House and the objections of the
President were spread at large upon the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. Parliamentarian's Note: The House had anticipatorily postponed
consideration of this veto message until November 5, 2015, by
unanimous consent the day before. See 161 Cong. Rec. H7079
[Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (Oct. 21, 2015). For prior,
similar examples of veto messages being laid down and postponed
pursuant to a previous order, see 153 Cong. Rec. 29383-84,
110th Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov. 5, 2007) and 156 Cong. Rec. 17520
111th Cong. 2d Sess. (Nov. 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 22, 2015,(46) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. 161 Cong. Rec. H7127 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st
Sess. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016--VETO
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO.
114-70)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Trent] Kelly of Mississippi) laid
before the House the following veto message from the President of
the United States:
To The House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1735, the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.'' While
there are provisions in this bill that I support, including the
codification of key interrogation-related reforms from Executive
Order 13491 and positive changes to the military retirement system,
the bill would, among other things, constrain the ability of the
Department of Defense to conduct multi-year defense planning and
align military capabilities and force structure with our national
defense strategy, impede the closure of the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay, and prevent the implementation of essential defense
reforms. . . .
Because of the manner in which this bill would undermine our
national security, I must veto it.
Barack Obama.
The White House, October 22, 2015.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will
be spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto message and the
bill will be printed as a House document.
Pursuant to the order of the House of October 21, 2015, further
consideration of the veto message and the bill are postponed until
the legislative day of Thursday, November 5, 2015, and that on that
legislative day, the House shall proceed to the constitutional
question of reconsideration and dispose of such question without
intervening motion.
Sec. 10.5 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised a
Member that a discharge petition resides with the Journal Clerk at
the desk and may be signed by a Member when the House is in
session.
On March 27, 1998,(47) the following parliamentary
inquiries were entertained regarding discharge petitions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. 144 Cong. Rec. 5041, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mrs. [Lois] CAPPS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, as the newest
Member of Congress, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
I am very interested in campaign finance reform, and I wish to
know how to sign the discharge petition which will bring this
discussion to the floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(48) The petition resides
with the Journal Clerk at the desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. David Hobson (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank the Speaker. May I sign it now?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes.
Sec. 10.6 Pursuant to law,(49) the Clerk submits for
printing in the Journal and in the Congressional Record the list of
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner who have taken
the oath of office required by the Constitution, in the form
prescribed by statute.(50)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 25.
50. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 25, 1999,(51) the Clerk submitted the following
for printing in the Journal:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. 145 Cong. Rec. 5771, 106th Cong. 1st Sess. See also H. Jour. 286,
287, 106th Cong. 1st Sess. (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OATH OF OFFICE--MEMBERS, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, AND DELEGATES
The oath of office required by the sixth article of the
Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of
the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to
Members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of
Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:
I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about
to enter. So help me God.
has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the
Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of
the 106th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25:
Attachment
Sec. 11. Precedence
Pursuant to the standard order of business found in clause 1 of
rule XIV, the reading and approval of the Journal is listed as the
second item of business, to be conducted immediately following the
prayer by the Chaplain.(1) It was formerly the case that the
reading and approval of the Journal required a quorum to be
present,(2) and a vote on approving the Journal could not be
postponed.(3) Thus, the transaction of any House business,
no matter how privileged, could not be undertaken prior to the approval
of the Journal.(4) The only exceptions to this prohibition
were certain other highly privileged matters, such as the motion to
adjourn(5) or the administration of the oath of office to a
Member-elect.(6) Additionally, the Chair could entertain
unanimous-consent requests prior to the approval of the
Journal.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 869 (2019). For more on the order of
business generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 21
Sec. Sec. 1-8 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 21.
2. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2732, 2733, and 6 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. Sec. 624, 625, and 629.
3. Postponement authority was provided in the 98th Congress. See H.
Res. 5, 129 Cong. Rec. 34, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 1983).
4. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 12.1.
5. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 12.3, 12.4.
6. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 12.5.
7. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 12.9, 12.10. For an
instance where the Chair declined to confer recognition for a
unanimous-consent request prior to the approval of the Journal,
see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 12.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several amendments to the standing rules in the 1970s and 1980s
greatly streamlined the process of approving the Journal and reduced
the ability of Members to offer procedural motions related to the
Journal. Prior to the 92d Congress (1971-1972), the Speaker was
required to await the establishment of a quorum before proceeding to a
mandatory reading of the Journal.(8) In the 92d Congress,
the mandatory reading of the Journal was replaced with discretionary
authority for the Speaker to have the Journal read, or for a Member to
move that the Journal be read.(9) The requirement for
establishing a quorum prior to approving the Journal was eliminated in
the 96th Congress (1979-1980).(10) At the same time, the
approval of the Journal was converted to an automatic process: the
Speaker's approval of the Journal is ``deemed'' agreed to, subject to a
demand by any Member that a vote be taken on that
question.(11) Finally, in the 98th Congress (1983-1984),
clause 5(b) of rule I (now clause 8 of rule XX)(12) was
amended to allow the Speaker to postpone a vote on agreeing to the
Speaker's approval of the Journal until a time later that same
legislative day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1969). See also H. Doc. 402,
90th Cong. 2d Sess.
9. This rules change was made by the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970 (P.L. 91-510; 84 Stat. 1140) and made part of the standing
rules at the beginning of the 92d Congress. See H. Res. 5, 117
Cong. Rec. 14-15, 140-144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 21, 1971).
10. H. Res. 5, 125 Cong. Rec. 7-9, 16, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 15,
1979).
11. Id.
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1030 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effect of these changes to House rules regarding the Journal
was to essentially end procedural motions (sometimes for purposes of
delay or obstruction) related to approving or reading the
Journal.(13) With the elimination of the requirement to
establish a quorum prior to the approval of the Journal, points of no
quorum could no longer be made pending the Journal's approval by the
Speaker.(14) With the Speaker authorized to postpone any
vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, the House
can move on to other business even if a Member demands a vote on that
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Parliamentarian's Note: As a result of these rules changes related
to the Journal, many of the precedents carried in Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 8-14 are no longer applicable to
current procedures. See notes herein for precedents that may
still have applicability to current practice.
14. For an example of prior practice, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. Sec. 12.6, 12.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the approval of the Journal, the Speaker may exercise
discretion to recognize Members for parliamentary
inquiries.(15) As with all parliamentary inquiries, they
should be related to the pending business of the House (i.e., the issue
of approving of the Journal or the order of business). The House may
also receive messages from the Senate or the President prior to the
approval of the Journal.(16) As the motion to adjourn is one
of the most highly privileged motions in the House, it thus takes
precedence over a demand for a recorded vote on agreeing to the
Speaker's approval of the Journal.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 11.1, 11.2, infra. For earlier precedents on
entertaining parliamentary inquiries during a reading of the
Journal, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 12.15,
12.16. For parliamentary inquiries generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. Sec. 14, 15, and Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 31.
16. See Sec. 11.3, infra. For earlier precedents regarding the receipt
of messages prior to or during a reading of the Journal, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 12.12, 12.19, and 12.20.
17. See Sec. Sec. 11.4, 11.5, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch.
5 Sec. Sec. 12.3, 12.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentary Inquiries
Sec. 11.1 The Speaker may entertain parliamentary inquiries (relating
to the order of business or the Journal) prior to the approval of
the Journal.
On February 28, 1979,(18) the Chair entertained
parliamentary inquiries related to the Journal as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 3465-66, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER.(19) The gentleman from Maryland will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman from Maryland
decides whether, under clause 1, rule I, he would like to ask for a
vote on the approval of the Journal, as that rule provides, could
the Chair tell us whether or not he will entertain a motion for a
call of the House and at what point he might entertain such a
motion today?
Mr. [John] BRADEMAS [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state it is his understanding the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Brandemas) intends to move a call of
the House.
Mr. BAUMAN. So, Mr. Speaker, there will be a call after the 1-
minute speeches?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the
Chair. -------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last
day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Sec. 11.2 Instance where, after the Speaker's announcement of the
approval of the Journal pursuant to clause 1 of rule
I,(20) the Speaker responded to parliamentary inquiries
concerning recognition following approval of the Journal for a
unanimous-consent request to vacate proceedings of the previous
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 23, 1986,(21) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 132 Cong. Rec. 8442, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(22) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, under the
provisions of clause 1, rule I, I ask that the question be put on
the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. [Martin] RUSSO [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. RUSSO. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order after the
conclusion of the Journal vote to make a unanimous-consent request
to vacate yesterday's proceedings dealing with the----
The SPEAKER. The answer is in the affirmative.
The Chair cannot control the fact that somebody could object to
the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. RUSSO. Is the Speaker prepared to do something subsequent
to that?
The SPEAKER. What does the gentleman have in mind?
Mr. RUSSO. Would the Speaker then send the matter to the Rules
Committee for report this afternoon?
The SPEAKER. What matter is the gentleman referring to?
Mr. RUSSO. House Resolution 427, as I understand.
The SPEAKER. On the resolution that was passed yesterday by
unanimous consent, it has been decided by the leadership on the
majority side that that matter will go to the Rules Committee this
afternoon, be reported and require a two-thirds vote for
consideration if called up today.
The answer is in the affirmative.
Mr. [Richard] DURBIN [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, after that matter is referred to the
Rules Committee, could the leadership give any indication to the
body as to when it will be brought to the floor for consideration?
The SPEAKER. It will be brought as soon as it has been reported
by the committee.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, does that decision preclude the
possibility of a unanimous-consent request on the same subject?
The SPEAKER. The Chair can still entertain the unanimous-
consent request.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
The SPEAKER. The procedure with a rule is in the event the
unanimous-consent request fails.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand
a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. In the opinion
of the Chair, there are not 218 Members present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
215, nays 178, not voting 40, as follows:
Receipt of Messages
Sec. 11.3 The Speaker may receive messages from the Senate prior to
announcing the approval of the Journal.
On March 31, 1988,(23) the following message was
received prior to the approval of the Journal:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 134 Cong. Rec. 5979, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Hallen, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a joint
resolution of the House of the following title:
H.J. Res. 513. Joint resolution to designate April 6, 1988, as ``National
Student-Athlete Day.''
The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report
of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1900) ``An
act to amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of
1978, and the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act to extend
through fiscal year 1991 the authorities established in such
acts.''
The message also announced that the Senate disagrees to the
amendments of the House to the amendments of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 2616) ``An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve healthcare programs of the Veterans' Administration,'' and
requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Cranston, Mr. DeConcini,
Mr. Matsunaga, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Simpson to be the conferees
on the part of the
Senate. -------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(24) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Motions to Adjourn
Sec. 11.4 A motion to adjourn has precedence over the question of
approving the Journal and is not subject to debate.
On May 3, 2001,(25) prior to the approval of the
Journal, the following motion was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 147 Cong. Rec. 7085-86, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar
proceedings, see 133 Cong. Rec. 30386, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Nov. 2, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. [David] BONIOR [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(26) The Clerk will report
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. BONIOR moves that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This motion is not debatable.
The question is on the motion to adjourn offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
157, nays 250, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 97] . . .
-------------------THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]). The
Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's proceedings and
announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Gene] GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1,
rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Chair's approval of the
Journal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the Chair's
approval of the Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
Sec. 11.5 Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI(27) the motion to
adjourn is of the highest privilege and is in order even prior to a
demand under clause 1 of rule I(28) for the question to
be put on the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2019).
28. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 31, 1987,(29) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. 133 Cong. Rec. 30378, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 10 a.m.
The Chaplain, Rev. James David Ford, D.D., offered the
following prayer:
Almighty God, may we learn to see the works of Your mighty hand
in the seemingly ordinary events of the day. In the simplest word
of encouragement to one other person, we do Your will; by showing
respect to all people without regard to their title or rank, we
follow Your will, by sharing our blessings and good fortune with
the neediest of our communities, we heed Your command; and by
forgiving those with whom we differ, we are reconciled one with
another. Amen. -------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(30) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the second legislative day of Thursday, October 29, 1987, and
announces to the House his approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I have a highly
privileged resolution that I send to the
desk. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 3
minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until Monday, November 2, 1987,
at 12 noon.
Emergency Recess
Sec. 11.6 The Chair may utilize authority provided in clause 12(b) of
rule I(31) to declare the House in emergency recess
subject to the call of the Chair prior to the approval of the
Journal.(32)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. House Rules and Manual Sec. 639 (2019).
32. Parliamentarian's Note: A security incident at the Capitol prompted
the Chair to exercise emergency recess authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2016,(33) the Chair declared the House in
recess prior to the approval of the Journal as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. 162 Cong. Rec. H4551 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. [Randy] HULTGREN [of
Illinois]). -------------------
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
July 8, 2016.
I hereby appoint the Honorable RANDY HULTGREN to act as Speaker pro
tempore on this day.
Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker of the House of
Representatives. -------------------
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(b) of rule I,
the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the
Chair. Accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 1 minute a.m.), the House
stood in recess. -------------------
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. [Robert] DOLD [of Illinois]) at 10 o'clock
and 16 minutes a.m. -------------------
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the
following prayer: . .
. -------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of
the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval
thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Sec. 11.7 Where the Chair utilizes the authority provided in clause
12(b) of rule I(34) to declare the House in emergency
recess, an announcement that the Journal has been approved may
precede the declaration where a previous order of the House had
provided for ``automatic'' approval of the Journal without the
possibility of a vote on the question.(35)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. House Rules and Manual Sec. 639 (2019).
35. For more on such ``automatic'' approvals, see Sec. 12.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 21, 2014,(36) the announcement that the
Journal was approved pursuant to a previous order of the
House(37) preceded the declaration of an emergency recess as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. 160 Cong. Rec. 1799, 113th Cong. 2d Sess.
37. House Resolution 458 provided that, ``On any legislative day during
the period from January 17, 2014, through January 24, 2014 . .
. the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be
considered as approved . . .'' H. Res. 458, 160 Cong. Rec. 702,
113th Cong. 2d Sess. (Jan. 15, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Sergeant at Arms of the House of
Representatives:
Office of the Sergeant at Arms,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 21, 2014.
Dear Mr. Speaker, As you are aware, the time previously
appointed for the next meeting of the House is 1 p.m. on Tuesday,
January 21, 2014. This is to notify you, pursuant to clause 12(c)
of rule I, of an imminent impairment of the place of reconvening at
that time. The impairment is due to the weather.
Sincerely,
Paul D. Irving,
Sergeant at Arms. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(38) Under clause 12(c) of
rule I, the Speaker established this time for reconvening and
notified Members accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Luke Messer (IN). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the
following prayer: . .
. -------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 4(a) of House
Resolution 458, the Journal of the last day's proceedings is
approved. -------------------
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will lead the House in the
Pledge of Allegiance. . .
. -------------------
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(c) of rule I,
the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the
Chair.
Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 33 minutes a.m.), the House
stood in recess.
Sec. 12. Approving the Journal
As noted in Section 11 above, rules changes in the 96th Congress
created an automatic process for approving the Journal (subject to a
demand for a vote on the question).(1) The Speaker's
announcement that the Journal is approved is ``deemed'' agreed to by
the House, unless a Member makes a demand for a vote on that question.
In earlier practice, a full reading of the Journal was required prior
to approval.(2) Current practice essentially reverses the
order of reading and approval: the Journal is ``deemed'' approved under
clause 1 of rule I,(3) and only by rejecting a vote on
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal can a Member offer a
motion to have the Journal read.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For earlier treatment of approving the Journal, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 14.
2. Parliamentarian's Note: The mandatory reading of the Journal (which
could only be waived by unanimous consent) was eliminated at
the beginning of the 92d Congress. Between the 92d Congress and
the 96th Congress, the Journal was ``considered as read'' under
clause 1 of rule I, but any Member could make a (nondebatable)
motion that the Journal be read. See House Rules and Manual
Sec. 621 (1977). See also H. Doc. 94-663, 94th Congress, 2d
Sess.
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
4. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member seeking a vote on the question of agreeing to the
Speaker's approval of the Journal must make the request in a timely
fashion. If the Chair has moved on to other business (such as the
receipt of messages), the request will be considered
untimely.(5) When a vote is demanded on the question of the
Speaker's approval of the Journal, a point of no quorum may be made
when the result of the voice vote is announced.(6) If the
lack of a quorum is established, the House may not entertain a
unanimous-consent request to vacate proceedings and have the Journal
stand approved by the earlier voice vote.(7) However, if the
Chair postpones the question to a point later in the same legislative
day (pursuant to clause 8(a)(1)(B) of rule XX),(8) and a
quorum is established when the House resumes consideration of the
question, then a unanimous-consent request to vacate proceedings (to
the end that the Journal stand approved pursuant to the earlier voice
vote) is in order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. Sec. 12.3, 12.4, infra.
6. See Sec. 12.1, infra. In the 96th Congress, the requirement that
the House establish a quorum prior to the Speaker's
announcement of the approval of the Journal was eliminated.
Thus, points of no quorum are no longer in order prior to the
Speaker putting the question on agreeing to the approval of the
Journal, and may only be offered if a Member demands a vote on
the question of agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the
Journal. This is consistent with the general prohibition on
points of no quorum when no question is pending before the
House. For more on quorums generally, see Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 20 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 20.
7. See Sec. 12.1, infra.
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1030 (2019).
9. See Sec. 12.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal
reveals the absence of a quorum, and the House then agrees to a motion
to adjourn, the Journal is not approved and all the proceedings on the
question are automatically vacated.(10) In cases where the
House adjourns without having approved the Journal, the question of
approving the Journal remains the unfinished business on the following
legislative day.(11) Where multiple Journals from different
legislative days require approval by the House, the votes on approving
each Journal are taken up in chronological order.(12) In the
rare case where the House adjourns one legislative day and convenes
again on the same calendar day (beginning a second legislative day),
the regular order of business is followed, and the Journal of the first
legislative day is approved at the convening of the second legislative
day.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 12.2, 12.15, infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 12.6, 12.7, and 12.16, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 12.5, 12.7, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch.
5 Sec. 14.1.
13. See Sec. 12.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the House adopts a concurrent resolution of adjournment that
provides for a series of pro forma sessions (at which no organizational
or legislative business is to be conducted), the Chair may be
authorized to postpone the approval of the Journal until the House
convenes to resume regular legislative activities.(14)
Alternatively, the House may provide that the Journal be ``considered
as approved'' at such pro forma sessions, thus obviating any
possibility of a vote.(15) As noted, the question on
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal became subject to
postponement by the Chair to a place later the same legislative day in
the 98th Congress.(16) Since the 103d Congress, the House
has conducted ``morning-hour debate'' prior to the convening of the
House for legislative business.(17) Orders of the House
establishing such debates have provided for the postponement of the
prayer, pledge of allegiance, and approval of the Journal until the
House convenes for regular legislative business.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 12.10, infra.
15. See Sec. 12.13, infra.
16. See H. Res. 5, 129 Cong. Rec. 34, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3,
1983). For the first use of this postponement authority, see
Sec. 12.11, infra.
17. For an early description of morning-hour debates, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. 73.
18. See 140 Cong. Rec. 2244, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (Feb. 11, 1994). For a
continuation of this policy of conducting ``morning-hour
debate'' in the following Congress, see 141 Cong. Rec. 547,
104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4, 1995). This policy has been
repeated in various forms in succeeding Congresses. See, e.g.,
163 Cong. Rec. H29 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the House recesses (but does not adjourn), the legislative day
continues and thus, upon convening after a recess, the Journal does not
need to be approved again. This is true even in cases where the House
has taken serial recesses spanning several calendar days (but still
constituting just one legislative day).(19) As noted above,
the House may adjourn prior to the approval of the Journal, in which
case such approval becomes unfinished business on the following
legislative day.(20) When the House exercises emergency
authority pursuant to clause 12(c)(2) of rule I(21) to
reconvene the House from an adjournment of not more than three days,
the Speaker's reconvening of the House is ``solely'' to declare the
House in recess and thus the Journal is not approved in such
circumstances.(22) When the House convenes for a second (or
subsequent) session of a Congress, the Journal of the last day of the
prior session is traditionally not approved by the
House.(23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 12.11, infra. For a similar authority to conduct serial
recesses spanning several calendar days, see H. Res. 320, 141
Cong. Rec. 38141, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 21, 1995).
20. See Sec. 12.15, infra.
21. House Rules and Manual Sec. 639 (2019).
22. See Sec. 12.17, infra. The approval of the Journal remains
unfinished business to be addressed when the House reconvenes
following the emergency recess.
23. Parliamentarian's Note: The rationale for this tradition appears to
lie in the reluctance of Members to revisit actions of the
House occurring in the prior session following sine die
adjournment_actions which may have occurred weeks or months
before the convening of the next session. Obviating the need to
approve the Journal at the next session permits proceedings of
the prior session to be finalized for publication purposes. For
an example of the House convening for a second session (and not
approving the last Journal from the prior session), see 156
Cong. Rec. 2-3, 111th Cong. 2d Sess. (Jan. 5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Requirements
Sec. 12.1 Where the absence of a quorum has resulted in an
``automatic'' yea and nay vote under clause 4 of rule XV (now
clause 6 of rule XX)(24) on the Speaker's approval of
the Journal, the House may not, even by unanimous consent, vacate
the record vote in order to conduct another voice vote in lieu of a
rollcall vote, because the House may not transact business
(including a unanimous-consent agreement) in the announced absence
of a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1025 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 13, 1983,(25) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 129 Cong. Rec. 18844, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(26) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [William] ARCHER [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's
approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not
present. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. [Barbara] Boxer [of California]).
The Chair would like to make an announcement.
The Chair has been advised that the electronic voting system is
at the present time not operable.
Until further notice, therefore, all votes and quorum calls
will be taken by the stand-by procedures which are provided for in
the rules.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk
will call the roll.
The Clerk proceeded to call the roll.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. [William] CARNEY [of New York] (during the rollcall). Madam
Speaker, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. CARNEY. Would it be possible to take the vote on the
Journal by a voice vote at this time? Could we make a unanimous-
consent request to take the Journal vote by a voice vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the yeas and nays must
be taken. Since the absence of a quorum has been disclosed, no
unanimous-consent business can be transacted.
Mr. [William] RATCHFORD [of Connecticut]. Madam Speaker as a
parliamentary inquiry, may I ask, is it possible under the rules to
delay the vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is advised that it is not
now possible to postpone the vote which has been commenced, and
since the absence of a quorum has been announced by the Chair.
Sec. 12.2 Where a quorum fails an ``automatic'' yea and nay vote
pursuant to former clause 4 of rule XV (now clause 6 of rule
XX)(27) on the question of the Speaker's approval of the
Journal, and the House adjourns on motion under that clause, all
proceedings on the question of approval of the Journal are vacated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1025 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 30, 1987,(28) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. 133 Cong. Rec. 30273-74, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 10 a.m.
The Chaplain, Rev. James David Ford, D.D., offered the
following prayer:
Our hearts are lifted, O gracious God, in praise for the gifts
of beauty that touch us every day. For the glorious light streaming
through a stained glass window illuminating colors of every shade,
for music which brightens our lives and touches every emotion of
the human soul, for paintings and sculpture that remind of the
great events of history, for drama that tells of our hopes and our
every experience, we offer our thanks and pray that our hearts will
be open to hear and see all the beauty and wonder of Your marvelous
world.
In Your name we pray.
Amen. -------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(29) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Larry] HOPKINS [of Kentucky]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's
approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
81, nays 74, not voting 279, as follows: . . .
Messrs. CONTE, DREIER of California, LIVINGSTON, LOTT, and ROTH
changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. HAWKINS, MILLER of California, and PENNY changed their
votes from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Dale] Kildee [of Michigan]). On
this vote the ayes are 81, the noes are 74.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Foley]. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas
85, nays 75, not voting 273, as follows:
[Roll No. 395] . . .
Timeliness
Sec. 12.3 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised
that the Journal had already been approved and thus a demand for a
vote on the question pursuant to clause 1 of rule I(30)
was untimely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 18, 2013,(31) after the Chair's approval of the
Journal, a Member made the following unanimous-consent request to ask
for a vote on the Journal:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. 159 Cong. Rec. 3806, 113th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(32) The Chair has examined
the Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the
House his approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. George Holding (NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands
approved. -------------------
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) will lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. HOYER led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all. -------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Steny] HOYER [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HOYER. Is it in order to request at this point in time a
vote on the Journal?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Journal has been approved.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was seeking recognition to ask for a
vote on the Journal when you recognized me to lead the Pledge of
Allegiance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognized the gentleman to
lead the Pledge.
Mr. HOYER. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a unanimous-
consent request?
Mr. HOYER. I ask unanimous consent that I might now ask for a
vote on the Journal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand
a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the Speaker's
approval of the Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
Sec. 12.4 Receipt of a message after the Speaker has announced the
approval of the Journal pursuant to clause 1 of rule
I(33) is such intervening business as to preclude a
demand that the question on the Speaker's approval be put to a
vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 1987,(34) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. 133 Cong. Rec. 18972, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(35) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands
approved. -------------------
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the President of the United States
was communicated to the House by Mrs. Emery, one of his
secretaries. -------------------
REQUEST FOR VOTE ON APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL
Mr. [Martin] FROST [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause
1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of
the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will have to advise the gentleman that
the Chair was unaware of his intention to make such a request. The
request comes too late, other business having transpired in the
meanwhile from the time of the Chair's announcement of his approval
of the Journal.
The Chair would suggest that in the future if Members desire to
make that point and demand a vote upon the Journal, they allow the
Chair to know in advance so that the Chair might rightly protect
their rights.
Mr. FROST. I would only mention, Mr. Speaker, that I was on my
feet and was attempting to get recognition at the time.
The SPEAKER. If the gentleman from Texas would like to ask for
a call of the House, the Chair would be pleased to entertain a
motion for a call of the House.
Vacating Proceedings
Sec. 12.5 The House by unanimous consent vacated the ordering of the
yeas and nays on the Speaker's approval of the Journal to the end
that it stand approved by the earlier voice vote.
On October 25, 2007,(36) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. 153 Cong. Rec. 28317, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
Ms. [Louise] SLAUGHTER [of New York]. Madam Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the ordering of the yeas and nays on
approval of the Journal be vacated to the end that the Journal
stand approved by the earlier voice vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. [Ellen] Tauscher [of
California]). Without objection, the Journal stands approved.
There was no objection.
Multiple Journals
Sec. 12.6 Where the House adjourns on consecutive days without having
approved the Journal of the previous days' proceedings, the Speaker
puts the question de novo in chronological order as the first order
of business on the subsequent day.
On November 3, 1987,(37) multiple Journals from prior
legislative days were approved as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. 133 Cong. Rec. 30592-93, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL OF THE SECOND LEGISLATIVE DAY OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER
29, 1987
The SPEAKER.(38) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the proceedings of the second legislative day of Thursday,
October 29, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the approval of that Journal. Without
objection, that Journal is approved.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, it is my understanding that now we have four
Journals pending and that we will be voting first on the Journal of
last Thursday, is that correct?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is exactly correct.
Mr. WALKER. So the first vote that we could take today would
occur then on last Thursday's Journal, and then we would have
approvals of the other Journals immediately following?
The SPEAKER. That is correct.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair and I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
Mr. [James] SENSENBRENNER [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, is the Chair going to put the
question?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will put the question.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal of the second legislative day of Thursday, October 29,
1987.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present. . .
. -------------------
THE JOURNAL OF FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1987
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]).
The Chair has examined the Journal of the proceedings of Friday,
October 30, 1987, and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved. . .
. -------------------
THE JOURNAL OF MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1987
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of
the proceedings of Monday, November 2, 1987, and announces to the
House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Sec. 12.7 The House adjourned without having agreed to the Speaker's
approval of the Journal of the previous day's proceedings, thereby
leaving that question as unfinished business.
On October 1, 1997,(39) the vote on agreeing to the
Speaker's approval of the Journal having previously been postponed, the
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. 143 Cong. Rec. 20922, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTPONEMENT OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND RULES CONSIDERED BY THE
HOUSE ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1997 TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1997
Mr. [Benjamin] GILMAN [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, according to
the majority leader's previously announced schedule that we would
wind up our business at 3 p.m., therefore, I am going to make the
following unanimous-consent request and then move to adjourn so
that the Jewish Members can observe their high holy days.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further consideration
of the remaining motions to suspend the rules postponed from Monday
be postponed until Monday, October 6, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(40) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Edward Pease (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin] WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, I just want to ask the gentleman a question. Would
the votes be after 5 Monday?
Mr. [Richard] ARMEY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, the votes would be
for a long time after 5.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
There was no
objection. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 57
minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday,
October 2, 1997, at 10 a.m.
Upon convening on October 2, 1997,(41) proceedings
resumed on the unfinished business of approving the Journal of
September 30, 1997 (which preceded the question of approving the
Journal of the most recent day's proceedings):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. 143 Cong. Rec. 20991, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL OF TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Edward] Pease [of Indiana]).
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, the unfinished business is the
question of agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal of
Tuesday, September 30, 1997.
The question is on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the
Journal.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands
approved. -------------------
THE JOURNAL OF WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of
Wednesday, October 1, 1997, and announces to the House his approval
thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Two Legislative Days on One Calendar Day
Sec. 12.8 The first orders of business when the House convenes for a
new legislative day, even if it is the second legislative day on
the same calendar day, are the offering of the prayer and the
approval of the Journal from the preceding legislative day.
On November 17, 1981,(42) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. 127 Cong. Rec. 27772-73, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and
Manual Sec. 1014 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(SECOND LEGISLATIVE DAY)
The House met at 4 p.m.
The Chaplain, Rev. James. David Ford, D.D., offered the
following prayer:
The sum of Thy word is truth; and every one of Thy righteous
ordinances endures forever.--Psalm 119: 160.
O God, as we move on with the necessary details that press upon
us, we remember Your commandments and ordinances that speak the
truth to people in every generation. With all the pressures of
life, may we recognize our need to focus on the eternal verities
and the timeless truths that have been the heritage of a free
people. May all who seek to be truly human and desire to reflect
Your love, bind together in harmony and peace that justice may roll
down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Amen. -------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(43) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last legislative day's proceedings and announces to the
House his approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's
approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal. . . .
So the Journal was approved.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Sec. 12.9 Where the House began the second of two legislative days
convened on a single calendar day, the Speaker announced the
approval of the Journal of the first legislative day in the normal
order of business.
On October 29, 1987,(44) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. 133 Cong. Rec. 29935-37, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), under its
previous order, the House adjourned until today, Thursday, October
29, 1987, at 3:15 p.m. . .
. -------------------
SECOND LEGISLATIVE DAY
The House met at 3:15 p.m.
The Chaplain, Rev. James David Ford, D.D., offered the
following prayer:
Remind us each day, O God, that the greatest gift that any of
us might possess is the attitude of thanksgiving. From the rising
of the Sun until the going down of the same, at all the times of
life, may we treasure every moment to express praise and joy for
all the wonderful gifts of life-the gifts of freedom and renewal,
the gifts of family and friendships, and the gift of grace.
Amen. -------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(45) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Philip] CRANE [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's
approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. I have a parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will take the parliamentary inquiry of
the gentleman.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair.
We are about to cast a vote. Is the Journal available for
inspection by the Members?
The SPEAKER. The Journal is indeed available.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
245, nays 161, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 388] . . .
So the Journal was approved.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Postponement Authority
Sec. 12.10 Where the two Houses have agreed, by concurrent
resolution,(46) to conduct no organizational or
legislative business on certain days on which pro forma sessions
would take place, the Chair announces that the approval of the
Journal under clause 1 of rule I(47) will be
postponed(48) until the day scheduled for resumption of
legislative business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. Parliamentarian's Note: The House has provided similar authorities
unilaterally by unanimous consent. See, e.g., 149 Cong. Rec.
32134, 108th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 8, 2003).
47. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
48. Parliamentarian's Note: General postponement authority within a
legislative day regarding the question of agreeing to the
Speaker's approval of the Journal was provided in the 98th
Congress (1983). For the first use of such authority, see
Sec. 12.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 1980,(49) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. 126 Cong. Rec. 25, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(50) Pursuant to the
provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 232, 96th Congress, the
approval of the Journal of the last day's proceedings will be
postponed until January 22, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. John Moakley (MA). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED AND REFERRED
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of House
Concurrent Resolution 232, bills and resolutions introduced today
or any day prior to January 22, 1980, will be numbered as of the
day introduced but not noted until the Record of January 22 and not
referred to committee by the Speaker until January 22. Likewise,
executive communications, petitions, and memorials will not be
numbered or referred until January 22, 1980.
On January 22, 1980,(51) the House convened to conduct
regular legislative business, at which time the Journals of preceding
days were approved:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. 126 Cong. Rec. 187-88, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER.(52) Pursuant to the provisions of House
Concurrent Resolution 232, 96th Congress, the House will now
proceed to organizational business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will utilize the electronic system to ascertain the
presence of a quorum.
Members will record their presence by electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic device, and the following
Members responded to their names: . . .
Under the rule, further proceedings under the call are
dispensed with. -------------------
THE JOURNALS
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journals of January 3,
7, 10, 14, and 17 and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1 of rule I, these Journals stand approved.
Sec. 12.11 Inaugural instance of the Speaker exercising discretionary
authority under former clause 5 of rule I (now clause 8(a)(1)(B) of
rule XX),(53) to postpone further proceedings on the
question of agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1030 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 1983,(54) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. 129 Cong. Rec. 32097, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(55) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Howard] NIELSON of Utah. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause
1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of
the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal.
Mr. NIELSON of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present, and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will postpone the vote until after we
have sworn in the new Member from
Georgia. -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Washington, DC, November 10, 1983.
Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Speaker: I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy
of the Certificate of Election received from the Honorable Joe
Frank Harris, Governor of the State of Georgia, indicating that the
Honorable George (Buddy) Darden was elected to the Office of
Representative in Congress from the Seventh District of Georgia in
a Special Election held on November 8, 1983.
With kind regards I am,
Sincerely,
Benjamin J. Guthrie,
Clerk, House of
Representatives. -------------------
SWEARING IN OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN AS A MEMBER
OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER. Will the Member-elect kindly step forward with the
dean of the Georgia delegation and the members of the Georgia
delegation?
Mr. DARDEN appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath
of office.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is now a Member of the Congress of
the United States and we welcome
you. -------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The question now is on the approval of the
Journal.
Those in favor will vote ``aye''; those opposed will vote
``no.'' Voting will be by electronic device, and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Darden) is entitled to vote.
Sec. 12.12 Under former clause 5 of rule I (now clause 8(a)(1)(B) of
rule XX),(56) the Speaker has authority to postpone
further proceedings on the approval of the Journal to a time within
that legislative day, and such postponement authority applies also
to an objection for a lack of a quorum for a division vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1030 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 21, 1993,(57) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. 139 Cong. Rec. 21770, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(58) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Dan] BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1,
rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of
the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Burton of Indiana) there were--ayes 8, noes 18.
Mr. [Romano] MAZZOLI [of Kentucky]. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Under the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the
Chair will postpone this vote until the end of the day.
The point of no quorum is considered
withdrawn. -------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if there has been a
division, can the Chair postpone the vote on the Journal?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Mazzoli] made a
point of order that a quorum was not present and objected to the
division vote on the ground that a quorum is not present. Under
those proceedings if a quorum is not present, the yeas and nays are
ordered automatically, unless the question is postponed by the
Chair as permitted by clause 5(b), rule I.
Automatic Approval
Sec. 12.13 The House has adopted a special order of business resolution
providing for, inter alia, a series of pro forma sessions (in lieu
of adjourning over the relevant period) at which the Journal would
be considered as approved, thus preventing any vote on the question
of the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
On July 28, 2011,(59) the House agreed to a resolution
containing the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. 157 Cong. Rec. 12338, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar
proceedings, see 158 Cong. Rec. 14513, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
(Sept. 20, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 627, BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF
2011
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 375 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 375 . . .
Sec. 3. When the House adjourns by operation of section 4 of this
resolution on any legislative day during the period from August 1, 2011,
through September 6, 2011, it shall stand adjourned until the third
constitutional day thereafter at a time to be announced by the Speaker in
declaring the adjournment (except that when the House adjourns on September
6, 2011, it shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on September 7, 2011).
Sec. 4. On each legislative day during the period addressed by section 3
of this resolution:
(a) the Speaker may dispense with legislative business, in which case the
House shall stand adjourned pursuant to section 3 of this resolution after
the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV; and
(b) if the Speaker does not dispense with legislative business, the
Speaker may at any time declare the House adjourned pursuant to section 3
of this resolution.
Sec. 5. On each legislative day during the period addressed by section 3
of this resolution (except a day before August 8, 2011, on which the
Speaker does not dispense with legislative business pursuant to section 4),
the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as
approved.
On August 2, 2011,(60) the use of that authority for
automatic approval of the Journal occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. 157 Cong. Rec. 12781, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar
proceedings, see 158 Cong. Rec. 14984, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
(Oct. 5, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(61) Pursuant to section 5
of House Resolution 375, the Journal of the last day's proceedings
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. Frank Wolf (VA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Journal Need Not Be Approved
Sec. 12.14 Under former practice, on returning from an overnight recess
the House would resume its proceedings with a prayer and the pledge
of allegiance, but not approval of the Journal (because the
resumption of proceedings is a continuation of the same legislative
day).
On December 27, 1995,(62) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. 141 Cong. Rec. 38545, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. For earlier examples of
the House taking an overnight recess, see, e.g., 127 Cong. Rec.
28628, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov. 20, 1981); 127 Cong. Rec.
28769, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov. 22, 1981); 128 Cong. Rec.
32406, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. (Dec. 19, 1982); and 129 Cong. Rec.
32200, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov. 10, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore [Mr. Walker] at 5 o'clock and 3 minutes
p.m. -------------------
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Rev. James David Ford, D.D., offered the
following prayer:
In the stillness of this moment, in the quiet of our prayer, we
place before You, O God, that which is in our hearts and souls,
those thoughts and ideas and feelings that make us what we are and
direct us along life's way. We pray, gracious God, that You would
refresh us and encourage us, that You would heal our hearts and
make us strong, that You would forgive us when we miss the mark and
give peace to every soul. For the wonders of the world and the
little miracles of every day, we offer these words of prayer and
thanksgiving. In Your name, we pray.
Amen. -------------------
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(63) Will the gentlewoman
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] come forward and lead the House in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. Robert Walker (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. MORELLA led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
Effect of Adjournment and Recess
Sec. 12.15 Where a quorum fails to vote on an ``automatic yea and nay''
pursuant to clause 4 of rule XV (now clause 6 of rule
XX)(64) on the question of the Speaker's approval of the
Journal and the House adjourns on motion, all proceedings on the
question of approval of the Journal are vacated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1025 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 30, 1987,(65) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. 133 Cong. Rec. 30273-74, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 10 a.m.
The Chaplain, Rev. James David Ford, D.D., offered the
following prayer:
Our hearts are lifted, O gracious God, in praise for the gifts
of beauty that touch us every day. For the glorious light streaming
through a stained glass window illuminating colors of every shade,
for music which brightens our lives and touches every emotion of
the human soul, for paintings and sculpture that remind of the
great events of history, for drama that tells of our hopes and our
every experience, we offer our thanks and pray that our hearts will
be open to hear and see all the beauty and wonder of Your marvelous
world.
In Your name we pray.
Amen. -------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(66) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Larry] HOPKINS [of Kentucky]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's
approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
81, nays 74, not voting 279, as follows:
[Roll No. 394] . . .
Messrs. CONTE, DREIER of California, LIVINGSTON, LOTT, and ROTH
changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. HAWKINS, MILLER of California, and PENNY changed their
votes from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Dale] Kildee [Michigan]). On this
vote the ayes are 81, the noes are 74.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Foley]. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas
85, nays 75, not voting 273, as follows:
[Roll No. 395] . . .
On October 31, 1987,(67) the Speaker convened the House
and the House then adjourned without approving the Journal from the
second legislative day of October 29, 1987:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. 133 Cong. Rec. 30378, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(68) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the second legislative day of Thursday, October 29, 1987, and
announces to the House his approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
highly privileged resolution that I send to the
desk. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 3
minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until Monday, November 2, 1987,
at 12 noon.
On November 2, 1987,(69) the House again adjourned
without approving the Journal from the second legislative day of
October 29, 1987:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. 133 Cong. Rec. 30386, 30390, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(70) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the proceedings of the second legislative day of Thursday,
October 29, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on approval of that Journal. . .
. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. [David] BONIOR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Frank] SENSENBRENNER [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, on that
I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
116, nays 106, not voting 211, as follows:
[Roll No. 400] . . .
Messrs. FRENZEL, HEFLEY, and LOWERY of California changed their
votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.) the House
adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, November 3, 1987, at 12 noon.
Sec. 12.16 Where the House adjourns on consecutive days without having
approved the Journal of the previous days' proceedings, the Speaker
puts the questions de novo in chronological order as the first
order of business on the subsequent day.
On November 3, 1987,(71) after the Journal for the
second legislative day of October 29, 1987, was not approved on the
three previous legislative days,(72) the Speaker put the
question on approval of the Journal de novo:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. 133 Cong. Rec. 30592-93, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
72. See Sec. 12.9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL OF THE SECOND LEGISLATIVE DAY OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER
29, 1987
The SPEAKER.(73) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the proceedings of the second legislative day of Thursday,
October 29, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
73. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the approval of that Journal. Without
objection, that Journal is approved.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, it is my understanding that now we have four
Journals pending and that we will be voting first on the Journal of
last Thursday, is that correct?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is exactly correct.
Mr. WALKER. So the first vote that we could take today would
occur then on last Thursday's Journal, and then we would have
approvals of the other Journals immediately following?
The SPEAKER. That is correct.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair and I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
Mr. [Frank] SENSENBRENNER [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, is the Chair going to put the
question?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will put the question.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal of the second legislative day of Thursday, October 29,
1987.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present. . .
. -------------------
THE JOURNAL OF FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1987
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]).
The Chair has examined the Journal of the proceedings of Friday,
October 30, 1987, and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved. . .
. -------------------
THE JOURNAL OF MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1987
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of
the proceedings of Monday, November 2, 1987, and announces to the
House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Sec. 12.17 When the Speaker exercises emergency recall authority
pursuant to clause 12(c) of rule I,(74) the convening of
the House is solely for the purpose of declaring a recess (to
respond to the emergency), and the Journal is not approved prior to
the recess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
74. House Rules and Manual Sec. 639 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 19, 2009,(75) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. 155 Cong. Rec. 32729, 111th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at noon and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Ms. Edwards of
Maryland). -------------------
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC.
December 19, 2009.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Donna F. Edwards to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of
Representatives. -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Sergeant at Arms of the House of
Representatives:
Office of the Sergeant at Arms,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 18, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
The Speaker,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker, As you are aware, the time previously
appointed for the next meeting of the House is 6 p.m. on Saturday,
December 19, 2009. This is to notify you, pursuant to clause 12(c)
of rule I, of an imminent impairment of the place of reconvening at
that time. The impairment is due to the weather.
Respectfully,
Wilson Livingood,
Sergeant at Arms. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 12(c) of rule I, the
Speaker established this time for reconvening and notified Members
accordingly. -------------------
PRAYER
The Reverend Gene Hemrick, Washington Theological Union,
Washington, D.C., offered the following prayer:
Lord, during this holy season which prompts us to especially
lift our thoughts to You, may You bless this Congress with Your
wisdom and the peace and justice it creates when we turn to You.
We further pray that in this inclement weather You give its
Members safe passage home to be with their loved ones and to
experience the joy this creates.
Amen. -------------------
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will lead the House in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
-------------------COMMUNICATION FROM
THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 19, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
The Speaker,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message from the
Secretary of the Senate on December 19, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.
That the Senate concurs in the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate to the bill H.R. 3326.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 1377.
That the Senate agreed to without amendment H. Con. Res. 218.
That the Senate agreed to without amendment H.J. Res. 64.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk of the House. -------------------
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(c) of rule I,
the House shall stand in recess until approximately 11:30 a.m. on
Wednesday, December 23, 2009.
Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m.), the House stood
in recess.
Sec. 13. Reading the Journal
As noted earlier in this division, prior practice required a full
reading of the Journal before it could be approved by the
Speaker.(1) This was changed to a procedure where the
Journal was considered as read, subject to a nondebatable motion by any
Member that the Journal be read.(2) In the 96th Congress,
the rule was again changed to require that the Speaker's approval of
the Journal be disagreed to (by a vote of the House) before the
nondebatable motion to have the Journal read could be
offered.(3) If the motion to have the Journal read is not
adopted, the Chair puts the question on approving the Journal (which
takes precedence over a motion to amend the Journal).(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For an earlier treatment of reading the Journal, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 11.
2. See Sec. 13.1, infra.
3. See Sec. 13.3, infra.
4. See Sec. 13.2, infra. For amending the Journal, see Sec. 14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 96th Congress, when disagreeing to the Speaker's approval
of the Journal became a prerequisite for offering the motion to have
the Journal read, there has only been one instance of such a reading
taking place.(5) In that case, the actual reading of the
Journal was dispensed with by unanimous consent and the Journal opened
to amendment at any point.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 14.1, infra.
6. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it is rare in modern practice for the House to conduct a
full reading of its Journal, older precedents regarding the propriety
of business before and during the reading are, for the most part, still
applicable.(7) The presentation of a conference report is
not in order during a reading of the Journal,(8) nor is the
consideration of a privileged report from the Committee on
Rules.(9) However, the reading may be interrupted by
parliamentary inquiry,(10) the offering of articles of
impeachment,(11) or a question of the privileges of the
House.(12) Because of changes to quorum requirements in the
1970s, it is no longer the case that a point of no quorum may interrupt
the reading of the Journal.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 12.
8. Rule XXII, clause 7(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 1077 (2019).
9. Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 12.2.
10. Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 12.15.
11. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 469.
12. Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 12.17.
13. For contrary precedents reflecting the former state of the rule,
see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 12.13, 12.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.1 Under the former rule,(14) pending the Speaker's
announcement of the approval of the Journal, and prior to approval
of the Journal by the House, any Member could, pursuant to clause 1
of rule I,(15) offer a privileged (nondebatable) motion
that the Journal be read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Parliamentarian's Note: The current form of clause 1 of rule I
requires the House to disagree to the Speaker's approval of the
Journal before a motion to have the Journal read may be
offered. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 23, 1975,(16) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 11482, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(17) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there objection to dispensing with the reading of the
Journal?
motion offered by mr. john l. burton
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I move,
pursuant to the rules of the House, that the Journal be read.
The SPEAKER. The question is, shall the Journal be read?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHN L. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
16, nays 386, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 136] . . .
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. . . .
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the Journal stands approved.
There was no objection.
Sec. 13.2 Under the former version of clause 1 of rule
1,(18) one preferential motion that the Journal be read
was in order, pending the approval of the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Parliamentarian's Note: The current form of clause 1 of rule I
requires the House to disagree to the Speaker's approval of the
Journal before a motion to have the Journal read may be
offered. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 14, 1978,(19) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 6838-39, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. 1014 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(20) The Chair has examined
the Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the
House his approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Edwin Meeds (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I object to the
approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Does the gentleman from Maryland offer a motion?
Mr. BAUMAN. I do, Mr. Speaker.
preferential motion offered by mr. bauman
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the preferential
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the Journal be read in full.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the preferential
motion offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
99, nays 301, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 140] . . .
Messrs. McCLORY, SCHULZE, WALKER, DICKINSON, VANDER JAGT,
STANGELAND, STEERS, and LIVINGSTON changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
Messrs. MOORE, EDWARDS of Oklahoma, STRATTON, MARLENEE, DON H.
CLAUSEN, and BURGENER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Edwin] Meeds [of Washington]).
All time has expired.
The Chair will take votes of those Members who have not had an
opportunity to vote, and those who have had such an opportunity can
clear the well. If there are people here who have not voted, the
Chair will take those votes. Otherwise, the vote is closed.
Mr. [John] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
point of order
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meeds). The gentleman will state
it.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, under Cannon's Precedents it says
clearly:
The vote of a Member failing to be recorded, he may insist that it be
recorded even after the Chair has declared the result and the Chair then
makes a new declaration (V. 6064, 6065; VIII, 3143).
Under the precedents, I would like to suggest that the Chair is
not making a proper ruling.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Those precedents apply only to
rollcalls preceding the installation of the electronic device and
are not a precedent for holding the vote by electronic device open
indefinitely.
All time has expired.
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
point of order
Mr. [Richard] SCHULZE [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, a point
of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. SCHULZE. Mr. Speaker, I attempted to change my vote under
the electronic device process before the conclusion of the vote and
was unable to do so. So, if we are not going to be able to change
our vote by electronic device then we must be able to change our
vote in the well or change the electronic device so that we can
watch our vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meeds). The gentleman's objection
will be noted. The Chair will rule that a point of order will not
lie when the Chair exercises his discretion to close the voting.
In the absence of an objection the Chair will approve the
Journal.
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the Journal be approved.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the gentleman submit a
written motion.
Mr. FOLEY. I have a written motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
motion offered by mr. foley
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Foley moves that the Journal be approved.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley).
The question was taken and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
371, nays 29, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 141] . . .
Sec. 13.3 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair affirmed
that, pursuant to clause 1 of rule I,(21) rejection by
the House of the Speaker's announced approval of the Journal
permits the offering of a (nondebatable) motion that the Journal be
read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 1, 1989,(22) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 135 Cong. Rec. 26788, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER.(23) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Fred] UPTON [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause
1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of
the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, what is the result if the ``no'' vote
stands?
The SPEAKER. A motion that the Journal be read would be in
order.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
Mr. SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
Sec. 14. Amending or Correcting the Journal
The House may amend the Journal of the last day's proceedings prior
to approval, and has done so on occasion,(1) primarily to
effect minor technical corrections (such as correcting the name of a
Member offering a motion).(2) A motion to amend the Journal
is in order, but not before a reading of the Journal has been completed
(or waived).(3) A motion to approve the Journal takes
precedence over a motion to amend, and where a motion for the previous
question has been demanded on the motion to approve, the Chair will not
recognize for a motion to amend.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Parliamentarian's Note: While the House may amend its Journal ``to
the extent of omitting things actually done or of recording
things not done,'' (4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2784) certain
actions of the House represent a final disposition of the
matter and ought not to be reversed or altered merely by
amending their depiction in the Journal. The motion to
reconsider is the proper method by which Members may attempt to
revisit an issue in the House, and the House will normally
table the motion to reconsider at the conclusion of
consideration of a measure as a means of preventing the issue
from being reopened. For more on the motion to reconsider, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 23 Sec. Sec. 33-41 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 23.
2. For earlier treatment of amendments to the Journal, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 13.
3. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 13.1, 13.2.
4. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 13.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under current practice,(5) amendments to the Journal are
only in order after: (1) the Speaker's approval of the Journal is
disagreed to by vote of the House; (2) the motion to have the Journal
read is adopted; and (3) the reading of the Journal is completed (or
dispensed with by unanimous consent). Since the House instituted this
series of requirements, there has only been one instance of the House
amending the Journal. In the 101st Congress, the Journal was amended to
vacate the receipt and referral of an executive
communication.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 13.1-13.8.
6. See Sec. 14.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Rangel v. Boehner,(7) Rep. Charles Rangel sought to
have his censure expunged from the Journal.(8) The District
Court for the District of Columbia held, inter alia, that the court
could not grant Rangel's requested relief because the Journal clause of
the U.S. Constitution leaves the matter of altering the Journal
``within the discretion of the House,'' and not the courts, under the
separation of powers doctrine.(9) Ultimately, the court
found that Rangel's desired relief involved a nonjusticiable political
question and dismissed the claim.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 20 F.Supp.3d 148 (D.D.C. 2013). The decision was upheld on appeal.
See Rangel v. Boehner, 785 F.3d 19 (2017).
8. Rep. Rangel based his argument on 4 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 2792, 2793. These two precedents recorded a 1875
instance where the House rescinded a resolution recorded in the
Journal of a preceding Congress by unanimous consent.
9. Rangel, 20 F.Supp.3d at 176.
10. Parliamentarian's Note: The court also held that the Clerk, which
Rep. Rangel joined in the lawsuit as keeper of the House
Journal, was immune from the lawsuit due to the Speech or
Debate Clause. See Id., at p. 180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.1 Under clause 1 of rule I,(11) where the House
fails to agree to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, and a
motion to have the Journal read is adopted, it is then in order
(following the reading or after unanimous consent is obtained to
waive the reading) for any Member to offer a motion to amend the
Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 19, 1990,(12) the House Journal was amended to
vacate the referral of an executive communication:(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 136 Cong. Rec. 4488, 4491, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Parliamentarian's Note: The executive communication was
subsequently referred anew. See 136 Cong. Rec. 4571, 101st
Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 20, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Sonny] Montgomery [of
Mississippi]. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's
approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the Chair's
approval of the Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
motion offered by mr. walker
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Walker moves that the Journal of the last day's proceedings be read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read the Journal.
The Clerk proceeded to read the Journal.
Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the Journal be considered as read and open to
amendment at any point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
amendment offered by mr. walker to the journal of the last
day's proceedings
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the Journal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Walker to the Journal of the last day's
proceedings: Strike Executive Communication 2748--A letter from the
Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting a
copy of the annual report in compliance with the Government in the Sunshine
Act during the calendar year 1989, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(j).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I am offering to
the Journal would strike from the Journal's proceedings of last
week a letter from the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System transmitting a copy of the annual report in
compliance with the Government Sunshine Act to this body. The
reason for striking this particular provision is because I am
somewhat concerned that this body ought not be receiving any kinds
of communications with regard to Government in Sunshine.
It is now apparent that this body is unwilling to work in
sunshine itself. I refer, as an example of the problem, to the
situation that has now arisen on child care. As of late last week
the minority leader and the other members of the minority
leadership were told on the House floor that there were no plans to
bring that particular bill to the House floor. . . .
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. [George] MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
Journal, as amended, be approved.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Journal, as amended, is approved.
Correcting the Journal
Sec. 14.2 The Speaker declines to entertain unanimous-consent requests
to correct the Journal on votes taken by electronic device, as it
is each Member's responsibility to assure that his or her vote has
been properly cast and verified prior to the announcement of the
result by the Chair.
On June 29, 1987,(14) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 133 Cong. Rec. 18088, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN.(15) Are there any other amendments to
the bill not precluded by clause 2 of rule XXI?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William Hughes (NJ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Buddy] DARDEN [of Georgia]. Mr. Chairman, I was in the
Chamber and I respectfully object to the proceedings. I was in the
Chamber and it was my intention to vote. I was on my feet while the
Chairman was in the process.
The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry to say to the gentleman I did not see
the gentleman.
Mr. DARDEN. I respectfully object. I want to be heard on this
matter.
The CHAIRMAN. The vote is final at this point. The gentleman
may want to make a statement for the record.
Are there any other amendments to the bill not precluded by
clause 2 of rule XXI?
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I was in the Chamber. My card was in
the machine. I was attempting to cast my vote in this matter and I
respectfully object to the vote in that the Chair failed to
recognize me. A number of times I specified I was trying to vote. I
was present and I respectfully object to the fact that the Chair
would not allow my vote to be recorded. It would make no objection
to the outcome.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can only say to the gentleman that he
was obviously where the Chair did not see the gentleman. The Chair
does not know when a Member's card goes into the machine, as the
gentleman knows. Unless the gentleman was in the well, the Chair
would have no way of knowing the gentleman had his card in the
machine.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent I be recorded
as voting on this issue and that my vote in this matter was
``aye.''
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not have the authority to correct
a vote once it has been cast.
Mr. DARDEN. I submit there is no correction because I know what
I did and I was here.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may make a statement for the
Record.
Sec. 14.3 The Chair announced the circumstances of a malfunction in the
electronic voting system, and under such unique circumstances, the
House by unanimous consent permitted the correction of an
electronic vote in the Journal.
On June 26, 2000,(16) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 146 Cong. Rec. 12371, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. For a similar instance
where the Journal was corrected by unanimous consent to show
that a Member voted present, see 119 Cong. Rec. 30610, 93d
Cong. 1st Sess. (Sept. 20, 1973). See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 13.4-13.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]). As
stated by the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration on
Friday, June 23, 2000, the Clerk has informed the Committee on
House Administration of a recent anomaly on a recorded vote.
Representative Roybal-Allard was absent on rollcall number 305 on
June 21, 2000 and was in possession of her voting card. The Clerk
was made aware of the fact that she was recorded on that rollcall,
but on no others on that day, but due to the lateness of the hour,
could not get confirmation from her by the time the vote was made
public that she was absent and in possession of her voting card.
Since then, the Clerk has received that confirmation. For that
reason and the statistical improbability of the recurrence of that
anomaly, the Chair and the Chairman of the Committee on House
Administration believe that it is proper to immediately correct the
Record and the Journal.
As stated in Volume 14, Section 32 of Deschler-Brown
Precedents:
Since the inception of the electronic system, the Speaker has resisted
attempts to permit corrections to the electronic tally after announcement
of a vote. This policy is based upon the presumptive reliability of
electronic device and upon the responsibility of each Member to correctly
cast and verify his or her vote.
Based upon the explanation received from the Chairman of the
Committee on House Administration and from the Clerk, the Chair
will continue to presume the reliability of the electronic device,
so long as the Clerk is able to give that level of assurance which
justifies a continuing presumption of its integrity. Without
objection, the Chair will permit the immediate correction of the
Record and Journal under the unique circumstances certified by the
Clerk.
There was no objection.
Sec. 14.4 By unanimous consent, a committee report was reprinted and
the Congressional Record and Journal corrected to indicate that the
report had been filed by a different member of the committee.
On March 23, 1982,(17) due to clerical error leading to
another committee member's name being placed on the report, the
following correction was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. H1053 [Daily Ed.], 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORRECTION OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF MARCH 3, 1982, AND HOUSE
REPORT 97-445
Mr. SAM B. HALL, JR. [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the Congressional Record and Journal of March 8, 1982,
and House Report 97-445 filed on that date be corrected to indicate
that the report was filed by Mr. Danielson, and that the report be
reprinted as corrected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(18) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Druie Barnard (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
C. Congressional Record
Sec. 15. In General; Purpose and Status
The Congressional Record is defined by the rules of the House as a
``substantially verbatim account of remarks made during the proceedings
of the House.''(1) It is to be contrasted with the House
Journal, which constitutes the official ``minutes'' of the
House(2) and thus only contains descriptions of official
actions of the House. It is the Record that provides a full depiction
of debate in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule XVII, clause 8(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 967 (2019).
2. See Division B, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressional Record was first printed in the 43d Congress but
was predated by several other publications containing transcripts of
House proceedings, such as the Annals of Congress, the Register of
Debates, and the Congressional Globe.(3) None of these
publications, however, claimed to be a verbatim account of all
proceedings. Rather, they were often merely sketches or summaries of
debates, with many speeches omitted. Furthermore, none of these
publications were under direct control of the House, but rather were
produced by various newspaper publishers, with the House merely
providing access to the Chamber for authorized stenographers and
sometimes contracting with such private entities for publication
services.(4) In 1873, the House brought the publication of
House debates directly under its control by creating ``Official
Reporters of Debate'' as employees of the House and arranging for
publication by the Government Printing Office (now the Government
Publishing Office).(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. For a history of the evolution of early publication of
congressional debates, see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6959.
4. Id.
5. For histories of the Government Publishing Office, see R.W. Kerr,
History of the Government Printing Office (1881), and James L.
Harrison, 100 GPO Years 1861-1961: A History of United States
Public Printing (2010 ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16. Authority Over the Congressional Record
The format and content of the Congressional Record is governed by
statutory provisions(1) as well as House
rules.(2) The Joint Committee on Printing, established by
statute,(3) is given authority over the ``arrangement and
style'' of the Record, with the requirement that it be ``substantially
a verbatim report'' of the proceedings.(4) Distribution of
the Record is also governed by statute.(5) The Record is
published in both a daily edition (printed the day after a legislative
session of Congress) and a permanent edition (compiled some years
later).(6) The Joint Committee on Printing issues rules and
regulations regarding the publication of the Record, and such rules are
published in each daily edition of the Record.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 44 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 901 et seq. See Sec. 17, infra.
2. The two primary House rules relating to the Congressional Record
are clause 1 of rule VI (House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 685-
692 (2019)) and clause 8 of rule XVII (House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 967, 968 (2019)).
3. 44 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 101 et seq.
4. 44 U.S.C. Sec. 901.
5. 44 U.S.C. Sec. 906.
6. The permanent edition of the Record is informally known as the
``redbound,'' based on the color of the book binding. A
biweekly edition in green binding (``greenbound'') was printed
for many decades, but was discontinued in 1985.
7. There are currently thirteen rules, with separate Senate and House
supplements governing specific printing requirements for each
body. See also S. Print 111-30, Public Printing and Documents
and Miscellaneous Statutes Identifying the Authority of the
Joint Committee on Printing (Comm. Print 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By House rule, the Official Reporters of Debate are appointed by
the Clerk, subject to the direction and control of the
Speaker.(8) When the printing of the daily Congressional
Record has been delayed, the Speaker has responded to parliamentary
inquiries to indicate that the Government Publishing Office had been
notified to expedite the printing.(9) As the Record is
intended to be a verbatim transcript of the proceedings, the Speaker
will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to deliver a speech
``off the record.''(10) The Committee on House
Administration has jurisdiction over the ``printing and correction'' of
the Record, pursuant to clause 1(k)(8) of rule X.(11) The
Committee of the Whole does not exercise any authority over the Record,
and requests to insert extraneous material to the Record must be made
in the full House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Rule V, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 685 (2019). Prior to
1978, the Official Reporters of Debate were under the
jurisdiction of the Speaker alone. See Sec. 16.3, infra. See
also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 2, 14.
9. See Sec. 16.4, infra. See also 136 Cong. Rec. 35162, 101st Cong. 2d
Sess. (Oct. 26, 1990).
10. See Sec. 16.5, infra.
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 724, 728 (2019).
12. See Sec. 16.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate exercises control over its portion of the Congressional
Record(13) pursuant to Senate rules and
precedents.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Parliamentarian's Note: Presidential inauguration ceremonies have a
unique relationship to the Congressional Record. Although the
House remains in session throughout such ceremonies (Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 36 Sec. 25.7), the proceedings are not carried
in the House portion of the Record. The Senate, by contrast, is
not in session during inauguration ceremonies, but
traditionally agrees to have the proceedings carried in the
Senate portion of the Record. See, e.g., 159 Cong. Rec. 462-65,
113th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 22, 2013).
14. Alan Frumin, Riddick's Senate Procedure 643-654 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Committee on Printing
Sec. 16.1 The ``Laws and Rules for Publication of the Congressional
Record'' were amended pursuant to the Chair's
directive(15) that the Committee on House Oversight (now
the Committee on House Administration) promulgate rules for
printing the Record that would conform to clause 9(a) of rule XIV
(now clause 8 of rule XVII)(16) (limiting the types of
revisions Members may make to remarks uttered on the floor under
leave to revise and extend).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 141 Cong. Rec. 541, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4, 1995).
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 967 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 12, 1996,(17) an amended version of the ``Laws
and Rules for Publication of the Congressional Record'' was inserted
into the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 142 Cong. Rec. Daily Digest, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Pursuant to clause 9 of Rule XIV of the Rules of the House,
the Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account
of remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only
to technical, grammatical and typographical corrections authorized
by the Member making the remarks involved. Unparliamentary remarks
may be deleted only by permission or order of the House. Consistent
with Rule 9 of the Joint Committee on Printing Rules, any revision
shall consist only of technical, grammatical or typographical
corrections of the original copy and shall not include deletions of
correct material, substitutions for correct material or additions
of new subject matter. By obtaining unanimous consent to revise and
extend, a Member will be able to relax the otherwise strict
prohibition contained in clause 9 of Rule XIV only in two respects:
(1) to revise by technical, grammatical and typographical
corrections; and (2) to extend remarks in a distinctive type style
to follow the remarks actually uttered. In no event would the
actually uttered remarks be removable.
Sec. 16.2 The Joint Committee on Printing issued a notice to Members
regarding deadlines and other requirements for submissions to the
final issue of the Congressional Record of the 105th Congress.
On October 21, 1998,(18) the following notice was
printed in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 144 Cong. Rec. 27403, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
N O T I C E
When the 105th Congress adjourns sine die on or before October 22,
1998, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 105th Congress
will be published on November 12, 1998, in order to permit Members to
revise and extend their remarks.
All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and
delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of
Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday,
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through November 10. The
final issue will be dated November 12, 1998, and will be delivered on
Friday, November 13.
None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional
Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred
after the sine die date.
Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, either
on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the
Official Reporters of Debates at ``Record@Reporters''.
Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be
submitted electronically on a disk to accompany the signed statement
and delivered to the Official Reporter's office in room HT-60.
Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material
submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by
contacting the Congressional Printing Management Division, at the
Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m. daily.
By order of the Joint Committee on Printing.
JOHN W. WARNER, Chairman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker, Clerk, and the Committee on House Administration
Sec. 16.3 In the 95th Congress, the House amended the standing rules of
the House to transfer jurisdiction over the appointment, removal,
and functions of the Official Reporters of Debate from the Speaker
to the Clerk (subject to ultimate control by the Speaker).
On January 23, 1978,(19) a resolution amending the rules
of the House regarding authority over the Congressional Record was
adopted as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 431-32, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. 685 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James] WRIGHT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 959) and ask unanimous consent for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follow:
H. Res. 959
Resolved, That effective March 1, 1978, clause 1 of Rule XXXIV of the
Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read as follows:
``1. The appointment and removal, for cause, of the official reporters of
the House, including stenographers of committees, and the manner of the
execution of their duties shall be vested in the Clerk, subject to the
direction and control of the Speaker.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(20) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Anthony Moffett (CT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, it is my understanding that the only change this
effects is the transfer of the oversight authority from the
Speaker's office to the Clerk of the House. Is that correct?
Mr. WRIGHT. The gentleman from Maryland is correct. The Speaker
understandably has been loath to exercise or presume to exercise
direction of jurisdictional authority over all of the Reporters of
Debates and deliberations in committees and feels that the Clerk of
the House, having broad administrative jurisdiction over the
personnel and the legislative support functions of the House, is
the proper person to exercise this control and to make the
determinations as to whom we should employ, when, and to what
extent those persons are adequately fulfilling their duties, and so
forth.
Mr. BAUMAN. And further than that, I believe it also permits,
without the use of a special resolution, the Reports of Debates to
come under the ordinary cost-of-living increases that the other
employees on the Hill receive?
Mr. WRIGHT. The gentleman is exactly correct. By placing them
in the same category with other employees of the Members and the
committees of the House, it places them in the same category with
respect to pay, and, as the gentleman knows, in the past the
Reporters of Debates have not been automatically subject to those
increases that come from time to time. Now they would be, as well
as the other employees of the House.
Mr. BAUMAN. Further reserving the right to object, I would only
say to the distinguished majority leader that it probably is an
appropriate occasion at this point to observe the fact that of all
the employees of the House of Representatives who make our life
easier and assist us in many ways, the Reporters of Debates and
their transcribers and their staff certainly have one of the most
difficult jobs of any employees of the House, not only in compiling
the Congressional Record and in providing in a timely fashion what
is said, but also in having to sit here and listen to us hour after
hour and day after day and year after year; and for that alone I
think they deserve some commendation.
Mr. WRIGHT. I thank the gentleman. Really they deserve our
sympathy as well as our appreciation, and I trust that the
Reporters today have adequately and sufficiently transcribed the
remarks the gentleman has just made.
Mr. BAUMAN. I have no doubt they have done so. Mr. Speaker, I
withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 16.4 Where there had been a two-day delay in the printing of the
Congressional Record containing the text of a bill as passed by the
House, the Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry
that the Clerk had instructed the Government Printing Office (now
the Government Publishing Office) to print that Record as a top
priority and to make it simultaneously available to both
cloakrooms.
On October 18, 1990,(21) the Chair responded to
parliamentary inquiries regarding the availability of legislative text
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 136 Cong. Rec. 31016, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. [Paul] HENRY [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(22) The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. John Moakley (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HENRY. Mr. Speaker, a number of us are getting calls and
inquiries from constituents, but also perhaps more troublesome,
from the media wanting particulars relative to the budget
resolution voted on Tuesday, October 16.
The Congressional Record is yet to appear and be published. The
first volume came on the 17th. Today, on the 18th, we have the
Congressional Record published in its entirety for the 17th, but we
do not yet have a complete Congressional Record for Tuesday, the
16th.
We made a call in my office to the Government Printing Office
and were advised that they did not have the materials to print. The
problem was no one has the materials to print the resolution.
I think there is a concern in terms of having the ability to
express either a defense for our votes, whether we voted in the
affirmative or in the negative, given the seriousness of the
situation, but also some concerns that the integrity of the
amendment may be affected during the delay, which is now over 48
hours since the time the vote took place and lack of any
publication of the amendment.
Can the Chair get some assurance to us or information as to
when the amendment will be printed in the Record for the Members to
see?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moakley). The Clerk is making
available to the Cloakrooms the full report and has notified the
Government Printing Office that this is their top priority to have
printed as soon as possible the bill in the Congressional Record.
Mr. HENRY. A copy of the amendment is in their office? The
printer presently has a copy of the amendment?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A copy of the report will be in the
Cloakrooms.
Mr. HENRY. So copies are in the Cloakrooms for our perusal?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is the Chair's information.
Mr. HENRY. Does the Chair have any estimate as to when the
Printing Office will finish with the Record?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Well, as the Chair has said, the Clerk
has notified the Printing Office that it is the top priority, as
soon as possible.
Mr. HENRY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, a further
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WALKER. Just to note, the Republican Cloakroom just reports
to us that they do not have a copy at the present time, so if such
copies are available, we would hope they would be made available to
the minority as well as the majority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is the Chair's information, that
it would be available to both Cloakrooms at the same time.
Mr. WALKER. When would we expect that availability, Mr.
Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has said, the Clerk has
put it as a top priority, so as soon as possible, as soon as
humanly possible.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair.
Sec. 16.5 Because the Congressional Record is, pursuant to
law,(23) maintained as a substantially verbatim account
of remarks actually made during proceedings of the House, the
Speaker will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to give a
special-order speech ``off the record.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 44 U.S.C. Sec. 901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 24, 1992,(24) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 138 Cong. Rec. 16131, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUT FOREIGN AID ASSISTANCE COMPLETELY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Robert] Wise [of West Virginia]).
Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Taylor] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. [Gene] TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that in order to save a few dollars for the taxpayers, that
my remarks not be included in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair declines to entertain that.
Mr. [Newt] GINGRICH [of Georgia]. I do not think you can ask
that.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Sure you can. You can ask unanimous
consent for anything.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair declines to entertain the
request.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to
ask unanimous consent, in an effort to save a few dollars for the
taxpayers, I would like to dismiss the staff.
The SPEAKER pro tempore The Chair also declines to entertain
that request. The gentleman may proceed for 5 minutes.
Relationship to the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 16.6 The House, and not the Committee of the Whole, controls the
insertion of extraneous matter in the Congressional Record.
On April 26, 1988,(25) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 134 Cong. Rec. 8808, 8815, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Leslie] ASPIN [of Wisconsin]. The question I have for the
Chair, is my understanding of the rules correct, that we cannot
insert something in the Record in the Committee of the Whole. We
can only do that when we are in the full House.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore.(26) The gentleman can
extend his own remarks in the Committee of the Whole. The gentleman
cannot insert a colloquy in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Martin Russo (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. ASPIN. No. We were going to insert this document which we
had typed up and sent to the Speaker, and the Speaker has agreed to
this as the agreement pertaining to the unauthorized
appropriations. Is that appropriate to put into the Record?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It can go in at this particular
point, if the request is made when the Committee rises.
Mr. ASPIN. We will make the request when the Committee rises,
but I would like when we request it in the Whole House for it to go
into the Record at this point.
The agreement is in outline what the gentleman from Alabama
said about the three points. What I would just like to do is insert
this one-page verbal text, the actual text of the agreement, so
that it will be on record.
Mr. Chairman, the memorandum of agreement is as follows:
Memorandum for the Record--Agreement With
Respect to Unauthorized Appropriations, April 20, 1988
As a result of today's meeting with the Speaker, the Majority Leader, the
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Defense Subcommittee, and the
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the following agreement was
reached with respect to section 902 in the reported Defense Authorization
bill.
The Armed Services Committee will agree to drop section 902 from the
bill. The Appropriations Committee will agree not to appropriate more than
is authorized unless the amount so appropriated is explicitly made subject
to authorization. If appropriations are provided in excess of authorization
and they are not made subject to authorization or if legislation is
included in the appropriation bill, the Speaker will not support waiving
points of order on such matters.
In conference, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services
Committee and the Defense Subcommittee shall be non-voting participants in
the others conference. They will be treated as conferees except that they
will not be formally appointed as conferees and have the right to vote, but
will be entitled to speak in the conference meetings. These members so
designated as non-voting informal conferees shall be entitled to designate
one staff representative to attend all conference activities related to
defense matters with that Member.
Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
Mr. [Ronald] DELLUMS [of California]. Mr. Chairman, I chair the
Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, charged with
the responsibility of family housing, military construction and the
civil defense portion of the military authorization bill for 1989.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert the report on
those portions of the bill pertaining to military construction,
family housing and civil defense in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered,
but that permission must be renewed again in the full House. . .
. -------------------
PERMISSION TO INCLUDE IN RECORD MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
REGARDING SECTION 902 OF H.R. 4264, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL 1989
Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
memorandum that was discussed in the colloquy with the gentleman
from Alabama [Mr. Dickinson] be included in the Record at the
appropriate point in the debate, and referring to the debate that
occurred earlier in the Committee of the Whole House. . . .
I just wanted to make that clear, because that was a verbal
understanding, and the statement here is not quite clear on that
point, but it was very clear in discussion with the Speaker that
that is the intention of this last sentence, and with that, I would
just like to ask unanimous consent that this appear at the
appropriate point in the colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. Dickinson] during general debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(27) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Eligio de la Garza (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 17. Format
The style and formatting of the Congressional Record, as noted
earlier, is under the control and direction of Joint Committee on
Printing, and has remained relatively static over the
years.(1) The Record was originally published in two-column
format, but this was changed to three-column format at the outset of
the 77th Congress and has remained so to the present day.(2)
Significant changes to the typeface used were made in 1930 and 1941 to
improve readability.(3) Beginning in the 80th Congress, the
daily edition of the Record has included a ``Daily Digest,'' which
summarizes House and Senate floor and committee
activities.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Parliamentarian's Note: Unanimous-consent requests to change the
formatting of the Congressional Record are not entertained. See
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 15.1, 15.2.
2. See James L. Harrison, 100 GPO Years 1861-1961: A History of United
States Public Printing (2010 ed.).
3. For parliamentary inquiries regarding font sizes for bills and
conference reports printed in the Record, see Sec. 17.4, infra.
For a unanimous-consent request (not entertained by the Chair)
to change the font size for a particular document to be
inserted into the Record, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. 15.2.
4. See James L. Harrison, 100 GPO Years 1861-1961: A History of
United States Public Printing (2010 ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other minor formatting changes to the Congressional Record have
occurred from time to time. In the 79th Congress, Speaker Rayburn
instructed the Official Reporters of Debate not to include words like
``applause'' in the Record (a common notation prior to this time) as
such demonstrations are not considered part of the proceedings of the
House.(5) In the 96th Congress, the Joint Committee on
Printing authorized the use of time stamps throughout the Congressional
Record to indicate approximately when events occurred.(6) In
the unusual event that two legislative days of the House are conducted
on the same calendar day, the Congressional Record will be formatted to
include separate headings for each legislative day.(7) When
a single legislative day spans multiple calendar days, a notation to
that effect is carried in the Record.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 15.3.
6. See Sec. 17.2, infra. The intervals for such time stamps have
varied over time, from 5 minutes to 15 minutes, and currently
appear at 10-minute intervals.
7. See Sec. 17.3, infra.
8. See, e.g., 160 Cong. Rec. H1251 [Daily Ed.], 113th Cong. 2d Sess.
(Jan. 23, 2014) [legislative day of Jan. 21, 2014].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Congressional Record is intended to be a verbatim
transcript of words spoken on the floor of the House, Congress has (for
many decades) accepted for inclusion in the Record speeches not
actually delivered and other ``extraneous'' material. The House
routinely grants Members' unanimous-consent requests to ``revise and
extend'' remarks for the Record, and such permission allows a Member to
submit to the Official Reporters of Debate text of a speech not
actually given on the floor. For many years, such extensions of remarks
appeared in an Appendix to the Record. In 1967, this Appendix was
replaced with a separate section of the Record entitled ``Extensions of
Remarks.''
When Members receive permission to revise and extend their remarks,
they may submit text of speeches not actually delivered on the floor of
the House for inclusion in the Record.(9) The depiction of
such remarks in the Record has varied over time. In 1978, the Joint
Committee on Printing promulgated a new rule providing that remarks not
actually delivered would be preceded by a ``bullet'' symbol to
differentiate such remarks from those spoken on the
floor.(10) However, in 1985, the Committee on House
Administration offered a privileged resolution requesting that the
Joint Committee on Printing adopt a rule requiring that remarks not
delivered on the floor appear in a distinct typeface.(11)
This system was put into effect on September 4, 1985,(12)
and the policy extended into the second session of the 99th
Congress.(13) A further resolution from the Committee on
House Administration in 1986 requested that the Joint Committee on
Printing make the change permanent, and the House supplement to the
Joint Committee's rules for publication of the Congressional Record was
amended in response to this request.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. For more on revising and extending remarks in the Record, see
Sec. 20, infra. For insertions into the Record of extraneous
material, see Sec. 21, infra.
10. See Sec. 17.8, infra.
11. See Sec. 17.9, infra.
12. See Sec. 17.10, infra.
13. See Sec. 17.11, infra.
14. See Sec. 17.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Members normally deliver their remarks in English, there is
no rule of the House that prevents them from speaking in another
language.(15) However, when doing so, Members must provide
an English translation of their remarks to the Official Reporters of
Debate, which is also carried in the Congressional
Record.(16) When Members (or others called upon to
participate, such as the Chaplain) deliver remarks in a language that
does not use the Latin alphabet, the Government Publishing Office may
not be able to reproduce the characters correctly for the Record. In
such cases, a notation indicates that the individual spoke in another
language.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. In prior years, notations in the Record indicated when Members
spoke in a foreign language, but the foreign text was not
generally printed. See Sec. 17.2, infra and 144 Cong. Rec.
2534-35, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 4, 1998).
16. See 149 Cong. Rec. 4401-402, 108th Cong. 1st Sess. (Feb. 25, 2003)
and Sec. 17.13, infra.
17. See Sec. 17.4, infra. Cf. 146 Cong. Rec. 23047, 106th Cong. 2d
Sess. (Oct. 17, 2000) (remarks in Samoan were capable of
transcription).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In General
Sec. 17.1 Pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Joint Committee on
Printing, remarks delivered or inserted under leave to revise and
extend in connection with a one-minute speech made before
legislative business are printed after all legislative business if
exceeding 300 words.
On April 5, 1978,(18) the Chair responded to
parliamentary inquiries as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 8846, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. 692 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [John] DENT [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER.(19) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
speak for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks, but before
doing so, I would like to ask the Chair a question as a matter of
information.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to exceed
the 300-word limit in order to convey to the House today the
message which I have on a very important incident which just
occurred this morning and yesterday.
The SPEAKER. The Chair would like to ask the gentleman whether
he has an estimate from the Government Printing Office.
Mr. DENT. No, Mr. Speaker, I have no estimate because we are
permitted 300 words in a 1-minute speech. This is just a few words
over the 300-word limit.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the gentleman's remarks
will appear in the Record, but not prior to the legislative
business.
Mr. DENT. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will not read it all.
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman understand that his remarks
will appear in the Record, but not during the 1-minute portion of
the Record?
Mr. DENT. They will appear in the Record?
The SPEAKER. They will appear in the Record.
Mr. DENT. All right. I thank the Chair.
Sec. 17.2 The Joint Committee on Printing announced in the
Congressional Record a new format indicating the time of day House
proceedings occurred.
On January 15, 1979,(20) the following notice was
printed in the Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 3, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This symbol represents the time of day during the House Proceedings,
e.g., 1407 is 2:07 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ``bullet'' symbol identifies statements or insertions which are
not spoken by the Member on the floor.
On January 29, 1979,(21) the chair of the Joint
Committee on Printing announced that the Joint Committee had authorized
the insertion of time-sequence notations at five-minute intervals in
the House portion of the Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 125 Cong. Rec. 1351, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME SEQUENCES IN HOUSE PORTION OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
The SPEAKER.(22) Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank] THOMPSON [of New Jersey]. Mr. Speaker, Members may
have noticed that the House portion of the Congressional Record now
carries time sequence notations at roughly 5-minute intervals
during House proceedings. The time is shown following a box symbol
utilizing the 24-hour clock system. For example,
1315 indicates 1:15 p.m. and
1945 would be 7:45 p.m.
The purpose of this new system, authorized by the Joint
Committee on Printing, is to provide easier cross reference to
audio and video taped versions of House proceedings with the
printed proceedings in the Record. A byproduct of the time sequence
notations will be the easier location of Member's remarks in the
printed Record than has often been possible in the past.
Sec. 17.3 When the House convenes for two legislative days on a single
calendar day, the Congressional Record will carry separate headings
to distinguish each legislative day.
On November 17, 1981,(23) the following notations
regarding sessions of the House appeared in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 127 Cong. Rec. 27768, 27770-72, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules
and Manual Sec. Sec. 897, 913, and 914 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(FIRST LEGISLATIVE DAY)
The House met at 12 o'clock noon and was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. [James] Wright [of Texas]). . . .
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
privileged motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(24) The Clerk will report
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Foley moves that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at
4 p.m. today.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
table the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the last sentence of clause 4,
rule XVI, that motion to adjourn is not debatable and therefore
cannot be laid on the table.
The question is on the motion.
Mr. [Frank] SENSENBRENNER [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, on that
I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nay were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
191, nays 172, not voting 70, as follows:
[Roll No. 306] . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above
recorded. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley).
The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
188, nays 172, not voting 73, as follows:
[Roll No. 307] . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 19 minutes p.m.) the House
adjourned until 4 o'clock p.m.
(SECOND LEGISLATIVE DAY)
The House met at 4 p.m. The Chaplain, Rev. James David Ford,
D.D., offered the following prayer: . . .
Sec. 17.4 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated that
the House rules do not require the Government Printing Office (now
the Government Publishing Office) to use specific type sizes when
printing conference reports and bills.
On November 22, 1991,(25) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 137 Cong. Rec. 33991, 34017, 34035, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1992
Mr. [William] NATCHER [of Kentucky]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the order of the House on Thursday, November 21, 1991, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3839) making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .
The text of H.R. 3839 is as follows:
H.R. 3839
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums are
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992, and for
other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
program administration . . .
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [William] DANNEMEYER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Michael] McNulty [of New York]).
The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, do the rules of the House say what
size type these conference reports are supposed to be printed in?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No; they do not.
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I have been advised this one is
size 6. You almost need a magnifying glass to read it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would announce this measure
was printed and is being considered as a regular bill (H.R. 3839).
Mr. [Carl] PURSELL [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, this is 6-point
type. As a former printer, I would say it is half the size of a
regular typewriter.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada
[Mrs. Vucanovich].
Sec. 17.5 When the House is at the stage of amending a Senate bill,
insisting on its amendments, and requesting a conference, the
Congressional Record will not reprint the texts of a Senate-passed
bill or a House-passed bill if those texts appeared in a previous
edition of the Record, but rather will refer to the previous
printing by Record page number.
On December 14, 2011,(26) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. 157 Cong. Rec. 20047, 112th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Buck] MCKEON [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 493, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R.
1540) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction,
and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribemilitary personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Frank] LUCAS [of Oklahoma]).
Pursuant to House Resolution 493, the conference report is
considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the
House of December 12, 2011, at page 19369.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each will
control 30 minutes. . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 17.6 In the case where a Member misses a vote, but makes a
statement for the Congressional Record immediately after such vote
indicating on which side of the question the Member would have
voted, the Record will carry the caption ``Stated For'' or ``Stated
Against'' to describe the intent of the Member.
On January 6, 1999,(27) the following notation regarding
how a Member would have voted had he been present appeared in the
Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. 145 Cong. Rec. 245, 106th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Roll No. 6] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. [William] PASCRELL [of New Jersey]. Mr. Speaker, during
rollcall vote No. 6, House Resolution 10, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Sec. 17.7 While the captions ``Stated For'' and ``Stated Against'' are
used in the Congressional Record to indicate which side of a
question a Member would have vote on (had such Member been present
for the vote), the caption ``Personal Explanation'' is used if the
Member seeks to indicate a voting preference at any time other than
immediately following the vote(s) at issue.
On March 3, 2004,(28) the following notations appeared
in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. 150 Cong. Rec. 3325, 108th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. [Bob] FILNER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No.
37, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my
Congressional District, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
-------------------PERSONAL
EXPLANATION
Mr. [Joe] BACA [of California]. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos.
34, 35, 36, and 37, for personal reasons, I was unable to be in the
chamber when the time elapsed on the vote.
Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``aye'' for all
four votes.
Words Not Spoken on the Floor
Sec. 17.8 The Joint Committee on Printing amended the rules for
publication of the Congressional Record, effective March 1, 1978,
to require the identification in the Record (by ``bullet'' symbols)
of statements or insertions in the Record not actually spoken on
the floor.(29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Parliamentarian's Note: As noted earlier in this section, the Joint
Committee on Printing replaced the use of ``bullet'' symbols
with a distinct typeface to differentiate matter spoken on the
floor from material revised or submitted at a later time. See
Sec. 17.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 20, 1978,(30) the following notice appeared
in the Record regarding remarks not delivered on the floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. 124 Cong. Rec. 3676, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. 692 (2019).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
N O T I C E
Effectiv
e
Wednesday,
March 1,
1978, the
Laws and
Rules for
Publication
of the
Congression
al Record
will be
amended to
identify
statements
or
insertions
in the
Record
where no
part of
them was
spoken.
Unspoken
material
will be
preceded
and
followed by
a
``bullet''
symbol,
i.e., .
Since
procedures
in the
House and
Senate
differ,
variations
of the Laws
and Rules
for
Publication
for each
body are as
follows:
1. HOUSE
AND SENATE
FLOOR
PROCEEDINGS
(a)
When, upon
unanimous
consent of
by motion,
a prepared
statement
is ordered
to be
printed in
the Record
and no part
of its
spoken, the
entire
statement
will be
``bulleted.
''
(b) If a
Member
verbally
delivers
the first
portion of
the
statement
(such as
the first
sentence or
paragraph),
then the
entire
statement
will appear
without the
``bullet''
symbol.
(c)
Extemporane
ous
speeches
supplemente
d by
prepared
statements
will not be
``bulleted.
''
2. SENATE
ONLY
(a)
Additional
Statements.
All
unspoken
prepared
statements
submitted
for
printing in
the Record
will be
``bulleted'
'; and
(b) If
the
statement
is not
germane to
the pending
or
unfinished
business
before the
Senate, it
will be
printed in
the Record
under the
heading of
``Additiona
l
Statements'
';
(c) If,
however,
the
unspoken
prepared
statement
is germane
to the
pending or
unfinished
business,
it will be
printed in
the Record
as part of
the debate
on the
matter
being
considered.
(d)
Routine
Morning
Business.
Unspoken
prepared
statements
submitted
with the
introductio
n of
legislation
, notices
of
hearings,
or any
other
``first
person''
statement
not spoken
will be
printed in
the Record
with the
``bullet''
symbol and
will appear
in the
Record at
the
appropriate
place
during
Routine
Morning
Business.
3. HOUSE
ONLY
(a) One-
Minute
Speeches
and Special
Orders. If
no portion
of such
statements
is spoken
by the
Member, the
entire
statement
will be
``bulleted.
''
(b)
Extensions
of Remarks.
All
statements
not spoken
by the
Member will
be
``bulleted.
'' If,
however, a
portion of
a statement
is
delivered
verbally by
the Member,
revised,
but not
received by
Government
Printing
Office in
time to
appear in
the Record
for that
day, it
will be
printed
without the
``bullet''
symbol in a
subsequent
issue of
the Record
under
``Extension
s of
Remarks.''
By order
of the
Joint
Committee
on
Printing.
FRANK
THOMPSON,
JR., Acting
Chairman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.9 In the 99th Congress, the House adopted a privileged
resolution reported from Committee on House Administration
requesting that the Joint Committee on Printing adopt temporary
rules for printing the Congressional Record to require
substantially verbatim account of remarks actually spoken during
debate in the House (by distinctive typeface rather than
``bulleting''), and requesting a report by the end of the first
session.
On July 31, 1985,(31) the following resolution was
adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. 131 Cong. Rec. 21783, 21786, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and
Manual Sec. Sec. 687, 692 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCURACY IN HOUSE PROCEEDINGS RESOLUTION
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on House Administration, I call up House
Resolution 230 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 230
Resolved, That this resolution may be cited as the ``Accuracy in House
Proceedings Resolution''.
Sec. 2. The Joint Committee on Printing is hereby requested to adopt the
following rule as part of the House Supplement to Laws and Rules for
Publication of the Congressional Record:
``7. Notwithstanding any other rule or joint rule relating to the
publication of the Congressional Record, for the remainder of the first
session of the Ninety-ninth Congress, the Congressional Record shall
contain a substantially verbatim account of remarks actually spoken during
the proceedings of the House, subject to such technical, grammatical, and
typographical corrections as may be authorized by the Member delivering the
remarks involved. The substantially verbatim account shall be clearly
distinguishable by different typeface from any remarks not actually spoken
but inserted under permission to extend remarks.''.
Sec. 3. The Joint Committee on Printing is requested to monitor the
operation of the special rule provided for by section 2 of this resolution
and report its findings to the Committee on House Administration no later
than December 31, 1985. The Committee on House Administration should report
to the House as soon as practicable thereafter its findings and
recommendation as to whether such rule should be continued.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [George (Buddy)] Darden [of
Georgia]). The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley] is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half hour to the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel], pending which I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule III of the laws and rules for the
publication of the Congressional Record promulgated by the Joint
Committee on Printing, a bullet symbol is presently used to
distinguish between words spoken on the floor by Members and words
submitted, but not actually spoken. According to the rule, the so
called bullet, a large black dot, is placed at the beginning and
the end of speeches, remarks, and other materials which are
submitted by Members for printing in the Congressional Record, but
no part of which was spoken on the floor.
Although this rule was designed to aid in distinguishing
between spoken and nonspoken words, under the rule a member may
rise and speak as little as one sentence of a prepared statement.
When the remainder of the text is submitted to the official
reporter under leave to revise and, extend remarks, the bullet
symbol is not used because rule III requires the bullet only when
no part of the statement is spoken on the floor.
In response to this practice, the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Lott] introduced House Resolution 163 calling for a review of
the bulleting procedure. Of specific concern was a debate printed
in the Congressional Record on May 1, 1985, wherein the bullet
symbol did not set off a Member's remarks which appeared not to
have been spoken on the floor, while in the same colloquy in other
remarks had a bullet symbol directly applied.
After extensive review by the Subcommittee on Procurement and
Printing . . .
Members shall continue to have the right to revise original
copy without having the alternative typeface applied to their
revisions, but they should continue to confine their revisions to
technical, grammatical, and typographical changes, as is now the
practice. . . .
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous
question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 17.10 The Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on Printing inserted
in the Congressional Record a notice to Members concerning the
implementation of a test period of a new rule, governing
publication of House proceedings in the Record, whereby a different
typeface (rather that a ``bullet'' symbol) would be used to
distinguish between spoken and non-spoken matter in the Record.
On September 4, 1985,(32) the following notice appeared
in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. 131 Cong. Rec. 22835, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. For the first occasion
where this new system was utilized, see 131 Cong. Rec. 22857,
99th Cong. 1st Sess. (Sept. 4, 1985).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
N O T I C E
T O H O
U S E M E
M B E R S
Beginnin
g with the
September
4, 1985
edition of
the
Congression
al Record,
and
continuing
through the
end of the
1st session
of the 99th
Congress, a
new rule
will be
implemented
for the
publication
of the
House
proceedings
. The new
rule is
being
tested by
the Joint
Committee
on Printing
in response
to the will
of the
House as
expressed
in the
passage of
H. Res.
230. That
resolution,
the
``Accuracy
in House
Proceedings
Resolution'
',
recommended
the
elimination
of the use
of the
``bullet''
symbol that
has
heretofore
indicated
statements
or
insertions
which were
not spoken
on the
House
floor. In
place of
the
``bullet'',
such non-
spoken
matter will
appear in a
different
typeface
from spoken
matter.
Members
are urged
to
familiarize
themselves
with the
Policy
Guidelines
that have
been
developed
to
implement
the new
rule.
Copies of
the Policy
Guidelines
and
information
regarding
the intent
of the
change are
available
to Members
from the
Joint
Committee
on
Printing,
upon
request.
By order
of the
Joint
Committee
on
Printing.
FRANK
ANNUNZIO,
Vice
Chairman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.11 The Majority Whip took the floor to advise the House that he
and the Minority Whip had requested that the Joint Committee on
Printing extend into the second session of that Congress a rule
requiring a substantially verbatim account of House proceedings in
the Congressional Record, as required for the first session by a
resolution adopted by the House.
On December 12, 1985,(33) the Majority Whip announced
that he and the Minority Whip would request that the new typeface
system of distinguishing words spoken on the floor from material
submitted at a later time continue for the remainder of the Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. 131 Cong. Rec. 36184, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCURACY IN HOUSE PROCEEDINGS RESOLUTION
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I wish to
focus the attention of the Members, briefly, on House Resolution
230, previously agreed to by the House, providing that, for the
remainder of the first session of the 99th Congress, there should
be a substantially verbatim account of House proceedings in the
Congressional Record which should be clearly distinguishable by a
different typeface from remarks not spoken, but inserted under
leave to extend.
Mr. Speaker, it is most important to note that House Resolution
230 provided for this change only for the remainder of the first
session of the 99th Congress.
Since the beginning of September 1985, the Congressional Record
has reflected the change authorized by House Resolution 230; and
alternate . . .
In this regard, Mr. Lott and I intend to submit a letter to
Chairman Annunzio, of the Committee on House Administration,
requesting his approval of such an extension; with an ensuing
letter from the Committee on House Administration to Senator
Mathias, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, for the
approval of the Joint Committee on Printing.
On August 12, 1986,(34) the House adopted a resolution
requesting that the Joint Committee on Printing amend the rules for the
composition of the Congressional Record to make permanent the
requirement to depict a ``substantially verbatim'' account of the
proceedings, with matter not spoken on the floor to appear in a
distinctive typeface:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. 132 Cong. Rec. 20980-81, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.; House Rules and
Manual Sec. 692 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be
discharged for further consideration of the resolution (H. Res.
514) providing that the substantially verbatim account of remarks
in House proceedings in the Congressional Record should be clearly
distinguishable by different typeface from material inserted under
permission to extend remarks, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER.(35) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] GINGRICH [of Georgia]. Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, I do so to give the gentleman from Washington
[Mr. Foley] an opportunity to explain the resolution.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution provides that the
substantially verbatim account of remarks in House proceedings in
the Congressional Record should be clearly distinguishable by
different typeface from material inserted under permission to
extend remarks.
House Resolution 514 is the result of a trial period pursuant
to House Resolution 230, wherein the Congressional Record
``bullet'' symbol designating words not spoken but submitted under
leave to extend was replaced with an alternate typeface, in order
to distinguish more clearly between words actually spoken on the
floor and those submitted under leave to extend. The resolution
requests the Joint Committee on Printing to amend rule VII of the
House supplement to laws and rules for publication of the
Congressional Record to replace the ``bullet'' symbol with the
alternate typeface permanently.
This rule change will incur no additional cost to the House of
Representatives. . . .
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 514
Resolved, That the Joint Committee on Printing is requested to amend rule
7 of the House Supplement to Laws and Rules for Publication of the
Congressional Record to read as follows:
``7. The Congressional Record shall contain a substantially verbatim
account of remarks actually made during proceedings of the House, subject
to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the
Member making the remarks involved. The substantially verbatim account
shall be clearly distinguishable, by different typeface, from material
Inserted under permission to extend remarks.''.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Depiction of Foreign Languages in the Record
Sec. 17.12 No rule of the House requires that Members deliver their
remarks in English, and under former practice,(36) when
Members spoke in foreign languages, the Congressional Record would
note that fact and carry the English translation only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. For the current rules regarding carrying foreign language speeches
in the Record, see 149 Cong. Rec. 4401-402, 108th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Feb. 25, 2003) and Sec. 17.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 5, 1981,(37) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. 127 Cong. Rec. 23187, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. For a similar
announcement by the Chair regarding the carrying of English
translations only, see 144 Cong. Rec. 2534-35, 105th Cong. 2d
Sess. (Mar. 4, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George] LELAND [of Texas]. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words, and I rise to oppose the amendment.
(The following is a translation of remarks which were delivered
in Spanish:)
Mr. LELAND. My colleagues, I want to begin speaking Spanish. I
want to begin speaking the language of millions of citizens of this
country. Many of you cannot understand me. And if you cannot
understand me, nor can you understand 21 percent of the adult
citizens of El Paso, Tex.; and nor can you understand 17 percent of
all adult workers of the Southwest. These citizens of the United
States speak only Spanish. You perhaps cannot understand them nor
participate in their culture--but these are citizens of the United
States, with the rights of citizens; their culture is an American
culture, and an intimate part of our culture which makes it more
rich and more strong.
And even though you cannot understand me when I speak Spanish
maybe you can begin to understand the hypocrisy of our political
system which excludes the participation of Hispanic-Americans only
for having a different culture and speaking a different language.
Ya Basta!!
Mrs. [Millicent] FENWICK [of New Jersey]. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LELAND. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. FENWICK (In Spanish). ``Si, my colleague, I beg you have
pity on us.''
(In Italian) ``I speak for our Italian citizens. They, too,
have a great culture.''
Sec. 17.13 The Chair advised a Member speaking in a foreign language to
provide the English translation of the remarks for inclusion in the
Congressional Record.
On August 1, 2014,(38) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. 160 Cong. Rec. 14007-4008, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. For a similar
announcement, see 149 Cong. Rec. 4402, 108th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Feb. 25, 2003) (remarks delivered in French).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Xavier] BECERRA [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
ranking member for yielding.
The corrosive effects of shutdown do-nothing politics is on
full display here tonight in the House of Representatives.
Stripping the rights and protections of children is never a good
solution in any legislation, whether it is the children huddled at
the border alone and afraid or now including the young DREAMers of
America who believe in this country. They have now become the
targets of this legislation. They are the ones who are being told,
it is because of you that we must change the law and treat human
beings so harshly.
Mr. Speaker, if I could speak to those frightened children and
our DREAMers of America and those working for a fair solution on
their behalf, this is what I would say:
(English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as
follows:)
Is there any doubt what Republicans' intentions are for the
migrant children at the border?
Is there any doubt what Republicans' intentions are for young
DREAMers and their families?
Is there any doubt why immigration reform remains shackled?
Is there any doubt what we must do with our vote, our voice, to
defend the rights and dreams of our children?
Queda duda de las intenciones republicanas hacia los ninos
migrantes en la frontera?
Queda duda de las intenciones republicanas hacia los muchachos
sonadores y sus familias?
Queda duda de porque la reforma migratoria queda encadenada?
Queda duda de lo que tenemos que hacer con nuestro voto,
nuestra voz, para defender los derechos y los suenos de nuestros
hijos?
Mr. BECERRA. Tonight, with this bill, we see what happens when,
for more than 390 days, our Republican colleagues refused to allow
a vote on the Senate's bipartisan solution to a broken immigration
system. But for the shutdown do-nothing politics in this House, we
could have tackled the humanitarian issues we face down on the
border a year ago, but we haven't been able to get a vote to do
this the right way.
It is time to have that vote to fix the broken immigration
system, not blame children and punish them by changing the law to
strip them of their rights and of their protections.
We can do better. This bill will not become law, and we will
have a chance to do better for those children, for those DREAMers,
and, quite honestly, for America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(39) The gentleman from
California will provide a translation of his statement for the
Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Randy Hultgren (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair provided similar advice on January 10,
2007,(40) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. 153 Cong. Rec. 768, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 146 Cong. Rec.
23047, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 17, 2000) (example of an
extension of remarks made in another language with an English
translation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
Mrs. [Grace] NAPOLITANO [of California]. Mr. Speaker, a minimum
wage increase is crucial for all Americans, more so for women and
minorities.
Es de maxima importancia que este Congreso eleve el salario
minimo, especialmente para las mujeres y menorias.
Ten years of neglect, plus inflation, have left workers living
below poverty.
Diez anos de olvido, mas la inflacion, han dejado a nuestros
trabajadores en pobreza.
1.4 million working women will be main beneficiaries for an
increase from $5.15 to eventually $7.25 per hour in 2 years, of
which 33 percent are African American and Hispanic female workers.
Mas de uno punto quarto millon de mujeres trabajan -seran las
beneficiaries el cual son Hispanas y AfroAmericanas del salario de
5.15 a 7.25 pro hora.
It helps economic social conditions, reduces pay gaps. It helps
the economy. More money spent will create more career opportunities
through affordability of education.
Ayuda a la economia nacional ya que se gastara mas dinero.
Mujeres encabezadas de su familia podran tener mas dinero para
mantener su familia.
Women breadwinners can increase economic and financial
independence.
Enough talk. Take action. Have a conscience. Help America. Vote
for the minimum wage increase.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(41) The Chair requests that
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) provide a
translation, of her remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Alcee Hastings (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.14 Where words spoken on the House floor are incapable of
transcription by the Government Publishing Office (due to the types
of characters used), the Congressional Record will carry only the
English translation.
On June 20, 2001,(42) the guest chaplain delivered
remarks in Hebrew (a language whose characters could not be reproduced
by the Government Publishing Office):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. 147 Cong. Rec. 11167, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAYER
The Rabbi Rafael G. Grossman, Senior Rabbi, Baron Hirsch
Synagogue, Memphis, Tennessee, offered the following prayer:
O merciful God, in this august Chamber, Thy servants represent
a nation blessed to live in freedom. Grant wisdom and courage so
the path they pave can be traversed by all.
You chose us, the American people, from among all people, to be
the ``light unto the nations'' and the voice for the silenced and
the suffering. Thy children everywhere look to this hall of
democracy for hope and strength, as old and young continue to face
the evil hand of terror and exploitation. Give us determination to
bring joy and life to victims of terror and might against those who
perpetrate it. Your voice resonates in our hearts, and this is the
vision of America's destiny.
Isaiah, in the language of the Bible: (Here the cited verse was
read in Hebrew.) He ``has sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to
proclaim liberty to the captives, and opening of the eyes of those
who are bound.'' The old Prophet's words beckon the hearts of
Americans to bring the freedom of our blessings to humankind's
downtrodden, to those shackled by chains of exploitation and
demagoguery. The free, dear God, are only free when all of God's
children are free.
Would you join me in saying, Amen.
Sec. 18. Matters Printed in the Congressional Record
The rules and practices of the House, in addition to certain
statutory requirements, determine the content of the House portion of
the Congressional Record.(1) In addition to the remarks of
Members in debate, the Record also carries the text of legislative
measures that are considered by the House.(2) When Members
introduce bills and resolutions, the titles and references of such
measures are printed in the Record.(3) When a measure is
introduced ``by request,'' those words are also printed in the
Record.(4) In recent years, the House has occasionally
agreed to adjournment resolutions that provide for a series of pro
forma sessions rather than a continuous period of recess.(5)
In order to facilitate the introduction of bills and resolutions, such
adjournment resolutions would sometimes (under former practice)
authorize the introduction and printing (by title) of measures in the
Record,(6) but with referrals delayed until the House
returned for normal legislative business.(7) However, under
current practice, introduction and referral of measures at such pro
forma sessions occurs without delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For an earlier treatment of matters printed in the Congressional
Record, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 16.
2. See, e.g., Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 16.1-16.4.
3. Rule XII, clause 7(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019). A
``reference'' in this context means the committee(s) to which
the measures were referred. For introduction and referral of
bills and resolutions generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
16 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 16.
4. Rule XII, clause 7(b)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 826 (2019).
5. Rule XII, clause 7(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019).
6. For adjournment generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 40 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 40.
7. See 138 Cong. Rec. 148-49, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Jan. 22, 1992). For
similar authorities providing for introduction, dating, and
printing of measures (but with referral delayed until the House
convened for regular legislative business), see 158 Cong. Rec.
15310, 15312, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. (Nov. 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House rules also require printing in the Congressional Record of
the titles and references of petitions, memorials, and private bills
submitted by Members.(8) When measures are reported by
committees of the House for reference to one of the Calendars of the
House,(9) the title and subject of the report are printed in
the Record, but the report is not printed there in full.(10)
Where a measure is introduced, but the printing of its title and
reference inadvertently omitted from the Record, a subsequent Record
will contain the omitted material with a notation indicating the actual
date of introduction.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Rule XII, clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 818 (2019). See
also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 16.5.
9. For the House's system of Calendars, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
22 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 22.
10. Rule XIII, clause 2(a)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 831 (2019).
See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 16.6, 16.7.
11. See, e.g., 137 Cong. Rec. 17330, 102d Cong. 1st Sess. (July 9,
1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When legislative measures are brought up for consideration in the
House, the text of the bill or resolution to be considered is generally
printed at the very outset of consideration, before debate begins. If
an amended version of the measure is made in order by a special order
of business, it is only the amended version that appears in the
Congressional Record.(12) Measures considered in the
Committee of the Whole are typically printed in full following general
debate, and the version that appears is the one made in order as
original text for purposes of further amendment. However, when the
reading of a measure proceeds by title or section (or other
subdivision, that portion of the bill is printed at the point at which
the Clerk reads or designates that portion.(13) Amendments
are typically printed in full at the place where the amendment is
called up, even in cases where the amendment is considered as read and
the Clerk merely designates the amendment.(14) The text of
measures considered under suspension of the rules appears in the Record
where the motion to suspend is offered.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 18.2, infra.
13. See Sec. 18.1, infra. For the process of reading bills for
amendment, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 24 Sec. 11; Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 27 Sec. Sec. 7-14; Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 24;
and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 27.
14. Parliamentarian's Note: As a matter of course, the printing in the
Congressional Record follows the reading of the measure by the
Clerk.
15. For suspension of the rules, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 21
Sec. Sec. 9-15 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special orders of business reported from the Committee on Rules may
sometimes ``self-execute'' amendment(s) to the underlying text, which
results in the text being automatically amended upon adoption of the
resolution proposing the special order.(16) In such cases,
the measure is generally printed in two forms: first, the original text
(printed at the place in the Congressional Record where the measure is
called up); and second, the amended text (printed after the Chair's
declaration that the amendment(s) are adopted).(17) If the
special order provides for consideration in the Committee of the Whole
rather than the House, the printing of the amended version will appear
after general debate.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For more on special orders of business generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 21 Sec. Sec. 16-27 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch.
21.
17. See 147 Cong. Rec. 24153, 24159, 24218, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec.
6, 2001).
18. See 131 Cong. Rec. 29841, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. (Oct. 31, 1985). For
anomalous instances where the original text was printed in
full, followed by the amendments that had been considered as
adopted pursuant to the special order of business, see 132
Cong. Rec. 25927-28, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 24, 1986) and
133 Cong. Rec. 29966, 30225-26, 100th Cong. 1st Sess. (Oct. 29,
1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to measures brought up for initial consideration, House
rules also provide for the printing of legislative text at other stages
in the legislative process. The amendment process in the Committee of
the Whole is governed by a variety of House rules, some of which
provide for special consideration of amendments that are printed in the
Congressional Record. For example, under clause 8(b) of rule
XVIII,(19) when debate has been closed or limited by motion,
amendments that have been printed in the Record are entitled to ten
minutes of debate (five in support, five in opposition),
notwithstanding the limitation. Under clause 7 of rule XVIII, a
nondebatable motion to waive the reading of an amendment may be made
with regard to any amendment that has been previously printed in the
Record.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 987 (2019). See also Sec. 24, infra.
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 986 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to recommit frequently contain instructions to amend the
underlying legislation in some specified way and the text of the
proposed amendment(s) is printed in the Congressional Record when the
motion is offered. If the motion is ruled out of order before the
entire text is read into the Record, a Member may request unanimous
consent to have the full text printed in the Record.(21)
Where a motion to recommit is ruled out of order and a nearly-identical
second motion to recommit is subsequently offered, the Record may show
a truncated version of the second motion to avoid duplicative
printings.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See Sec. 18.6, infra.
22. See Sec. 18.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference reports may not be considered until the text has been
available (via printing in the Congressional Record or electronic
availability)(23) for three calendar days.(24) A
similar requirement applies to amendments reported from conference in
disagreement, pursuant to clause 8(b) of rule XXII.(25) If
the full text of a measure has already been printed in the Senate
portion of the Record (as is often the case with conference reports),
the House portion will usually simply contain a notation directing the
reader to the pages where such text appears.(26) A similar
notation has appeared where amendments between the Houses were nearly
identical to the text of a previously printed (and subsequently vetoed)
conference report.(27) Notations in the Record regarding the
form of legislative text may also appear where there are printing
errors or delays in submitting the pertinent legislation for
printing.(28)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Rule XXIX, clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1105b (2019).
24. Rule XXII, clause 8(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 1082 (2019).
For earlier treatment of printing and layover requirements for
conference reports, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. Sec. 16.8-16.12. For conference reports generally, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 33 Sec. Sec. 15-32 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 33.
25. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1083 (2019).
26. See 137 Cong. Rec. 34206, 102d Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov. 23, 1991).
27. See 142 Cong. Rec. 381-82, 445, 449, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. (Jan. 5,
1996).
28. See, e.g., 138 Cong. Rec. 15486, 15524-25, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
(June 18, 1992). See also Sec. 18.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Votes and quorum calls are also carried in the Congressional
Record. Clause 2(a) of rule XX provides that votes and quorum calls by
electronic device be recorded in the Journal and the Record, with
Members listed in alphabetical order by category (i.e., voting in the
affirmative, negative, or present but not voting).(29)
Clause 4(a) of that rule provides a similar publication requirement for
votes or quorum calls conducted by tellers.(30) When Members
change their votes by submitting vote cards, their names and nature of
the change are announced on the floor and printed in the Record
immediately following the vote totals.(31) When Members miss
votes, they often submit a statement to the Record indicating which
side of the question they would have voted for had they been
present.(32) When the Committee of the Whole conducts a
``notice'' quorum call under clause 6 of rule XVIII,(33) the
Chair may dispense with the call at the appearance of a quorum, and in
such cases the names of absentees are not recorded in the
Record.(34) When recorded votes are vacated in the Committee
of the Whole, the vote is not carried in the Record and the roll call
vote number is not reused for subsequent votes.(35)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1014 (2019).
30. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1019 (2019).
31. For an early example of having vote changes depicted in the Record,
see Deschler Ch. 5 Sec. 16.14. For voting generally, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 30 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 30.
32. When Members submit such statements relating to a single vote, the
statement appears directly after the vote totals, under the
captions ``Stated for'' or ``Stated against,'' as appropriate.
If Members submit statements relating to multiple votes, the
statement appears under the caption ``Personal Explanation.''
See, e.g., Sec. 17.7, supra.
33. House Rules and Manual Sec. 982 (2019).
34. See 120 Cong. Rec. 14990, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. (May 16, 1974).
35. See Sec. 18.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A variety of other messages and documents are also required by
House rules to be printed in the Congressional Record. These include
Senate and presidential messages,(36) additions or deletions
of cosponsors of bills and resolutions,(37) and
signatories(38) of discharge petitions.(39) In
the 93d Congress, the House amended the standing rules to require
committees to publish their rules of proceeding in the Record by a date
certain,(40) though committees have often been delayed in
making such submissions.(41) The Office of Compliance (now
the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights), originally established
in the 104th Congress,(42) promulgates certain regulations
regarding employment in the House and Senate, and, by
statute,(43) such regulations are required to be printed in
the Record.(44) Various types of correspondence are
routinely printed in the Record for the information of Members,
including letters of resignation,(45) and (as required by
rule) subpoenas received by Members or officers of the
House.(46)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. Rule XII, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 815 (2019). See
also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 16.13, and Sec. 18.8,
infra.
37. Rule XII, clause 7(b)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019).
See Sec. Sec. 18.17-18.21, infra. See also 131 Cong. Rec. 1141,
99th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 28, 1985), and 131 Cong. Rec. 37765,
99th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 18, 1985).
38. Parliamentarian's Note: In the 112th Congress, clause 2 of rule XV
was clarified to provide that only the names of those signing
the discharge would appear in the Congressional Record (rather
than the signatures themselves). At no time did the actual
signatures of Members appear in the Record pursuant to this
rule. House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2019).
39. Rule XV, clause 2(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2019). For
the origins of this rule, see 139 Cong. Rec. 22698-704, 103d
Cong. 1st Sess. (Sept. 28, 1993). For the first instance of the
Congressional Record printing the names of Members who had
signed discharge petitions, see 139 Cong. Rec. 24125, 103d
Cong. 1st Sess. (Oct. 7, 1993). When a discharge petition
garners the requisite 218 signatures, the motion to discharge
is printed in the Record along with the complete list of those
Members who had signed it. See, e.g., 161 Cong. Rec. H6972,
H6973 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (Oct. 9, 2015). For an
example of the printing of withdrawals of signatures from a
discharge petition, see 144 Cong. Rec. 6590-91, 105th Cong. 2d
Sess. (Apr. 23, 1998). For a similar discharge process provided
by statute, see 127 Cong. Rec. 30765, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Dec. 10, 1981). For a unanimous-consent request to discharge
from committee (and pass) multiple measures, see Sec. 18.22,
infra.
40. Rule XI, clause 2(a)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 791 (2019). In
the 102d Congress, this requirement was adjusted to provide
more time for committees to submit their rules for printing
(i.e., 30 days after the membership of the committee is
established, as opposed to 30 days from the beginning of the
Congress). See H. Res. 5, 137 Cong. Rec. 39-42, 102d Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 3, 1991). In the 112th Congress, the deadline for
submitting rules was again changed to 30 days after the chair
of the committee is elected, and the rule also amended to
require electronic availability as well. See H. Res. 5, 157
Cong. Rec. 80-83, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5, 2011). In the
116th Congress, this requirement was changed again to 60 days
after the chair of the committee is elected. See H. Res. 6,
sec. 102(n), 165 Cong. Rec. H18 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 3, 2019).
41. See Sec. Sec. 18.3, 18.14, infra. For examples of select committees
publishing their rules in the Congressional Record, see 153
Cong. Rec. 25793, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. (Sept. 27, 2007), and
144 Cong. Rec. 14014, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (June 25, 1998). For
an example of a committee submitting revised rules for printing
in the Record, see 155 Cong. Rec. 14423-24, 111th Cong. 1st
Sess. (June 9, 2009).
42. For more on the evolution of the Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights, see Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 6 Sec. 28.
43. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384.
44. See 154 Cong. Rec. 8127, 110th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 8, 2008) and
Sec. 18.24, infra.
45. See Sec. Sec. 18.10, 18.11, and 19.3, infra. See also 143 Cong.
Rec. 188-89, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 9, 1997) and 149 Cong.
Rec. 32411, 108th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 15, 2003). For
resignations generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 37.
46. Clause 2 of rule VIII requires Members, officers, and employees of
the House to notify the Speaker promptly upon receipt of a
properly served judicial or administrative subpoena or other
judicial order. The Speaker, in turn, is required to promptly
lay such communication before the House. House Rules and Manual
Sec. 697 (2019). See H. Res. 10, 123 Cong. Rec. 73, 95th Cong.
1st Sess. (Jan. 4, 1977) (ad hoc resolution containing similar
requirements prior to the advent of current rule VIII), H. Res.
722, 126 Cong. Rec. 25777-78, 25785, 25787-90, 96th Cong. 2d
Sess. (Sept. 17, 1980) (resolution codified as rule L (now rule
VIII) in the following Congress), and Sec. 18.16, infra. For an
example of a civil complaint against an officer of the House
being printed in full in the Record, see 122 Cong. Rec. 14926-
28, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 20, 1976). Where a subpoena duces
tecum requires the production of documents in a secret grand
jury proceeding, such subpoenas are not printed in the Record
(due to the secrecy of the investigation). See, e.g., 126 Cong.
Rec. 4306, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. (Feb. 28, 1980). For more on
service of process on officers, officials, and employees of the
House, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 23 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 26, 27. For more on service of
process on Members of the House, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
7 Sec. Sec. 15-18 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 112th Congress, clause 7(c) of rule XII was added to
prohibit the introduction of measures when the sponsor has failed to
have printed in the Congressional Record a statement on the
constitutional authority of Congress to enact the
measure.(47) Another prohibition exists on the consideration
of bills or joint resolutions amending the Internal Revenue Code when
such legislation is not accompanied by a tax complexity analysis
(prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation) which the chair of the
Committee on Ways and Means has had printed in the
Record.(48) Finally, clause 9 of rule XXI provides a point
of order against the consideration of certain legislation containing
congressional ``earmarks.''(49) Publication of an
appropriate earmark statement(50) in the Record prior to
consideration of the measure is the required action to avoid such a
point of order.(51)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. House Rules and Manual Sec. 826a (2019). For the first printing of
constitutional authority statements in the Record, see 157
Cong. Rec. 117-18, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5, 2011).
48. Rule XIII, clause 3(h), House Rules and Manual Sec. 849 (2019). A
similar requirement exists in clause 11 of rule XXII for
conference reports amending the Internal Revenue Code. House
Rules and Manual Sec. 1092 (2019).
49. For more on earmarks in the context of the congressional budget
process, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 41 Sec. 31 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 41.
50. Parliamentarian's Note: The form of such earmark statements is not
provided by rule and may contain additional details regarding
the nature of the earmarks at issue. See, e.g., 154 Cong. Rec.
10902, 10936, 110th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 22, 2008).
51. Rule XXI, clause 9, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1068d (2019). See
Sec. Sec. 18.26-18.28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On occasion, the House receives messages or House officers are
authorized to take certain actions after sine die adjournment of a
session of Congress. In such cases, formal notification of these events
does not occur until the House convenes again at the beginning of the
next session or Congress. Business of the prior session is typically
printed in the first daily Congressional Record of the next session,
with a special caption indicating the session or Congress in which such
business occurred.(52)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. See Sec. 18.29, infra. See also 144 Cong. Rec. 91, 105th Cong. 2d
Sess. (Jan. 27, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the House and Senate are involved in impeachment
proceedings,(53) it is often the case that unanimous consent
will be granted to have various pleadings and documents entered into
the Congressional Record.(54) When the House conducts a
secret session pursuant to clause 10 of rule XVII,(55) such
proceedings are not carried in the Record unless the House agrees to
provide for such publication (sometimes in redacted form, and often
only upon review by the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence).(56) In the 107th Congress, the House adopted
a rule requiring the publication in the Record of the list of Members
who had signed the oath to receive classified information (a
requirement for Members who wish to attend secret sessions or security
briefings at which classified material will be
discussed).(57)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. For impeachment powers generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 14
and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 14.
54. See 132 Cong. Rec. 22035, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. (Aug. 15, 1986);
House Rules and Manual Sec. 614 (2019). For similar authorities
provided in an impeachment proceeding in the 101st Congress,
see 135 Cong. Rec. 9120-21, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. (May 15,
1989) and 135 Cong. Rec. 11412-17, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. (June
9, 1989).
55. House Rules and Manual Sec. 969 (2019). For more on secret sessions
generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. 85, Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 1, and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 29. For issues
related to the preparation of the Chamber for conducting closed
security briefings or secret sessions, see Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 4 Sec. 1.
56. See 154 Cong. Rec. 4145-54, 110th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 13, 2008)
and Sec. 18.31, infra. A similar prohibition exists on
releasing executive session material of committees. House Rules
and Manual Sec. 319 (2019). For an example of publication in
the Record of a staff summary of committee executive session
material, see 123 Cong. Rec. 38470-73, 39038, 95th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Dec. 6, 1977) and Sec. 18.30, infra.
57. Rule XXIII, clause 13, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1095 (2019). See
Sec. 18.25, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative Measures
Sec. 18.1 Where a special order of business provides that a legislative
measure be considered in parts, with each part merely designated by
the Clerk (not read in full), the full text of each part will
nevertheless appear in the Congressional Record at the point at
which it is designated.
The proceedings of August 2, 1977,(58) typify the
depiction in the Record of amendments merely designated by the Clerk:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. 123 Cong. Rec. 26124-25, 26134, 26137, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas] ASHLEY [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R.
8444) to establish a comprehensive national energy policy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(59) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. Jerome Traxler (MI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to.
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill H.R. 8444, with Mr. BOLAND in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN.(60) When the Committee rose on Monday,
August 1, 1977, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. Edward Boland (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered by parts and each
part is considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment
shall be in order except pro forma amendments and amendments made
in order pursuant to House Resolution 727, which will not be
subject to amendment, except amendments recommended by the ad hoc
Committee on Energy and amendments made in order under House
Resolution 727.
Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee amendments to the table of contents and the table of
contents be passed over and considered after all other amendments
have been considered, in order that they can be correctly disposed
of.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the part of the bill now
pending for consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 9, line 1, section 2. (Section 2 reads as follows:)
Sec. 2. Findings and Statement of Purposes. . . .
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the page and line number
of the first ad hoc committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ad hoc committee amendment: Page 12, strike line 9, and insert the matter
printed on lines 11 through 14. (The ad hoc committee amendment reads as
follows:)
and
(9) to provide incentives to increase the amount of domestically produced
energy in the United States for the benefit and security of present and
future generations.
Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. . . .
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the next part of the
bill for consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 13, line 6, section 4, (section 4 reads as follows:)
Sec. 4. References to Federal Power Commission and Federal Energy
Administration.
If the Federal Power Commission or the Federal Energy Administration is
terminated, any reference in this Act (or any amendment made thereby) to
the Federal Power Commission or the Federal Energy Administration shall be
deemed to be a reference to the officer, department, agency, or commission
in which the principal functions of such Commission or Administration (as
the case may be) are vested, transferred, or delegated pursuant to law.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [John] ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am uncertain as to
why we have just had the Clerk read another section of the bill.
Are we not still dealing with the second committee amendment
that was offered by the chairman of the committee, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) ?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform the gentleman that the part
now pending is section 4 on page 13 of the bill.
Does the gentleman wish to debate that part at this time?
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I merely want to
protect my right to rise in opposition to this particular committee
amendment, and I am concerned that in the reading of the next part
I may not be accorded that right.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform the gentleman there is no
amendment now pending.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I am sorry but I did not hear the
Chair's statement.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform the gentleman that there is
not now pending a committee amendment.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Harold] VOLKMER [of Missouri]. Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, so I will know how we are going to
proceed, are we going to go through the bill section by section,
with the reading of each section?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform the gentleman that the bill
will be considered part by part with each part considered as read.
The bill will not be read section by section.
Mr. VOLKMER. So we will continue, Mr. Chairman, with the
reading of each section or part, then, and the title of the
section?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will further inform the gentleman that
section 4 precedes part I, and after that section has been disposed
of, we will move to part I of the bill. We have been considering
the preliminary four sections as separate parts.
Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the next part of the
bill for consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 13, line 16, Title I, Part 1 (Title I, Part 1 reads as follows):
TITLE I--PRICING, REGULATORY, AND OTHER NONTAX PROVISIONS
Part I--Energy Conservation Programs for Existing Residential Buildings . .
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the page and line number
of the ad hoc committee amendment to title 1, part 1, of the bill.
The Clerk read a follows:
Ad hoc committee amendment: Page 13, line 20, strike out the matter
beginning on page 13, line 20, through page 58, line 18, and insert the
matter beginning on page 58, line 19, through page 88, line 9 (the ad hoc
committee amendment reads as follows:
Subpart A--Utility Program . . .
Mr. [Garry] BROWN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. BROWN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the rule in
front of me, but does the rule waive the reading of amendments? I
understand that each part is considered as having been read for
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the rule waives the
reading of ad hoc committee amendments.
Sec. 18.2 Where a special order of business provides that an amendment
in the nature of a substitute be considered as read, the
Congressional Record nevertheless carries the full text of the
amendment at the point at which it is designated by the Clerk.
The proceedings of June 26, 1981,(61) typify the
depiction in the Record of an amendment in the nature of a substitute
considered as read pursuant to a special order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. 127 Cong. Rec. 14357, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 3982, with Mr. Boland in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN.(62) When the Committee of the Whole
rose on Thursday, June 25, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. Edward Boland (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been
read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. No amendments are in
order except an amendment in the nature of a substitute (the text
of H.R. 3964), which shall be considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment, and shall be considered as having been
read, and the following amendments to said substitute:
(1) A substitute amendment to title VI by Representative Broyhill, if
offered, and said amendment shall be considered as having been read and
shall not be subject to amendment or to a division of the question; and
(2) The amendments of Representative Latta of Ohio, which shall be
considered en bloc and shall be considered as having been read and shall
not be subject to amendment or to a division of the question.
The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk designated the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute reads as follows:
H.R. 3964
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
short title
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1981.''
Sec. 18.3 Where there are discrepancies between legislative text
printed in the Congressional Record and prior actions of the House
regarding that text, the Chair may make an announcement regarding
such discrepancies for the information of Members.(63)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. Parliamentarian's Note: Due to delays in assembling the amended
text of the bill for printing, the version printed in the
Record did not reflect the adoption of certain amendments in
the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 11, 1986,(64) the Chair made the following
announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. 132 Cong. Rec. 20633, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore.(65) When the Committee of
the Whole rose on Friday, August 8, 1986, amendments made in order
pursuant to paragraph 2 of House Resolution 531 had been completed.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified,
made in order as original text for the purpose of amendment by
House Resolution 523 is considered as having been read for
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. Samuel Gejdenson (CT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of H.R. 4428, as modified, is printed herewith, said
text including certain modifications agreed to on Tuesday, August
5, 1986, and pursuant to provisions of House Resolution 523 but not
including amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole on
Tuesday, August 5, 1986, and August 8, 1986:
H.R. 4428
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION I. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1987''.
SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION.
This Act is divided into four divisions as follows:
(1) Division A--Department of Defense Authorization.
(2) Division B--Military Construction Authorization.
(3) Division C--Other National Defense Authorizations.
Sec. 18.4 Where a committee report has been printed and found to
contain errors, a Member of the relevant committee may, by
unanimous consent, submit a statement for the Congressional Record
indicating the nature of the errors, in order to avoid a costly
reprint of the report.
On June 20, 2000,(66) the following statement correcting
an error in a committee report appeared in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. 146 Cong. Rec. 11512-13, 106th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORRECTION OF PRINTING ERRORS IN HOUSE REPORT 106-645
ACCOMPANYING H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2001
Mr. [Charles (Bill)] YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to
make the following statement to correct a printing error in the
Record.
Mr. Speaker, the report to accompany the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001, House Report 106-645, includes a printing
error. On page 204, roll-call vote number 4, the amendment dealing
with ergonomics, under the column for Members voting ``nay,'' there
is a name ``Mr. Lextra.''
That name should not be in that column. There is no such person
on the Committee on Appropriations or in the House of
Representatives.
Under the column for Members voting ``present,'' the name of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) appears. The report the
committee filed with the House shows that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dixon) voted ``nay,'' not ``present.'' His name
should not have been printed in the ``present'' column but in the
``nay'' column.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this statement
reflecting the accurate vote of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dixon) on the ergonomics issue appear not only in today's Record
but in the permanent Record for the day that this legislation was
initially considered, June 8, 2000.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Shimkus [of Illinois]). Is
there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. [David] OBEY [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, I would just like to inquire of the gentleman from
Florida how many other times has Mr. Lextra voted in this or any
other committee, even though he is not a member of the committee
and, to my knowledge, is not a Member of the House?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman is well
aware, he and I read every word and every comma of each report. I
have not seen the name Mr. Lextra ever, and I doubt the gentleman
from Wisconsin has.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Sec. 18.5 Where one motion to recommit is ruled out of order, and a
second motion to recommit, nearly identical to the first, is
offered, the Congressional Record may carry a truncated version of
the second motion to avoid duplicative printings.
On February 29, 1996,(67) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. 142 Cong. Rec. 3257-58, 3281-83, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
motion to recommit offered by mr. stenholm
Mr. [Charles] STENHOLM [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(68) Is the gentleman
opposed to the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. Richard Hastings (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. STENHOLM. I am, in its current form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Motion To Recommit With Instructions
Mr. Stenholm moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2854 to the Committee on
Agriculture with instructions to report the same back to the House
forthwith with the following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Agricultural Reform and
Improvement Act of 1996''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
title i--agricultural market transition program
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Production flexibility contracts.
Sec. 104. Nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency
payments. . . .
title iv--nutrition assistance
Sec. 401. Food stamp program.
Sec. 402. Commodity distribution program; commodity supplemental food
program.
Sec. 403. Emergency food assistance program.
Sec. 404. Soup kitchens program.
Sec. 405. National commodity processing. . . .
title iv--nutrition assistance
SEC. 401. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM.
(a) Disqualification of a Store or Concern.--Section 12 of the Food Stamp
Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2021) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading;
(2) by striking ``Sec. 12. (a) Any'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 12. CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES AND DISQUALIFICATION OF RETAIL FOOD STORES
AND WHOLESALE FOOD CONCERNS.
``(a) Disqualification.--
``(1) In general.--An'';
(3) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
``(2) Employing certain persons.--A retail food store or wholesale food
concern shall be disqualified from participation in the food stamp program
if the store or concern knowingly employs a person who has been found by
the Secretary, or a Federal, State, or local court, to have, within the
preceding 3-year period--
``(A) engaged in the trading of a firearm, ammunition, an explosive, or a
controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 802)) for a coupon; or
``(B) committed any act that constitutes a violation of this Act or a
State law relating to using, presenting, transferring, acquiring,
receiving, or possessing a coupon, authorization card, or access device.'';
and
(4) in subsection (b)(3)(B), by striking ``neither the ownership nor
management of the store or food concern was aware'' and inserting ``the
ownership of the store or food concern was not aware''.
(b) Employment and Training.--Section 16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2025(h)(1)) is amended by striking ``1995'' each place
it appears and inserting ``2002''.
(c) Authorization of Pilot Projects.--The last sentence of section
17(b)(1)(A) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2026(b)(1)(A)) is
amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
(d) Outreach Demonstration Projects.--The first sentence of section
17(j)(1)(A) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2026(j)(1)(A)) is
amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
(e) Authorization for Appropriations.--The first sentence of section
18(a)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2027(a)(1)) is
amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
(f) Reauthorization of Puerto Rico Nutrition Assistance Program.--The
first sentence of section 19(a)(1)(A) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. Sec. 2028(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``$974,000,000'' and all
that follows through ``fiscal year 1995'' and inserting ``$1,143,000,000
for fiscal year 1996, $1,174,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, $1,204,000,000
for fiscal year 1998, $1,236,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $1,268,000,000
for fiscal year 2000, $1,301,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$1,335,000,000 for fiscal year 2002''.
(g) American Samoa.--The Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2011 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 24. TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA.
``From amounts made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary may
pay to the Territory of American Samoa not more than $5,300,000 for each of
fiscal years 1996 through 2002 to finance 100 percent of the expenditures
for the fiscal year for a nutrition assistance program extended under
section 601(c) of Public Law 96-597 (48 U.S.C. Sec. 1469d(c)).''.
SEC. 402. COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM; COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD
PROGRAM.
(a) Reauthorization.--The first sentence of section 4(a) of the
Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-86; 7 U.S.C.
Sec. 612c note) is amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
(b) Funding.--Section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of
1973 (Public Law 93-86; 7 U.S.C. Sec. 612c note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002'';
and
(2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
(c) Carried-Over Funds.--20 percent of any commodity supplemental food
program funds carried over under section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer
Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-86; 7 U.S.C. Sec. 612c note) shall be
available for administrative expenses of the program.
SEC. 403. EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Reauthorization.--The first sentence of section 204(a)(1) of the
Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-8; 7 U.S.C. Sec. 612c
note) is amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
(b) Program Termination.--Section 212 of the Emergency Food Assistance
Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-8; 7 U.S.C. Sec. 612c note) is amended by
striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
(c) Required Purchases of Commodities.--Section 214 of the Emergency Food
Assistance Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-8; 7 U.S.C. Sec. 612c note) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking ``1995'' and
inserting ``2002''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``1995'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2002''.
SEC. 404. SOUP KITCHENS PROGRAM.
Section 110 of the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-435; 7
U.S.C. Sec. 612c note) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking ``1995'' and
inserting ``2002''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``1995'' and inserting
``2002''; and
(B) by striking ``1995'' each place it appears and inserting ``2002''.
SEC. 405. NATIONAL COMMODITY PROCESSING.
The first sentence of section 1114(a)(2)(A) of the Agriculture and Food
Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 1431e(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``1995'' and
inserting ``2002''. . . .
Mr. STENHOLM (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. [Charles (Pat)] ROBERTS [of Kansas]. Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair, in terms
of the requirement of reading what is contained in the motion to
recommit, it is my understanding there are 229 pages of the
proposal. We have not seen these 229 pages. Could the Chair inform
me if, in fact, there are 229 pages and was the Clerk going to read
all 229?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unless the reading is dispensed with,
the Clerk will read the full 229 pages. . . .
point of order
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Roberts] insist on his point of order?
Mr. ROBERTS. I do, Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
It is my understanding there is a nutrition program extension;
that is, the Food Stamp Program included. This is not included in
H.R. 2854. It is an entitlement program that amounts to about 50
percent of the ag appropriations each year. This is a 7-year
extension, not germane to the rest of the bill. I insist on my
point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm] wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. STENHOLM. I do, Mr. Speaker.
If the gentleman from Kansas insists that the nutrition
programs dealing with the feeding of the people with the food that
is produced by our farmers should be stricken from this farm bill,
I will extract that from our recommittal so that no longer is an
issue because I understand the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the
point of order.
The amendment proposed in the motion to recommit, among other
things, amends the Food Stamp Act. The bill as amended does not
amend that act, nor does it otherwise address nutrition assistance
programs.
The bill, as perfected, addresses production and distribution
of agricultural products and not the food programs.
Therefore, the point of order is sustained.
Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] have another
motion?
motion to recommit offered by mr. stenholm
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
recommittal be resubmitted with the point of order that has just
been sustained, that portion dealing with nutrition programs be
extracted from the consideration, everything else shall remain as
previously explained.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the second motion
to recommit is considered read.
There was no objection.
(For text of motion to recommit see prior motion to recommit,
minus title IV, and redesignate title V as title IV.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Sec. 18.6 Where a motion to recommit is ruled out of order before the
entire motion has been read, a Member may ask unanimous consent to
have the full motion printed in the Congressional Record.
On May 6, 2004,(69) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. 150 Cong. Rec. 8590-91, 108th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Michael] Simpson [of Idaho]). All
time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the resolution is considered
read for amendment, and the previous question is ordered.
motion to recommit offered by mr. hoyer
Mr. [Steny] HOYER [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the
resolution?
Mr. HOYER. I am in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hoyer moves to recommit the resolution H. Res. 627 to the Committee
on Armed Services with instructions to report the same back to the House
forthwith with the following amendments:
point of order
Mr. [Duncan] HUNTER [of California] (during the reading). Mr.
Speaker, I make a point of order that the motion contains
instructions not allowed under H. Res. 628.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Maryland wish
to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. HOYER. I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is
recognized.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is it the contention that the rule, as
presented and as passed by the majority, prevents the minority from
offering a substantive substitute under the rule so that the
alternative felt to be preferable by the minority may not be heard?
Is that the condition under which the rule places the minority?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is that the motion
includes instructions.
Mr. HOYER. I understand that, Mr. Speaker. My question is, does
that preclude us, therefore, from offering an alternative that
gives an alternative proposal to have that proposal be considered
on the floor?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 628, the motion
may not contain instructions.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker. He has answered my question.
I withdraw my reservation because, under the rule, we have been
gagged.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Although the Chair ordinarily would await the reading in full
before broaching a question of order, the Chair is uniquely
responsible to intervene in the present circumstances.
The Chair finds that the motion includes instructions, in
unambiguous contravention of House Resolution 628. Therefore, the
motion is not in order as a matter of form and without regard to
its content.
The point of order is sustained.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HOYER. That means not only can it not be considered on the
floor, but it cannot even be disclosed to the Members?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may enter the motion
into the Record by unanimous consent.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter the
motion into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
The text of the motion is as follows:
Strike the preamble and insert the following:
Whereas the American people and the world abhor the abuses inflicted upon
detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad;
Whereas the investigation by the United States Central Command has
identified problems of leadership, chain of command, and training that
contributed to the instances of abuse;
Whereas the Congress was not adequately informed of the existence, or the
seriousness, of those abuses or of the investigation of those abuses until
after they had been disclosed in the national media;
Whereas such abuses are offensive to the principles and values of the
American people and the United States military, are incompatible with the
professionalism, dedication, standards and training required of individuals
who serve in the United States military, and contradict the policies,
orders, and laws of the United States and the United States military and
undermine the ability of the United States military to achieve its mission
in Iraq;
Whereas the vast majority of members of the Armed Forces have upheld the
highest possible standards of professionalism and morality in the face of
terrorist attacks and other attempts on their lives;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces have planned and conducted,
frequently at great peril and cost, military operations in a manner
carefully intended to prevent or minimize injury to Iraqi civilians and
property;
Whereas over 138,000 members of the United States Armed Forces serving in
Iraq, a total force comprised of active, National Guard, and Reserve
personnel, are executing with courage and skill a mission to rebuild and
rehabilitate Iraq and return the Government of Iraq to the Iraqi people;
and
Whereas the Department of Defense has awarded members of the Armed Forces
serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom at least 3,767 Purple Hearts, as well as
thousands of commendations for valor, including at least 4 Distinguished
Service Crosses, 127 Silver Stars, and over 16,000 Bronze Stars: Now,
therefore, be it
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:
That the House of Representatives--
(1) strenuously deplores and condemns the abuse of persons in United
States custody in Iraq, regardless of the circumstances of their detention;
(2) reaffirms the American principle that any and all individuals under
the custody and care of the United States Armed Forces shall be afforded
proper and humane treatment;
(3) urges the Secretary of Defense to conduct a full and thorough
investigation into any and all allegations of mistreatment or abuse of
detainees in Iraq;
(4) urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure that corrective actions are
taken to address chain of command deficiencies and the systemic
deficiencies identified in the incidents in question;
(5) urges the Secretary of Defense to bring to swift justice any member
of the Armed Forces who has violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice
to ensure that their actions do not further impugn the integrity of the
United States Armed Forces or further undermine the United States mission
in Iraq;
(6) urges the Attorney General to bring to swift justice any United
States civilian contractor or other United States civilian whose conduct in
connection with the treatment of detainees in Iraq is in violation of law
so to ensure that their actions do not further undermine the United States
mission in Iraq;
(7) affirms the need for bipartisan congressional investigations to be
conducted immediately into these allegations of abuse, including
allegations of abuse by United States civilian contractor personnel or
other United States civilians, and into the chain of command and other
systemic deficiencies, including the command atmosphere that contributed to
such abuse;
(8) reaffirms the need for Congress to be frequently updated on the
status of efforts by the Department of Defense to address and resolve
issues identified in this resolution;
(9) expresses the deep appreciation of the Nation to the courageous and
honorable members of the Armed Forces who have selflessly served, or who
are currently serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
(10) declares that the alleged crimes of some individuals should not
detract from the commendable sacrifices of over 300,000 members of the
United States Armed Forces who have served, or who are serving, in
Operation Iraqi Freedom;
(11) expresses the support and thanks of the Nation to the families and
friends of the soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors, and Coast Guardsmen who
have served, or who are serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom; and
(12) expresses the continuing solidarity and support of the House of
Representatives and the American people for the efforts of the United
States with the Iraqi people in building a viable Iraqi government and a
secure nation.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the appeal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Vacating Votes
Sec. 18.7 When a recorded vote in the Committee of the Whole is vacated
by unanimous consent, the vote is not carried in the Record, the
roll call vote number is not reused for subsequent votes, and a
notation may appear describing the disposition of the question at
issue.
On June 4, 2015,(70) a recorded vote was conducted on an
amendment in the Committee of the Whole, following which unanimous
consent was granted to vacate those proceedings and recapitulate the
vote. The Congressional Record depiction of the events are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. 161 Cong. Rec. 8650-51, 8654-56, 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amendment offered by ms. esty
The Acting CHAIR.(71) The unfinished business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. Ted Poe (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded that the 2-minute voting
limit will be strictly enforced. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and a result was
announced. The vote was subsequently vacated by order of the
Committee, and the amendment was disposed of by rollcall No. 308.
vacating proceedings on amendment offered by ms. esty
Mr. [Mario] DIAZ-BALART [of Florida]. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that proceedings on rollcall No. 300 be vacated
to the end that the Chair resume proceedings on the request for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. Esty) at the end of the current series of
postponed proceedings.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
amendment offered by ms. lee
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection. . . .
amendment offered by ms. esty
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. Esty) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
184, noes 230, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 308] . . .
Messages and Petitions
Sec. 18.8 Referrals of executive communications are normally printed in
the Congressional Record on the same day that the referral is made,
but a malfunction of the House Information System computer may
delay such publication, in which case the discrepancy is noted in
the Record.
On January 6, 1993,(72) the following notation appeared
in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. 139 Cong. Rec. 324, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were
taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
(Note: Due to a malfunction in the House Information System computer, the
referrals which the Speaker has made on January 5, 1993, of all executive
communications received since the adjournment sine die of the 102d
Congress, 2d Session will be indicated in the Congressional Record of
January 21, 1993.)
Oath of Office
Sec. 18.9 Pursuant to law,(73) the Clerk submitted for
printing in the Journal and in the Congressional Record the list of
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner who had taken the
oath of office required by the U.S. Constitution, in the form
prescribed by statute.(74)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
73. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 25.
74. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 25, 1999,(75) the following was published in
the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. 145 Cong. Rec. 5771-73, 106th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Division B,
supra. For more on the oath of office generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 2 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OATH OF OFFICE--MEMBERS, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, AND DELEGATES
The oath of office required by the sixth article of the
Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of
the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to
Members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of
Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 3331:
I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about
to enter. So help me God.
has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the
Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of
the 106th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. Sec. 25:
Attachment . . .
Letters of Resignation
Sec. 18.10 When a Member resigns from the House, such Member transmits
a letter of resignation to the required state official, forwards a
copy of said letter (under separate cover) to the Speaker, and both
are laid before the House and printed in the Congressional Record
when received.(76)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. For an early precedent indicating that a letter stating that the
appropriate resignation letter has been forwarded to the
required state official is sufficient evidence of the
resignation, see 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings of September 3, 1975,(77) typify the
depiction of letters of resignation in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. 121 Cong. Rec. 27201, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Division B,
supra. For an instance where the Record noted a correction to
reflect the inadvertent omission of the letter to the state
official, see 148 Cong. Rec. 16621, 107th Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept.
11, 2002). For more on resignations generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 37 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION AS REPRESENTATIVE IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM
TENNESSEE'S FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication,
which was read:
Washington, DC, August 14, 1975.
Hon. Ray Blanton,
Governor, State of Tennessee,
Nashville, Tenn.
Dear Governor Blanton: This is to respectfully inform you that
I am hereby resigning my seat as Tennessee's Fifth District
Representative to the United States House of Representatives
effective this date.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Fulton.
September 3, 1975.
Hon. Carl Albert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
2205 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker: On August 14, 1975, I transmitted my letter
of resignation from the U.S. House of Representatives, Fifth
Congressional District of Tennessee to Honorable Ray Blanton,
Governor, State of Tennessee.
Respectfully,
Richard H. Fulton
Sec. 18.11 A Member may request that a letter of resignation from the
House, addressed to the Governor of such Member's state, be read in
full to the House.(78)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. Parliamentarian's Note: The normal protocol is that the Member's
letter to the Speaker is read before the House, and the
Member's letter to the required state official is merely
printed in the Record for the information of Members. In this
case, the Member in question requested that both letters be
read in full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 4, 1977,(79) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. 123 Cong. Rec. 13391, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. For more on resignations
generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communications,
which were read:
Washington, DC, May 4, 1977.
Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
Speaker of the House, Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find my letter of resignation
addressed this day to the Honorable Edwin W. Edwards, the Governor
of the State of Louisiana.
My short stay in the House has been the most rewarding
experience of my life. I am tremendously impressed by the integrity
and industry of its members. I have made friends whom I will never
forget.
Keep my seat warm and tell my colleagues not to forget me
because I am running again and will win again.
With kindest personal regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Richard A. Tonry.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 4, 1977.
Hon. Edwin W. Edwards,
Governor, State Capitol,
Baton Rouge, La.
Dear Governor Edwards: This is perhaps the hardest letter I
have ever had to write. I am sure you are familiar with the
continuing controversy that has surrounded my election to Congress.
My own personal investigation and that of the House Committee has
convinced me that there were fraudulent and illegal votes cast in
my favor and in favor of my opponent. I sincerely believe and have
always felt that if all the fraudulent and illegal votes were
subtracted from the total I would still be declared the winner.
However, what I believe is not important. What must be
protected is our beloved Louisiana and this Nation. That fraudulent
votes were cast at all is deplorable. This democracy must be
protected and the people of the First Congressional District must
rest with the assurance that their Congressman has been elected by
a majority of the people.
I have enjoyed nothing as much as serving my people in
Congress. I know I have been a good Congressman.
But the divisiveness must be cured and the will of the people
in the First Congressional District must be definitively
recognized.
For these reasons, I hereby tender my resignation as the United
States Representative for the First Congressional District.
I respectfully request that you call a new election as soon as
possible so that the people of my district will not be without
representation for any significant length of time.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Tonry.
Sec. 18.12 When letters of resignation are received during sine die
adjournment of a Congress, such matters are printed in the first
Congressional Record of the new Congress, but under a separate
heading to indicate that it was business of the preceding Congress.
On January 7, 1997,(80) the following was printed in the
Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
80. 143 Cong. Rec. 188-89, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. For an example of a
resignation occurring between sessions of the same Congress,
see 149 Cong. Rec. 32411, 108th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 15,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AFTER SINE DIE
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. BROWNBACK submitted the following resignation from the
House of Representatives:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 26, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Newt: Attached please find a copy of the letter I have
sent to Kansas Governor Bill Graves informing him that I am
resigning from the House of Representatives effective at 12:00 p.m.
central time on Wednesday, November 27, 1996.
It has been an honor and a privilege to serve with you in the
House of Representatives. We enacted reforms during the 104th
Congress that has moved this country in the right direction. I look
forward to continuing to work with you to balance the federal
budget, reduce the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the federal
government, and restore the American Dream.
Sincerely,
Sam Brownback,
Member of Congress.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 25, 1996.
Gov. Bill Graves,
State Capitol, Topeka, KS.
Dear Governor Graves: For the past two years, it has been my
privilege to serve the people of Kansas' Second District as their
elected Representative in the U.S. Congress. It has been an
eventful tenure.
These are remarkable times, and public servants have a
tremendous opportunity and responsibility for making America a
better place.
There is much work to be done, and the people rightly expect
that we will begin it in earnest. Toward that end, I am scheduled
to be sworn in as a U.S. Senator for Kansas at 2:00 p.m. central
time, Wednesday, November 27, 1996. Accordingly, I am resigning my
seat in the U.S. House of Representatives effective at 12:00 p.m.
central time, Wednesday, November 27, 1996.
The work of renewing America is unfinished. I see cause for
great hope as I believe we are now clearly focused on those very
problems which most confound us. There has never been a challenge
which the American nation recognized clearly and approached
resolutely which we did not overcome. We have cause for great
Thanksgiving.
Sincerely,
Sam Brownback.
Committee Rules
Sec. 18.13 The House by unanimous consent provided for publication in
the Congressional Record of the rules of the standing committees
(effectively waiving the deadline contemplated by clause 2 of rule
XI).(81)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
81. House Rules and Manual Sec. 791 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 8, 2011,(82) the following unanimous-consent
request was made regarding the publication of committee rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
82. 157 Cong. Rec. 1326, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. For a similar example,
see 145 Cong. Rec. 9932, 106th Cong. 1st Sess. (May 18, 1999)
(Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now the Committee
on Ethics) permitted by unanimous consent to publish committee
rules in the Record after the required deadline).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION TO SUBMIT COMMITTEE RULES AND BUDGET MATERIAL FOR
PUBLICATION
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California]. I ask unanimous consent
that, one, the chair of each committee be permitted to submit their
respective committee rules for publication in the Congressional
Record; and, two, that the chair of the Committee on the Budget be
permitted to submit material related to the budget process for
publication in the Congressional Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(83) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. Jo Ann Emerson (MO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 18.14 The House, by unanimous consent, extended the date by which
each committee must submit its rules to be printed in the
Congressional Record pursuant to clause 2(a) of rule
XI.(84)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
84. House Rules and Manual Sec. 791 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 1989,(85) the following unanimous-consent
request was made regarding the publication of committee rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
85. 135 Cong. Rec. 1124, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEES TO HAVE UNTIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21,
1989, TO PUBLISH COMMITTEE RULES IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that each committee of the House may have until
Tuesday, February 21, 1989, to publish committee rules in the
Congressional Record in compliance with clause 2(a) of rule XI.
The SPEAKER.(86) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 18.15 When committees adopt amendments to their committee rules,
such amendments may be printed in the Congressional Record
(although there is no specific requirement to do so).
On June 18, 2013,(87) the following was submitted for
publication in the Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
87. 159 Cong. Rec. 9460, 113th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE RULES
AMENDMENT TO THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND
TECHNOLOGY FOR THE 113TH CONGRESS
Mr. [Lamar] SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2013, the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology adopted the attached
amendment to its Committee Rules:
Rule VI (b) of the Rules of the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology is amended to read as follows:
(b) Subcommittees and Jurisdiction. There shall be five
standing Subcommittees of the Committee on Science, Space; and
Technology, with jurisdictions as follows: . . .
Sec. 18.16 While under rule L (now rule VIII)(88) subpoenas
served on Members or officers of the House are not printed in full
in the Congressional Record, the House has adopted a resolution
raised as a question of the privileges of the House requiring the
production of certain court orders, and such orders were printed in
full in the Record pursuant to said resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
88. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 14, 1992,(89) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
89. 138 Cong. Rec. 11310, 11315-17, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. See also
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 6 Sec. 26.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE SPEAKER OF
THE HOUSE TO PRODUCE COURT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION OF THE HOUSE POST OFFICE
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution.
The SPEAKER.(90) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
90. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 456
Whereas, the Department of Justice is conducting a criminal investigation
into the activities of the Office of the House Postmaster and;
Whereas, the Department of Justice issued five subpoenas on May 6
requiring certain members of the House and current or former employees to
produce certain materials and;
Whereas, Rule L requires that the Speaker be promptly notified of receipt
of all subpoenas and that they be laid before the House and that the
Speaker shall inform the House of the proper exercise of the court order;
Resolved, That the House of Representatives directs the Speaker of the
House to produce the court orders dealing with the criminal investigation
of the House Post Office and that the Speaker explain what delayed the
timely consideration of said court orders.
The SPEAKER. In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution states
a question of privilege.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution relating to rule L, which
does require that the Speaker promptly notify the House of receipt
of all subpoenas. It is at least our understanding that five
subpoenas were served upon the House over a week ago and that the
House has just learned of three of those subpoenas, and there are
perhaps two more yet to come. . . .
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER. Without Objection, the previous question is
ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the privileged resolution
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas
324, nays 3, not voting 107, as follows:
[Roll No. 126] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia]
Subpoena To Testify Before Grand Jury
To: Custodian of Records, Office of the Honorable Joe Kolter,
House of Representatives, Room 212-CHOB.
Subpoena for person and document(s) or object(s).
You are hereby commanded to appear and testify before the Grand
Jury of the U.S. District Court at the place, date, and time
specified below.
Place: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S.
Courthouse, Third & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Courtroom: Grand Jury 91-3, Third Floor.
Date and time: Thursday, May 7, 1992, at 2:00 p.m.
You are also commanded to bring with you the following
document(s) or object(s):
Personal appearance is required.
attachment to subpoena
1. Any and all House of Representatives vouchers, whether
originals, carbons, or copies, reflecting goods or services charged
to your office account, or signed by Representative Kolter, from
January 1, 1986, to April 15, 1992.
2. Any and all documents or records regarding the status of
your office voucher account from January 1, 1986, to April 15,
1992.
3. Any and all documents or records relating to overdrafts from
your office voucher account from January 1, 1986, to April 15,
1992.
4. Any and all documents, including pamphlets, manuals, books,
papers, or other instructions or guidelines, regarding the proper
use of stamp allotments for your congressional office applicable
during the time period from January 1, 1986, to April 15, 1992.
notice
The attached subpoena requires you to produce certain documents
and records to a federal grand jury. The grand jury has determined
that it needs these documents and records in order to perform its
duty to investigate possible violations of federal criminal law.
The materials covered by this subpoena must be collected and
preserved without alteration or tampering. Since the documents
called for in the subpoena may be submitted for forensic tests,
such as fingerprint and handwriting analysis, they must be
carefully collected in a manner that minimizes unnecessary handling
and preserves their physical integrity.
Jay B. Stephens,
U.S. Attorney.
[U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia]
Subpoena To Testify Before Grand Jury
To: Custodian of Records, Office of the Honorable Donnald K.
Anderson, Clerk of the House, House of Representatives, Room H-105.
Subpoena for person and document(s) or object(s).
You are hereby commanded to appear and testify before the Grand
Jury of the U.S. District Court at the place, date, and time
specified below.
Place: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S.
Courthouse, Third & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Courtroom: Grand Jury 91-3, Third Floor.
Date and time: Thursday, May 7, 1992, at 2:00 p.m.
You are also commanded to bring with you the following
document(s) or object(s):
Personal appearance is required.
attachment for subpoena
1. For the period January 1, 1986, through April 15, 1992, any
and all House of Representatives vouchers, whether originals,
carbons, or copies, received from or reflecting goods or services
charged to the office accounts of The Honorable Dan Rostenkowski,
The Honorable Austin J. Murphy, The Honorable Joe Kolter, or The
Honorable Jack Russ, former Sergeant at Arms, or signed by any of
the listed individuals, including but not limited to vouchers for
postal stamps.
2. For the period January 1, 1986, through April 15, 1992, all
documents or records regarding the status of the office voucher
accounts of The Honorable Dan Rostenkowski, The Honorable Austin J.
Murphy, The Honorable Joe Kolter, or The Honorable Jack Russ,
former Sergeant at Arms.
3. For the period January 1, 1986 through April 15, 1992, any
and all documents or records relating to overdrafts on the office
voucher accounts of The Honorable Dan Rostenkowski, The Honorable
Austin J. Murphy, The Honorable Joe Kolter, or The Honorable Jack
Russ, former Sergeant at Arms.
4. All documents including pamphlets, manuals, books, papers,
or other instructions or guidelines regarding the proper use of
stamp allotments for congressional offices applicable during the
time period from January 1, 1986, to April 15, 1992.
notice
The attached subpoena requires you to produce certain documents
and records to a federal grand jury. The grand jury has determined
that it needs these documents and records in order to perform its
duty to investigate possible violations of federal criminal law.
The materials covered by this subpoena must be collected and
preserved without alteration or tampering. Since the documents
called for in the subpoena may be submitted for forensic tests,
such as fingerprint and handwriting analysis, they must be
carefully collected in a manner that minimizes unnecessary handling
and preserves their physical integrity.
Jay B. Stephens,
U.S. Attorney.
[U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia]
Subpoena To Testify Before Grand Jury
To: Custodian of Records, Office of the Honorable Werner
Brandt, Sergeant at Arms, House of Representatives, Room H-124,
U.S. Capitol.
Subpoena for person and document(s) or object(s).
You are hereby commanded to appear and testify before the Grand
Jury of the U.S. District Court at the place, date, and time
specified below.
Place: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S.
Courthouse, Third & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Courtroom: Grand Jury 91-3, Third Floor.
Date and time: Thursday, May 7, 1992, at 2:00 p.m.
You are also commanded to bring with you the following
document(s) or object(s):
Personal appearance is required.
attachment to subpoena
1. Any and all House of Representatives vouchers, whether
originals, carbons, or copies, reflecting goods or services charged
to the account of the Sergeant at Arms, or signed by the Sergeant
at Arms, from January 1, 1986, to April 15, 1992.
2. Any and all documents or records regarding the status of the
Office of the Sergeant at Arms voucher account from January 1,
1986, to April 15, 1992.
3. Any and all documents or records relating to overdrafts from
the Office of the Sergeant at Arms voucher account from January 1,
1986, to April 15, 1992.
4. Any and all documents, including pamphlets, manuals, books,
papers, or other instructions or guidelines, regarding the proper
use of stamp allotments for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms
applicable during the time period from January 1, 1986, to April
15, 1992.
notice
The attached subpoena requires you to produce certain documents
and records to a federal grand jury. The grand jury has determined
that it needs these documents and records in order to perform its
duty to investigate possible violations of federal criminal law.
The materials covered by this subpoena must be collected and
preserved without alteration or tampering. Since the documents
called for in the subpoena may be submitted for forensic tests,
such as fingerprint and handwriting analysis, they must be
carefully collected in a manner that minimizes unnecessary handling
and preserves their physical integrity.
Jay B. Stephens,
U.S. Attorney.
[U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia]
Subpoena To Testify Before Grand Jury
To: Custodian of Records, Office of the Honorable Dan
Rostenkowski, House of Representatives, Room 2111-RHOB.
Subpoena for person and document(s) or object(s).
You are hereby commanded to appear and testify before the Grand
Jury of the U.S. District Court at the place, date, and time
specified below.
Place: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S.
Courthouse, Third & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Courtroom: Grand Jury 91-3, Third Floor.
Date and time: Thursday, May 7, 1992, at 2:00 p.m.
You are also commanded to bring with you the following
document(s) or object(s):
Personal appearance is required.
attachment to subpoena
1. Any and all House of Representatives vouchers, whether
originals, carbons, or copies, reflecting goods or services charged
to your office account, or signed by Representative Rostenkowski,
from January 1, 1986, to April 15, 1992.
2. Any and all documents or records regarding the status of
your office voucher account from January 1, 1986, to April 15,
1992.
3. Any and all documents or records relating to overdrafts from
your office voucher account from January 1, 1986, to April 15,
1992.
4. Any and all documents, including pamphlets, manuals, books,
papers, or other instructions or guidelines, regarding the proper
use of stamp allotments for your congressional office applicable
during the time period from January 1, 1986, to April 15, 1992.
notice
The attached subpoena requires you to produce certain documents
and records to a federal grand jury. The grand jury has determined
that it needs these documents and records in order to perform its
duty to investigate possible violations of federal criminal law.
The materials covered by this subpoena must be collected and
preserved without alteration or tampering. Since the documents
called for in the subpoena may be submitted for forensic tests,
such as fingerprint and handwriting analysis, they must be
carefully collected in a manner that minimizes unnecessary handling
and preserves their physical integrity.
Jay B. Stephens,
U.S. Attorney.
[U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia]
Subpoena To Testify Before Grand Jury
To: Custodian of Records, Office of the Honorable Austin J.
Murphy, House of Representatives, Room 2210-RHOB.
Subpoena for person and document(s) or object(s).
You are hereby commanded to appear and testify before the Grand
Jury of the U.S. District Court at the place, date, and time
specified below.
Place: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S.
Courthouse, Third & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Courtroom: Grand Jury 91-3, Third Floor.
Date and time: Thursday, May 7, 1992, at 2:00 p.m.
You are also commanded to bring with you the following
document(s) or object(s):
Personal appearance is required.
attachment to subpoena
1. Any and all House of Representatives vouchers, whether
originals, carbons, or copies, reflecting goods or services charged
to your office account, or signed by Representative Murphy, from
January 1, 1986, to April 15, 1992.
2. Any and all documents or records regarding the status of
your office voucher account from January 1, 1986, to April 15,
1992.
3. Any and all documents or records relating to overdrafts from
your office voucher account from January 1, 1986, to April 15,
1992.
4. Any and all documents, including pamphlets, manuals, books,
papers, or other instructions or guidelines, regarding the proper
use of stamp allotments for your congressional office applicable
during the time period from January 1, 1986, to April 15, 1992.
notice
The attached subpoena requires you to produce certain documents
and records to a federal grand jury. The grand jury has determined
that it needs these documents and records in order to perform its
duty to investigate possible violations of federal criminal law.
The materials covered by this subpoena must be collected and
preserved without alteration or tampering. Since the documents
called for in the subpoena may be submitted for forensic tests,
such as fingerprint and handwriting analysis, they must be
carefully collected in a manner that minimizes unnecessary handling
and preserves their physical integrity.
Jay B. Stephens,
U.S. Attorney.
Cosponsors
Sec. 18.17 In the 95th Congress, the House amended the standing rules
to provide, inter alia, that requests to add or delete cosponsors
of legislative measures be published in the Congressional Record on
the day of the request.
On October 10, 1978,(91) the House adopted the following
resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. 124 Cong. Rec. 34929, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. 825 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Gillis] LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 86 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 86
Resolved, That (a) the last sentence of clause 4 of rule XXII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking out ``but not
more than twenty-five''.
(b) Clause 4 of such rule is further amended by adding at the end thereof
the following: ``The name of any Member may be added (or deleted) as a
sponsor of a bill, memorial, or resolution which has been introduced and to
which this paragraph applies, if a request on behalf of such Member is made
by a Member to the Speaker (prior to the enactment or adoption of such
bill, memorial, or resolution by the House), and such name shall be added
(or deleted, as the case may be,) as a sponsor of such bill, memorial, or
resolution when such bill. memorial, or resolution is next printed or
reported. Such request shall be printed in the Record. The Public Printer
shall not reprint any bill, memorial, or resolution for the purpose of
adding (or deleting) the name of an additional sponsor.''.
With the following committee amendment:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
That clause 4 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended by inserting ``(a)'' immediately after ``4.'', by striking out
``but not more than twenty-five'' and ``memorial'' in the last sentence
thereof, and by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
``(b) (1) The name of any Member shall be added as a sponsor of any bill
or resolution to which paragraph (a) applies, and shall appear as a sponsor
in the next printing of that bill or resolution: Provided, That a request
signed by such Member is submitted by the first sponsor to the Speaker (in
the same manner as provided in paragraph (a) ) no later than the day on
which the last committee authorized to consider and report such bill or
resolution reports it to the House.
``(2) The name of any Member listed as a sponsor of any such bill or
resolution may be deleted by unanimous consent, but only at the request of
such Member, and such deletion shall be indicated in the next printing of
the bill or resolution (together with the date on which such name was
deleted). Such consent may be granted no later than the day on which the
last committee authorized to consider and report such bill or resolution
reports it to the House: Provided, however, That the Speaker shall not
entertain a request to delete the name of the first sponsor of any bill or
resolution.
``(3) The addition of the name of any Member, or the deletion of any name
by unanimous consent, as a sponsor of any such bill or resolution shall be
entered on the Journal and printed in the Record of that day.
``(4) Any such bill or resolution shall be printed, and (B) if twenty or
more Members listed as the first sponsor submits to the Speaker a written
request that it be reprinted, and (B) if twenty or more Members have been
added as sponsors of that bill or resolution since it was last printed.''.
Sec. 2. The provisions of this resolution shall become effective
immediately prior to noon on January 3, 1979.
Sec. 18.18 Where unanimous consent is granted for a Member to be
removed as a cosponsor of a measure, such deletion is entered in
that portion of the Congressional Record relating to bills or
resolutions on the day the request is granted, pursuant to clause
4(b)(3) of rule XXII (now clause 7 of rule XII).(92)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
92. House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 26, 1979,(93) the following unanimous-
consent request was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
93. 125 Cong. Rec. 3261, 3322, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION TO STRIKE NAME FROM LIST OF COSPONSORS OF H.R. 1520
(Mr. WAMPLER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. [William] WAMPLER [of Virginia]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that my name be stricken from the list of
cosponsors of H.R. 1520.
H.R. 1520 was introduced in the House of Representatives on
January 25, 1979. Apparently, a clerical error was made at that
time which resulted in my name being added to the list of
cosponsors instead of the name of the gentleman from Guam. Because
of the similarity of pronunciation of our names it is
understandable that such an error could be made, and I am pleased
that passage of House Resolution 86 in the 95th Congress amended
the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide the means for
correction of such errors. . .
. -------------------
DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were deleted from public
bills and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 1520: Mr. Wampler.
Sec. 18.19 While clause 7 of rule XII(94) precludes adding
cosponsors to a bill after it has been engrossed, Members may
insert statements to the Congressional Record indicating that
certain cosponsors would have been added had the submission been
timely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
94. House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 20, 2014,(95) the following was printed in the
Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
95. 160 Cong. Rec. 9631, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. For similar proceedings,
see 130 Cong. Rec. 4949, 5065-66, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 8,
1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT
OF 2014
speech of
HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO
of mississippi
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, June 9, 2014
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, while I originally intended that the
Hon. Donna Edwards and the Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson be added as
cosponsors to my bill, H.R. 4412, the NASA Reauthorization Act of
2014, due to an error they were not added prior to the engrossment
of the bill. This statement is intended to demonstrate their
position as cosponsors of this measure.
Sec. 18.20 Pursuant to clause 4(b)(2) of rule XXII (now clause 7 of
rule XII),(96) unanimous consent to delete the name of a
cosponsor of a bill may not be granted after the bill has been
finally reported to the House, but a Member's statement of intent
to withdraw as a cosponsor may be placed in the Congressional
Record by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
96. House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 8, 1994,(97) the following unanimous-consent
request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
97. 140 Cong. Rec. 1575, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 51
Ms. [Lynn] SCHENK [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 51.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(98) Without objection, the
gentlewoman's remarks will appear in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
98. Sonny Montgomery (MS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 18.21 Where two Members-elect participated in various House and
committee business before taking the oath of office, the House
adopted a resolution, inter alia, ratifying their introduction and
sponsorship of legislative measures and validating any submissions
made to the Congressional Record.
On January 7, 2011,(99) the following resolution was
adopted by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
99. 157 Cong. Rec. 227-29, 112th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATING TO THE STATUS OF CERTAIN ACTIONS TAKEN BY MEMBERS-
ELECT
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California]. Madam Speaker, pursuant to
House Resolution 26, I send to the desk as the designee of the
majority leader a resolution and ask for its immediate
consideration.
Mr. [Anthony] WEINER [of New York]. I reserve a point of order,
Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(100) A point of order is
reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
100. Candice Miller (MI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 27
Whereas, Representative-elect Sessions and Representative-elect
Fitzpatrick were not administered the oath of office pursuant to the third
clause in article VI of the Constitution until after the completion of
legislative business on January 6, 2011; and
Whereas, the votes cast by Representative-elect Sessions and
Representative-elect Fitzpatrick on rollcalls 3 through 8 therefore were
nullities: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the votes recorded for Representative-elect Sessions and
Representative-elect Fitzpatrick on rollcalls 3 through 8 be deleted and
the vote-totals for each of those rollcalls be adjusted accordingly, both
in the Journal and in the Congressional Record;
(2) the election of Representative-elect Sessions to a standing committee
and his participation in its proceedings be ratified;
(3) the measures delivered to the Speaker for referral by Representative-
elect Sessions be considered as introduced and retain the numbers assigned;
(4) any submissions to the Congressional Record by Representative-elect
Sessions or Representative-elect Fitzpatrick be considered as valid;
(5) any cosponsor lists naming Representative-elect Sessions or
Representative-elect Fitzpatrick be considered as valid; and
(6) any non-voting participation by Representative-elect Sessions or
Representative-elect Fitzpatrick in proceedings on the floor be ratified.
point of order
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the
consideration of this resolution is in violation of the House rules
that we just passed in which a new section was created to rule XXI
that required at least 3 days' notice to consider legislation, that
it be posted on the Internet and we have a chance to review it. It
is particularly important in this case since we're dealing with a
constitutional issue, one that is without precedent, and I insist
on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must observe that the rule
cited applies to bills and joint resolutions; and pursuant to House
Resolution 26, all points of order are waived. . . .
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. WEINER. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, under the rules of the House, are
the Members of Congress who are not duly sworn entitled to be paid
for the days of service in which they were here and were not sworn
in?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 26, the previous
question is ordered on the resolution.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
257, noes 159, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 11] . . .
Discharging Matters from Committee
Sec. 18.22 The House agreed to an ``omnibus'' unanimous-consent request
that, inter alia, discharged (and passed) various measures from
committees and further provided that the names of the committees
being discharged be printed in the Congressional Record.
On October 10, 2002,(101) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
101. 148 Cong. Rec. 20339, 20365-67, 107th Cong. 2d Sess. For similar
instances of ``omnibus'' unanimous-consent requests to
discharge and pass multiple measures, see 148 Cong. Rec. 20765,
107th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 16, 2002) and 148 Cong. Rec. 22513,
107th Cong. 2d Sess. (Nov. 14, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPOSING OF VARIOUS LEGISLATIVE MEASURES
Mr. [Richard] ARMEY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I send a unanimous
consent request to the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Michael] Simpson [of Idaho]). The
Clerk will report the unanimous consent request.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Armey asks unanimous consent that the House
(1) Be considered to have discharged from the committee and passed H.R.
5316, H.R. 5574, H.R. 5361, H.R. 5439, Senate 2558, H.R. 5349, H.R. 5598,
H.R. 5601, H.R. 670, H.R. 669, and H.R. 5205;
(2) Be considered to have discharged from committee and agreed to House
Concurrent Resolution 406, House Resolution 542, House Resolution 572,
House Concurrent Resolution 504, House Resolution 532, House Resolution
571, and House Concurrent Resolution 467;
(3) Be considered to have discharged from committee, amended, and agreed
to House Resolution 410, House Concurrent Resolution 486, House Concurrent
Resolution 487 in the respective forms placed at the desk;
(4) Be considered to have amended and passed H.R. 5400 by the committee
amendment placed at the desk; and
(5) That the committees being discharged be printed in the Record, the
texts of each measure and any amendment thereto be considered as read and
printed in the Record, and that motions to reconsider each of these actions
be laid upon the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain this combined
request under the Speaker's guidelines as recorded on page 712 of
the Manual with assurances that it has been cleared by the
bipartisan floor and all committee leaderships.
The Clerk will report the titles of the various bills and the
resolutions.
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
Congressional Review Act Requirements
Sec. 18.23 The Congressional Review Act(102) requires that
applicable regulations submitted to Congress after a certain date
in one session of Congress be resubmitted in the next session and
treated as received on the date of resubmission for possible
congressional disapproval, and a notice of such ``grandfathered''
regulations appears in the Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
102. 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 801-808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 11, 2011,(103) the following note appeared
in the Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
103. 157 Cong. Rec. 1604, 112th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES AND REPORTS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL
REVIEW ACT
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(d), executive communications [final
rules] submitted to the House pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1) during
the period of May 28, 2010, through January 5, 2011, shall be
treated as though received on February 11, 2011. Original dates of
transmittal, numberings, and referrals to committee of those
executive communications remain as indicated in the Executive
Communication section of the relevant Congressional Record.
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Regulations
Sec. 18.24 The Congressional Accountability Act(104)
requires that notice of regulations adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Office of Compliance (now Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights) be published simultaneously in both the House and
Senate portions of the Congressional Record.(105)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
104. P.L. 104-1; 109 Stat. 3. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 6
Sec. 28.
105. Parliamentarian's Note: The law requires simultaneous printing in
both the House and Senate portions of the Record on the first
legislative day on which both Houses are in session following
receipt of the regulations. For an example of mis-timed
printings that required a subsequent notice in the Senate
portion (to match the date of House printing), see 154 Cong.
Rec. 8127, 110th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 4, 1996,(106) the following was printed in
the Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
106. 142 Cong. Rec. 22000-2001, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Office of Compliance,
Washington, DC, August 19, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 304(b) of the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)), I
am transmitting on behalf of the Board of Directors the enclosed
notice of adoption of regulations, together with a copy of the
regulations for publication in the Congressional Record. The
adopted regulations are being issued pursuant to Section 220(e).
The Congressional Accountability Act specifies that the
enclosed notice be published on the first day on which both Houses
are in session following this transmittal.
Sincerely,
Glen D. Nager,
Chair of the Board.
office of compliance
The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995: Extension of
Rights, Protections and Responsibilities Under Chapter 71 of Title
5, United States Code, Relating to Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations (Regulations under section 220(e) of the Congressional
Accountability Act)
notice of adoption of regulations and submission for approval
Summary: The Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance,
after considering comments to both the Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on March 16, 1996 in the Congressional Record
and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on May 23, 1996 in
the Congressional Record, has adopted, and is submitting for
approval by Congress, final regulations implementing section 220(e)
of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-1, 109
Stat. 3.
For Further Information Contact: Executive Director, Office of
Compliance, 110 2d Street, S.E., Room LA 200, John Adams Building,
Washington, D.C. 20540-1999, (202) 724-9250.
Supplementary Information:
I. Statutory Background
The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (``CAA'' or
``Act'') was enacted into law on January 23, 1995. In general, the
CAA applies the rights and protections of eleven federal labor and
employment law statutes to covered Congressional employees and
employing offices.
Section 220 of the CAA addresses the application of chapter 71
of title 5, United States Code (``chapter 71''), relating to
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations. Section 220(a) of the
CAA applies the rights, protections, and responsibilities
established under sections 7102, 7106, 7111 through 7117, 7119
through 7122, and 7131 of chapter 71 to employing offices, covered
employees, and representatives of covered employees.
Section 220(d) of the Act requires the Board of Directors of
the Office of Compliance (``Board'') to issue regulations to
implement section 220 and further states that, except as provided
in subsection (e), such regulations ``shall be the same as
substantive regulations promulgated by the Federal Labor Relations
Authority (`FLRA') to implement the statutory provisions referred
to in subsection (a) except--
``(A) to the extent that the Board may determine, for good
cause shown and stated together with the regulations, that a
modification of such regulations would be more effective for the
implementation of the rights and protections under this section; or
``(B) as the Board deems necessary to avoid a conflict of
interest or appearance of conflict of interest.''
The Board adopted final regulations under section 220(d), and
submitted them to Congress for approval on July 9, 1996.
Section 220(e)(1) of the CAA requires that the Board issue
regulations ``on the manner and extent to which the requirements
and exemptions of chapter 71 . . . should apply to covered
employees who are employed in the offices listed in'' section
220(e)(2). The offices listed in section 220(e)(2) are:
(A) the personal office of any Member of the House of
Representatives or of any Senator;
(B) a standing select, special, permanent, temporary, or other
committee of the Senate or House of Representatives, or a joint
committee of Congress;
(C) the Office of the Vice President (as President of the
Senate), the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate, the
Office of the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Office of the
Minority Leader of the Senate, the Office of the Majority Whip of
the Senate, the Office of the Minority Whip of the Senate, the
Conference of the Majority of the Senate, the Conference of the
Minority of the Senate, the Office of the Secretary of the
Conference of the Majority of the Senate, the Office of the
Secretary of the Conference of the Minority of the Senate, the
Office of the Secretary for the Majority of the Senate, the Office
of the Secretary for the Minority of the Senate, the Majority
Policy Committee of the Senate, the Minority Policy Committee of
the Senate, and the following offices within the Office of the
Secretary of the Senate: Offices of the Parliamentarian, Bill
Clerk, Legislative Clerk, Journal Clerk, Executive Clerk, Enrolling
Clerk, Official Reporters of Debate, Daily Digest, Printing
Services, Captioning Services, and Senate Chief Counsel for
Employment;
(D) the Office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Office of the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives,
the Office of the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives,
the Offices of the Chief Deputy Majority Whips, the Offices of the
Chief Deputy Minority Whips, and the following offices within the
Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives: Offices of
Legislative Operations, Official Reporters of Debate, Official
Reporters to Committees, Printing Services, and Legislative
Information
(E) the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate, the
Office of the Senate Legal Counsel, the Office of the Legislative
Counsel of the House of Representatives, the Office of the General
Counsel of the House of Representatives, the Office of the
Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives, and the Office of
the Law Revision Counsel;
(F) the offices of any caucus or party organization;
(G) the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Technology
Assessment, and the Office of Compliance; and,
(H) such other offices that perform comparable functions which
are identified under regulations of the Board.
These offices shall be collectively referred to as the ``section
220(e)(2) offices.''
Section 220(e)(1) provides that the regulations which the Board
issues to apply chapter 71 to covered employees in section
220(e)(2) offices ``shall, to the greatest extent practicable, be
consistent with the provisions and purposes of chapter 71 and of
[the CAA] . . .'' To this end, section 220(e)(1) mandates that such
regulations ``shall be the same as substantive regulations issued
by the Federal Labor Relations Authority under such chapter,'' with
two separate and distinct provisos:
First, section 220(e)(1)(A) authorizes the Board to modify the
FLRA's regulations ``to the extent that the Board may determine,
for good cause shown and stated together with the regulation, that
a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the
implementation of the rights and protections under this section.''
Second, section 220(e)(1)(B) directs the Board to issue
regulations that ``exclude from coverage under this section any
covered employees who are employed in offices listed in [section
220(e)(2)] if the Board determines that such exclusion is required
because of--
(i) a conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of
interest; or
(ii) Congress' constitutional responsibilities.''
The provisions of section 220 are effective October 1, 1996,
except that, ``[w]ith respect to the offices listed in subsection
(e)(2), to the covered employees of such offices, and to
representatives of such employees, [section 220] shall be effective
on the effective date of regulations under subsection (e).''
Oath for Classified Information
Sec. 18.25 Pursuant to clause 13 of rule XXIII,(107) the
Clerk submits for printing in the Congressional Record a list of
Members who have signed the oath required for access to classified
information (to be updated on a weekly basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
107. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1095 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 8, 2001,(108) the following was printed in
the Record pursuant to House rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
108. 147 Cong. Rec. 1653, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. For a recent example of
the same type of submission, see 159 Cong. Rec. 1003-1004,
113th Cong. 1st Sess. (Feb. 6, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OATH FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Under clause 13 of rule XXIII, the following Members executed
the oath for access to classified information:
Neil Abercrombie, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Robert B. Aderholt, W.
Todd Akin, Robert E. Andrews, Richard K. Armey, Spencer Bachus,
Richard H. Baker, Cass Ballenger, Bob Barr, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Joe
Barton, Charles F. Bass, Ken Bentsen, Doug Bereuter, Shelley
Berkley, Howard L. Berman, Judy Biggert, Michael Bilirakis, Rod R.
Blagojevich, Roy Blunt, Sherwood L. Boehlert, John A. Boehner,
Henry Bonilla, David E. Bonior, Leonard L. Boswell, Rick Boucher,
Sherrod Brown, Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ed Bryant, Richard Burr, Dan
Burton, Steve Buyer, Sonny Callahan, Dave Camp, Eric Cantor,
Shelley Moore Capito, Benjamin L. Cardin, Brad Carson, Saxby
Chambliss, Wm. Lacy Clay, Jr., Eva M. Clayton, Howard Coble, Mac
Collins, Larry Combest, Gary A. Condit, Christopher Cox, William J.
Coyne, Philip M. Crane, Ander Crenshaw, Joseph Crowley, Barbara
Cubin, John Abney Culberson, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Danny K.
Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Thomas M. Davis, Nathan Deal, Diana DeGette,
William D. Delahunt, Rosa L. DeLauro, Tom DeLay, Jim DeMint, Peter
Deutsch, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Norman D. Dicks, John D. Dingell,
Lloyd Doggett, Calvin M. Dooley, John T. Doolittle, Michael F.
Doyle, David Dreier, John J. Duncan, Jr., Jennifer Dunn, Chet
Edwards, Vernon J. Ehlers, Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Jo Ann Emerson,
Eliot L. Engel, Lane Evans, Terry Everett, Sam Farr, Mike Ferguson,
Jeff Flake, Ernie Fletcher, Mark Foley, Vito Fossella, Barney
Frank, Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, Martin Frost, Elton Gallegly, Greg
Ganske, George W. Gekas, Richard A. Gephardt, Jim Gibbons, Wayne T.
Gilchrest, Paul E. Gillmor, Benjamin A. Gilman, Charles A.
Gonzalez, Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Bob Goodlatte, Bart Gordon, Porter
J. Goss, Lindsey O. Graham, Kay Granger, Sam Graves, Mark Green,
Felix J. Grucci, Jr., Gil Gutknecht, Tony P. Hall, James V. Hansen,
J. Dennis Hastert, Alcee L. Hastings, Robin Hayes, J.D. Hayworth,
Wally Herger, Van Hilleary, Earl F. Hilliard, Maurice D. Hinchey,
David L. Hobson, Joseph M. Hoeffel, Peter Hoekstra, Rush D. Holt,
Stephen Horn, John N. Hostettler, Amo Houghton, Steny H. Hoyer, Asa
Hutchinson, Henry J. Hyde, Jay Inslee, Johnny Isakson, Steve
Israel, Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Sheila
Jackson-Lee, Christopher John, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Nancy L.
Johnson, Sam Johnson, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Walter B. Jones, Paul
E. Kanjorski, Ric Keller, Sue W. Kelly, Brian D. Kerns, Dale E.
Kildee, Peter T. King, Jack Kingston, Mark Steven Kirk, Gerald D.
Kleczka, Joe Knollenberg, Jim Kolbe, Dennis J. Kucinich, Ray
LaHood, Nick Lampson, James R. Langevin, John B. Larson, Tom
Latham, Barbara Lee, Jerry Lewis, John Lewis, Ron Lewis, John
Linder, William O. Lipinski, Frank A. LoBiondo, Zoe Lofgren, Nita
M. Lowey, Frank D. Lucas, Ken Lucas, Bill Luther, Carolyn B.
Maloney, James H. Maloney, Donald A. Manzullo, Edward J. Markey,
Frank Mascara, Carolyn McCarthy, John McHugh, Michael R. McNulty,
Carrie P. Meek, Gregory W. Meeks, John L. Mica, Dan Miller, Gary G.
Miller, Patsy T. Mink, John Joseph Moakley, Alan B. Mollohan,
Dennis Moore, James P. Moran, Jerry Moran, Constance A. Morella,
John P. Murtha, Sue Wilkins Myrick, Jerrold Nadler, Robert W. Ney,
Charlie Norwood, Jim Nussle, John W. Olver, Doug Ose, C.L. Otter,
Michael G. Oxley, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Ed Pastor, Mike Pence, John
E. Peterson, Thomas E. Petri, Charles W. Pickering, Joseph R.
Pitts, Todd Russell Platts, Richard W. Pombo, Rob Portman, Deborah
Pryce, Adam H. Putnam, George Radanovich, Nick J. Rahall, II, Jim
Ramstad, Ralph Regula, Dennis R. Rehberg, Silvestre Reyes, Thomas
M. Reynolds, Lynn N. Rivers, Ciro D. Rodriguez, Tim Roemer, Mike
Rogers, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Steven R. Rothman, Margaret Roukema,
Edward R. Royce, Loretta Sanchez, Bernard Sanders, Max Sandlin, Tom
Sawyer, Janice D. Schakowsky, Adam B. Schiff, Edward L. Schrock, F.
James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Jose E. Serrano, Brad Sherman, Don
Sherwood, John Shimkus, Ronnie Shows, Michael K. Simpson, Joe
Skeen, Ike Skelton, Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Christopher H.
Smith, Lamar S. Smith, Nick Smith, Vic Snyder, Mark E. Souder,
Floyd Spence, John N. Spratt, Jr., Cliff Stearns, Charles W.
Stenholm, Bob Stump, Bart Stupak, John E. Sununu, John E. Sweeney,
Thomas G. Tancredo, Ellen O. Tauscher, W.J. (Billy) Tauzin, Charles
H. Taylor, Lee Terry, William M. Thomas, Mike Thompson, Mac
Thornberry, John R. Thune, Patrick J. Tiberi, James A. Traficant,
Jr., Mark Udall, Robert A. Underwood, Fred Upton, Peter J.
Visclosky, David Vitter, James T. Walsh, Maxine Waters, Wes
Watkins, J.C. Watts, Jr., Henry A. Waxman, Curt Weldon, Dave
Weldon, Jerry Weller, Ed Whitfield, Roger F. Wicker, Heather
Wilson, Frank R. Wolf, C.W. Bill Young, Don Young.
Earmark Statements
Sec. 18.26 A point of order does not lie under clause 9 of rule
XXI(109) against an unreported bill where the chair of
the committee of initial referral has caused to be printed in the
Congressional Record a statement that the bill contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
109. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1068d (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 31, 2007,(110) a point of order was raised
(and overruled) as followed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
110. 153 Cong. Rec. 2737-38, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
point of order
Mr. [Patrick] McHENRY [North Carolina]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to
make a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Peter] DeFazio [of Oregon]). The
gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. McHENRY. Under the new House rules, there is an anti-
earmark rule that governs the House, which the rule governing this
bill does not waive that rule of the House; and sections of this
legislation actually go forward and violate that anti-earmark
legislation. Therefore, I rise to make a point of order against
H.J. Res. 20, as title I, section 101(a)(2), violates rule XXI,
clause 9, of the House rules, stating, ``There shall be no Member-
directed earmarks,'' which this legislation does possess.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. [David] OBEY [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, I would simply
note that on page H988 of the Congressional Record there is listed
the following statement:
Under clause 9(a) of rule XXI, lists or statements on
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or limited tariff
benefits are submitted as follows offered by myself: H.J. Res. 20
making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2007, and
for other purposes, does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.
Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. No.
Mr. McHENRY. The gentleman will not yield for the question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. On a point of order there is no
yielding. The chair will hear each Member in turn. Does the
gentleman from North Carolina wish to be heard on his point of
order?
Mr. McHENRY. Yes. I wish to speak further.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is stating, simply
because legislation states that there are no earmarks, that you can
contain thousands of earmarks after that statement. It defies logic
and defies reason.
And, furthermore, your section explaining that there shall be
no congressional earmarks is further on in the legislation.
Therefore, it is not operational over the violation that I am
stating in section 101. Therefore, under the legislation here, it
is not operational. Therefore, it is a very crafty way, and I have
got to compliment the gentleman for putting together a very crafty
piece of legislation to try to slip this by. But under these House
rules, this is a clear violation of the anti-earmarking provision
that is very important to the rules of debate, even when the
minority is not able to offer any amendments, even when the
minority has no other means of removing congressional earmarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will restrict himself to
the point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 9(a) of rule XXI, it is
not in order to consider an unreported bill or joint resolution
unless the chairman of each committee of initial referral has
caused to be printed in the Congressional Record a list of
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits contained in the measure, or a statement that the measure
contains no such earmarks or benefits.
Under clause 9(c) of rule XXI, a point of order under clause
9(a) of rule XXI may be based only on the failure of the submission
to the Congressional Record to include such a list or statement.
The Chair has examined the Congressional Record and finds that
it contains the statement contemplated by clause 9(a) of rule XXI.
Accordingly, the point of order is overruled.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
motion to table offered by mr. obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to
table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McHENRY. Division. I ask for a division vote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. McHENRY. Wait a second, Mr. Speaker. I asked for a division
vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Constitution, the yeas and
nays have precedence over a request for a division.
The yeas and nays are requested. Those favoring a vote by the
yeas and nays will rise. A sufficient number having risen, the yeas
and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
226, nays 184, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 70] . . .
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 18.27 A point of order under clause 9 of rule XXI(111)
will not lie against an amendment if the offeror has caused to be
printed in the Congressional Record a statement disclaiming the
presence of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and
limited tariff benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
111. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1068d (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 7, 2007,(112) the offeror of an amendment had
printed in the Record the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
112. 153 Cong. Rec. 5662-63, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS
Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits were submitted as follows:
Offered By Mr. Oberstar
The amendment No. 1 to be offered by Mr. Oberstar, or a designee, to H.R.
720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007, does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives. . . .
-------------------AMENDMENTS
Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were
submitted as follows:
H.R. 720
Offered By: Mr. Oberstar
Amendment No. 1: Page 4, line 7, strike ``wastewater infrastructure
assistance'' and insert ``eligible projects described in section 603(c)''.
Page 5, after line 9, insert the following:
(c) Small Flows Clearinghouse.--Section 104(q)(4) (33 U.S.C. 1254(q)(4))
is amended--
(1) in the first sentence by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting
``$3,000,000''; and
(2) in the second sentence by striking ``1986'' and inserting ``2009''.
Page 5, line 10, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 6, strike lines 14 through 16 and insert the following:
(B) in paragraph (2) by striking ``in reducing such pollutants'' and all
that follows before the period at the end and inserting ``to manage,
reduce, treat, or reuse municipal stormwater, including low-impact
development technologies''; and
Page 11, lines 9 and 10, strike ``has considered'' and all that follows
through ``alternative management'' and insert the following: ``has
considered, to the maximum extent practical and as determined appropriate
by the recipient, the costs and effectiveness of other design,
management,''.
Page 14, strike lines 1 and 2 and insert the following:
``(6) for measures to manage, reduce, treat, or reuse municipal
stormwater;''.
Page 18, line 3, insert ``low-impact technologies,'' before
``nonstructural''.
Page 18, line 5, insert ``nutrient'' before ``pollutant trading''.
Sec. 18.28 The Chair refused to respond to a parliamentary inquiry
concerning the existence of a statement disclaiming the presence in
a bill of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited
tariff benefits printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to
clause 9 of rule XXI,(113) where not pertinent to the
pending proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
113. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1068d (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2007,(114) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
114. 153 Cong. Rec. 12170, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Jeff] FLAKE [of Arizona]. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(115) The gentleman from
Arizona is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
115. Stephen Lynch (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, is it true that, on page H4754, there
is a statement that this bill contains no congressional earmarks,
tariff benefits or tax benefits?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members may examine the Record and
make that determination for themselves.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair, and I will examine the Record.
Business of a Prior Congress or Session
Sec. 18.29 Business of the preceding Congress transacted during sine
die adjournment (including such matters as appointments and
communications of resignations and subpoenas) is reflected in the
Congressional Record of the opening day of the new Congress under
separate headings to show that it is not business of the new
Congress.
On January 6, 1999,(116) the following notations
regarding the timing of certain actions of the House were printed in
the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
116. 145 Cong. Rec. 253, 257, 106th Cong. 1st Sess. For a similar
occurrence with regard to committee activity reports filed
during sine die adjournment, see 145 Cong. Rec. 295, 106th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 7, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were
delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper
calendar, as follows:
[The following action occurred on December 29, 1998]
Mr. STUMP: Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Activities Report of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 105th Congress (Rept. 105-833). Referred to
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. Report on Legislative and
Oversight Activities of the Committee on Resources, 105th Congress (Rept.
105-834). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.
[The following action occurred on December 30, 1998]
Mr. LIVINGSTON: Committee on Appropriations. Report on Activities of the
Committee on Appropriations 105th Congress (Rept. 105-835). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. GOODLING: Committee on Education and the Workforce. Report on the
Activities of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 105th Congress
(Rept. 105-836). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union.
[The following action occurred on December 31, 1998]
Mr. LEACH: Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Report on the
Summary of Activities of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services,
105th Congress (Rept. 105-837). Referred to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union.
[The following reports were filed on January 2, 1999]
Mr. GILMAN: Committee on International Relations. Legislative Review
Activities of the Committee on International Relations During the 105th
Congress (Rept. 105-838). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union.
Mr. GOSS: Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Survey of
Activities of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence During the
105th Congress (Rept. 105-839). Referred to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union.
Mr. SOLOMON: Committee on Rules. Survey of Activities of the House
Committee on Rules, 105th Congress (Rept. 105-840). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. SPENCE: Committee on National Security. Report of the Activities of
the Committee on National Security for the 105th Congress (Rept. 105-841).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon: Committee on Agriculture. Report on the Activities
of the Committee on Agriculture During the 105th Congress (Rept. 105-842).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. BURTON: Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Report on the
Activities of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight During
the 105th Congress (Rept. 105-843). Referred to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union.
Mr. KASICH: Committee on the Budget. Activities and Summary Report of the
Committee on the Budget During the 105th Congress (Rept. 105-844). Referred
to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. BLILEY: Committee on Commerce. Report on the Activity of the
Committee on Commerce for the One Hundred Fifth Congress (Rept. 105-846).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. . .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE AFTER SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT OF THE 105TH
CONGRESS 2D SESSION AND FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL EDITION
OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF THE 105TH CONGRESS
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE AFTER SINE DIE
ADJOURNMENT
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives
Washington, DC, December 21, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I write today to inform you of my decision to
end my service as Clerk of the House effective January 1, 1999.
Because of your vision and support, many of the goals you set
at the dawn of the 104th Congress have already been achieved, the
most significant among them being the amount of immediate
legislative information now available to all citizens via the
Internet. Many others are well underway and when fully implemented
will position this Office to support the efforts of the House in
even more dramatic ways as we approach the millennium.
Thank you for providing such a magnificent opportunity for me
to be a part of this unique institution.
With warm regards.
Robin H. Carle. -------------------
APPOINTMENT BY THE SPEAKER AFTER SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
Pursuant to the provisions of section 208(a) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 75a-1(a)), and section 5 of
House Resolution 594, 105th Congress, the Speaker on Monday,
December 21, 1998, appointed Jeffrey J. Trandahl of Virginia to act
and to exercise temporarily the duties of Clerk of the House of
Representatives effective Friday, January 1,
1999. -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE SPEAKER AFTER SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
Office of the Speaker,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 21, 1998.
Re temporary appointment of Clerk.
Hon. William M. Thomas,
Chariman, Committee on House Oversight,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC
Dear Bill: In accordance with 2 U.S.C. Sec. 75a-1, I hereby
appoint Mr. Jeffrey J. Trandahl to fill the vacancy in the Office
of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, effective January 1,
1999. Mr. Trandahl shall exercise all the duties, shall have all
the powers, and shall be subject to all the requirements and
limitations applicable to the position of Clerk until his successor
is chosen by the House and duly qualifies as Clerk.
Please contact Dan Crowley, General Counsel in the Office of
the Speaker, if you have any questions.
Sincerely.
Newt Gingrich,
Speaker. -------------------
Secret Sessions and Executive Sessions
Sec. 18.30 A Member inserted into the Congressional Record a committee
staff memorandum on the issue of the propriety of releasing
particular materials obtained by the committee in executive session
(but not publishing those executive session materials).
On December 15, 1977,(117) the following memorandum was
printed in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
117. 123 Cong. Rec. 39038, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorandum
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of The Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
Washington, DC
Date: December 12, 1977.
To: Chairman John E. Moss.
From: Tom Greene, Counsel to the Chairman, John Atkisson, Counsel
to the Subcommittee Jim Nelligan, Operations Director, John
Galloway, Energy Task Force Director.
Subject: Recommendation of the staff with respect to the release of
a memorandum dated May 4, 1976 from John Galloway, Special
Assistant, to Michael R. Lemov, Chief Counsel.
i. introduction
This responds to your request for a review of the legality of
releasing to the public a memorandum dated May 4, 1976 from John
Galloway, the Special Assistant to Michael R. Lemov, then Chief
Counsel, concerning the Subcommittee's natural gas reserve study.
As you may be aware, the staff has been troubled by the
characterization of this document as one that vindicates the oil
and gas industry with respect to charges of reserves underreporting
(Washington Star, December 6, 1977; Washington Post, December 7,
1977, p. A-7). In fact, the principal conclusion of this interim
staff analysis was that the comparison of American Gas Association
reserve estimates with those of company proved reserve ledgers is a
``mostly pointless exercise.'' This conclusion was based upon
definitional and other problems which militated against an accurate
comparison of the two data series.
The staff understands your request for a review of the legality
of releasing Subcommittee records to extend only to the Galloway
memorandum. In the recent past, the requests of Mr. Collins have
been substantially broader and would certainly involve the release
of executive session materials. Additionally, the change in the
House rules proposed by Mr. Collins on December 6, 1977
(Congressional Record, H12727) addressed all non-classified
materials within the custody of every committee and subcommittee of
the House. While the press has characterized the recent controversy
as relating solely to the Galloway memorandum, it was only in his
Congressional Record statement of December 6, 1977 (H12729) that
Mr. Collins clearly confined his request to the May 4, 1976
memorandum.
Here we review the legal standard which is applicable to the
release of documents such as the Galloway memorandum. It then turns
to an application of this standard to the Galloway document. Our
analysis concludes that you may employ the authorities delegated to
you by the Subcommittee to release this document to the public.
ii. the standard
The Rules of the House provide two principal limitations on the
release of committee or subcommittee documents to the public, The
first of these is contained in clause 2(e)(2) of Rule XI. This rule
provides that committee records shall be ``the property of the
House and all Members of the House shall have access thereto''. The
precedents are clear that while a Member may have access to
committee files, he may not make copies of such files (Speaker
Rayburn, August 14, 1957, pp. 14737-39). Neither may a Member
release such records to the public absent authorization by the
affected committee or subcommittee (Speaker Rayburn, June 3, 1960,
p. 11820). These limitations apply to all committee or subcommittee
documents and records.
The second limitation on public release of committee or
subcommittee documents applies only to a special category of
documents or records, those received in executive session or as if
in executive session. Clause (2)(k)(7) of Rule XI provides that
``No evidence or testimony taken in executive session may be
released or used in public session without the consent of the
committee.'' Traditionally, the consent of the committee or
subcommittee for the release of executive session materials is
obtained through the vote of the affected committee or
subcommittee.
In summary you may release the Galloway memorandum without a
vote of the Subcommittee if it is determined that (i) the document
does not contain material taken in executive session or as if in
executive session and (ii) you have been authorized, as Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, to regulate on
behalf of the Subcommittee the release of subcommittee records,
other than executive session records.
iii. application of the standard
A. Does the Galloway memorandum contain evidence or testimony
taken in executive session?
After a careful review of the materials obtained by the
Subcommittee pursuant to subpoenas voted in executive session on
June 16, 1975, we conclude that the Galloway memorandum of May 4,
1976 does not contain information covered by clause 2.(k)(7) of
Rule XI. The staff gave particular attention in its review of the
Galloway memorandum to (i) the table which appears at page 1, and
(ii) quotes from internal industry documents stating the benefits
of reserve manipulation. With respect to the numbers which appear
at page 1, the staff concluded that while based upon information
obtained by subpoenas issued in executive session, specific
information about particular energy companies is not newly
presented. Use of aggregate figures assures that the House policies
which animate the protection of executive session materials are not
violated. Release of aggregate data would not ``endanger the
national security,'' Rule XI 2.(g)(2). Neither would release of
aggregate numbers ``tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any
person,'' Rule XI 2.(k)(5). It would not even offend the
sensitivities of the oil companies involved, since no interested
party can be identified within the four corners of the memorandum.
The staff was particularly concerned about quotes from two
Union Oil Company memoranda which reflect the rationale and reality
of industry manipulation of reserve figures. It has been determined
that both of these memoranda were incorporated by the Subcommittee
into the public record on June 9, 1975 during the Subcommittee's
hearing on natural gas supply in the United States. Since these
materials are already public, rerelease of them in the Galloway
memorandum does not trigger the executive session rule.
B. If it is determined that the Galloway memorandum does not
contain executive session information, are you as Chairman
authorized by the Subcommittee to release ordinary Subcommittee
records to the public?
Clause 2(e)(2) of Rule XI limits public release of subcommittee
records absent the authorization of the subcommittee (Speaker
Rayburn, June 3, 1960, p. 11820). The rule is silent as to a
specific authorization procedure, or even how authorization is
defined.
The consistent rule in this Subcommittee has been that you have
the authority to release-ordinary subcommittee records. This is
essential to the orderly management of the Subcommittee on a day-
to-day basis.
This issue was considered under similar circumstances on
September 29, 1975. On that occasion, Mr. Collins of Texas objected
that you had released to the public a Getty Oil Company document
which was a committee record but not one subject to the executive
session rule. With a quorum present, the release by you of a
document, not received in executive session or as if in executive
session, was fully debated and not disapproved.
Based upon these authorities and precedents, the staff
concludes that you have the authority to release a committee record
not covered by the executive session rule.
iv. conclusion
Because (i) you have the authority to release the Galloway
memorandum and (ii) it in no way prejudices the competitive
position of the oil companies involved, we recommend release to the
public.
Sec. 18.31 When the House resolves itself into a secret session
pursuant to rule XXIX (now clause 10 of rule XVII),(118)
the proceedings of the secret session are not carried in the
Congressional Record unless the House votes to remove the
injunction of secrecy, and, in one instance, the Chair reminded
Members following a secret session that the House had not so voted
and that no proceedings conducted in secret session would be made
public until further order of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
118. House Rules and Manual Sec. 969 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 20, 1979,(119) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
119. 125 Cong. Rec. 15711-13, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and
Manual Sec. 939 (2019). For similar proceedings involving
another secret session of the House, see 154 Cong. Rec. 4145-
54, 110th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
motion offered by mr. bauman
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the house resolve itself
into secret session. That the galleries of the House Chamber be cleared of
all persons and that the House Chamber be cleared of all persons except the
Members of the House and those officers and employees specified by the
Speaker whose attendance on the floor is essential to the functioning of
the House and who subscribe to the notarized oath of confidentiality.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(120) The Chair will state
that the motion is not debatable. Absent unanimous consent to
debate the motion, the question will be put upon the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
120. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
The motion was agreed to.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will make a statement.
The Chair desires to read to the Members the contents of rule
XXIX of the rules of the House of Representatives.
Rule XXIX reads as follows:
Rule XXIX
secret session
Whenever confidential communications are received from the President of
the United States, or whenever the Speaker or any Member shall inform the
House that he has communications which he believes ought to be kept secret
for the present, the House shall be cleared of all persons except the
Members and officers thereof, and so continue during the reading of such
communications, the debates and proceedings thereon, unless otherwise
ordered by the House.
This rule has been successfully invoked by the vote of the
House for the first time, the Chair believes, since the year 1830.
This was a rule commonly invoked in the early days of the Republic,
but not recently invoked.
According to the rule of the House, the Chair is now going to
order that the galleries of the House Chamber shall be cleared of
all persons and the House Chamber shall be cleared of all persons
except the Members of the House and those officers and employees
specified by the Speaker whose attendance on the floor is essential
to the functioning of the secret session of the House. All
proceedings in the House during such consideration shall be kept
secret until otherwise ordered by the House.
The Chair is going to declare a recess long enough for this
order to be carried out. . .
. -------------------
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair declares a recess.
Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.), the House
stood in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
At 12 o'clock and 38 minutes the House proceeded to meet in
secret session.
(House proceedings held in secret session.)
At 2 o'clock and 11 minutes the House dissolved its proceeding
being held in secret
session. -------------------
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at 2 o'clock and 30 minutes
p.m. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER.(121) The Chair will make the following
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
121. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would remind the Members that the House has not at
this point voted to remove the injunction of secrecy and that
Members are bound not to release or to make public any of the
transcript of the closed session until further order of the House.
To enable the House to evaluate the transcript of the secret
session, the Chair will refer the transcript to the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and to the Committee on Merchant
Marines and Fisheries for their report thereon as soon as possible.
The committees' report will remain executive session record of
those committees for examination by the Members and ultimate
disposition by the House.
The Chair further would state that he would believe that the
item could go to the Committee on Rules and the House could go back
into a secret session for a time allotted before making the
transcript public record.
On July 17, 1979,(122) the House granted a unanimous-
consent request to release an edited transcript of the proceedings of
the earlier secret session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
122. 125 Cong. Rec. 19049, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. 939 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRINTING OF SECRET SESSION OF PANAMA CANAL DEBATE
Mr. [Edward] BOLAND [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the transcript of the proceedings of the
House and the secret session held on June 20, 1979, be printed in
today's edition of the Congressional Record, with the revisions and
deletions made in that transcript by Members who participated in
that debate, and which are mutually agreeable to the chairmen of
the Committee on Merchant Marines and Fisheries and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(123) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
123. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 19. Correction of Errors
The Congressional Record is intended to be a substantially verbatim
account of the proceedings of the House, and as such is subject only to
technical, grammatical, or typographical corrections authorized by the
Member whose remarks are at issue.(1) Unparliamentary
language may not be unilaterally removed by the Member making the
remarks, but the House may order such language stricken from the
Record.(2) These restrictions on the ability of Members to
alter the Record establish a standard of conduct that may be a matter
of review for the Committee on Ethics.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule XVII, clause 8(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 967 (2019). For
the ability of Members to revise and extend their remarks, see
Sec. 20, infra.
2. Rule XVII, clause 8(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 967 (2019). For
removing unparliamentary language from the Record, see Sec. 22,
infra.
3. Rule XVII, clause 8(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 968 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted earlier, the daily edition of the Congressional Record is
published following each legislative day, and the Official Reporters of
Debate and Government Publishing Office employees often work through
the night in order to have the Record distributed to congressional
offices the following morning. Thus, the daily edition may contain
printing errors, omissions, and other inaccuracies that need to be
corrected before the permanent edition is composed and
published.(4) When material is inadvertently omitted, the
permanent Record will usually carry the omitted text on a subsequent
legislative day with a notation indicating its proper
placement.(5) When the incorrect version of a measure is
printed in the Record, the permanent edition will contain the corrected
text and a notation on the discrepancy.(6) Referrals of
executive communications may be corrected to show the proper committee
of referral(7) or the correct date of receipt.(8)
The permanent Record may also contain notes on typographical and other
errors that were present in the daily edition.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. For earlier treatment of the procedures involved in making
corrections to the Congressional Record, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. 18.
5. See, e.g., 148 Cong. Rec. 16621, 107th Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 11,
2002).
6. See Sec. 19.1, infra.
7. See 149 Cong. Rec. 1236, 108th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 16, 2003).
8. See, e.g., 148 Cong. Rec. 4177, 107th Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 10,
2002) and 151 Cong. Rec. 2353, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. (Feb. 15,
2005).
9. See Sec. 19.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressional Record may also be corrected by order of the
House, often granted by unanimous consent. Where remarks are alleged to
have been inaccurately transcribed, the House has granted unanimous
consent to correct the depiction in the Record.(10) Members
have obtained unanimous consent to remove material that was
unintentionally submitted for inclusion in the Record.(11)
By unanimous consent, the Record has been corrected to show the correct
name of the Member filing a report.(12) Where fiscal
allocations were printed in the Record with inaccurate numbers,
unanimous consent was granted to the chair of the Committee on the
Budget to insert into the Record corrected allocations.(13)
The correction of the text of conference reports by unanimous consent
in the House is typically not permitted,(14) due to the fact
that the final text represents an agreement by both Houses of Congress
and a correction by one House may result in differences between the
versions submitted to each body. However, a conference report has been
reprinted (by order of the House) due to printing errors to bring the
version printed in the Record into conformity with the version filed in
the Senate.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 138 Cong. Rec. 14223, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (June 10, 1992).
11. See Sec. 19.4, infra.
12. See 128 Cong. Rec. H1053 [Daily Ed.], 97th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 23,
1982).
13. See Sec. 19.5, infra.
14. See Sec. 19.7, infra.
15. See Sec. 19.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the depiction of votes in the Congressional Record will
not be altered by the House, and unanimous-consent requests to correct
votes are typically not entertained.(16) This policy derives
from the presumed infallibility of the electronic voting system and the
responsibility of Members to ensure that their votes are properly
cast.(17) In exceptional circumstances, the House has
entertained unanimous-consent requests to correct the depiction of a
vote, where the Members at issue offer evidence that they were not
present on the day in question and could not have voted.(18)
Where there is alleged to be an inaccurate depiction of a vote change
announcement, the House has granted unanimous consent to correct the
permanent Record.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For vote corrections generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 30
Sec. Sec. 32, 37-40 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 30. For the
operation of the electronic voting system generally, see
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 4.
17. See Sec. Sec. 19.8, 19.11, infra.
18. See Sec. Sec. 19.10, 19.12, infra. The House has also permitted a
Member to be recorded as ``present'' on a vote where the
computer system showed that the Member had inserted a voting
card but did not vote on the question. See 119 Cong. Rec.
30610, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (Sept. 20, 1973).
19. See Sec. 19.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentary rulings by the Chair are a vital part of the
proceedings of the House and the proper enforcement of the rules of the
House depend upon their accuracy. As a result, the Parliamentarian
typically reviews all parliamentary rulings issued by the Chair and may
make technical corrections to such language in the Congressional Record
so that it accurately reflects the parliamentary
situation.(20) In the 104th Congress, the Chair made an
announcement as to the scope of the changes that the Parliamentarian
was authorized to make to bring it into conformity with the
``substantially verbatim'' standard for the depiction of House
proceedings in the Record.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 19.3, infra.
21. See Sec. 19.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The accuracy of the Congressional Record has long been recognized
as affecting the integrity of House proceedings, and thus may form the
basis for raising a question of the privileges of the
House.(22) As a result, an accusation that the Record did
not accurately reflect the proceedings has been held to give rise to a
valid question of privilege.(23) The alleged inaccuracy may
be the omission of remarks or proceedings that should have been
carried,(24) the unauthorized alteration of
remarks,(25) or any other improper depiction of
proceedings.(26)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 (2019); 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 7005-7023; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3461,
3463, and 3464; Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 17.1,
17.3, 17.4, 17.19, 17.20, 18.1, 18.2, 19.2, 19.9, 20.2, 20.19,
and 20.26; Deschler's Precedents Ch. 11 Sec. 11.
23. See Sec. 19.16, infra.
24. See Sec. Sec. 19.17, 19.23, infra.
25. See Sec. 19.18, infra.
26. See Sec. 19.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the advent of television broadcasting of House
proceedings,(27) the accuracy of words spoken on the floor
of the House could be verified against recordings of the proceedings,
and the House has adopted a resolution (raised as a question of
privilege) directing the Committee on House Administration to make
recommendations to address potential discrepancies.(28)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. For audio-visual broadcasting of House proceedings, see Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 3.
28. See Sec. 19.21, infra. For the formation of a task force to address
the issue, see 136 Cong. Rec. 1874, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. (Feb.
20, 1990). For the task force's final report, see 136 Cong.
Rec. 37124-27, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 27, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A resolution directing that mere typographical or grammatical
errors be corrected in the Congressional Record does not give rise to a
question of the privileges of the House, as Members may make such minor
corrections without leave of the House.(29) An allegation
that an address by the President contained factual errors (but not
alleging errors in transcription) and directing that the Record be
notated to indicate the alleged errors, does not give rise to a
question of privilege.(30) A question of privilege may not
be raised to direct that unparliamentary language be removed from the
Record, as the proper method for eliminating such language is a demand
that words be taken down.(31)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. See Sec. 19.19, infra.
30. See Sec. 19.22, infra.
31. See Sec. 22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omissions and Technical Corrections
Sec. 19.1 Where the incorrect text of a measure passed by suspension is
printed in the Congressional Record, the corrected text will appear
in a subsequent edition with a note on the error.
On October 5, 2000,(32) the following correction was
noted in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. 146 Cong. Rec. 21209, 106th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORRECTION TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3,
2000 AT PAGE 20610
The following bill was inadvertently printed in the wrong
version and appears below in the correct version as passed by the
House. -------------------
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ACT OF
2000
Mr. [Christopher] CANNON [of Utah]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2045) to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to H-1B nonimmigrant
aliens.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``American Competitiveness in the Twenty-
first Century Act of 2000''.
Sec. 19.2 Where the Congressional Record contains errors regarding the
electoral count for President and Vice President, as well as
typographical errors in a memorandum of understanding between
committees, a subsequent edition of the Record printed the
corrected text.
On January 30, 2001,(33) the following corrections
appeared in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. 147 Cong. Rec. 995-96, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORRECTED PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT SESSION OF SATURDAY, JANUARY
6, 2001 AT PAGE H44
A notation concerning the District of Columbia was
inadvertently omitted from the Congressional Record of Saturday,
January 6, 2001.
The VICE PRESIDENT.(34) Gentlemen and gentlewomen of
the Congress, the certificates of all the States have now been
opened and read, and the tellers will make final ascertainment of
the result and deliver the same to the President of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Richard Cheney (WY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tellers delivered to the President of the Senate the
following statement of results:
Joint Session of Congress for the Counting of the Electoral
Votes for President and Vice President of the United States:
Official Tally, January 6, 2001
The undersigned, Christopher J. Dodd and Mitch McConnell,
tellers on the part of the Senate, William M. Thomas and Chaka
Fattah, tellers on the part of the House of Representatives, report
the following as the result of the ascertainment and counting of
the electoral vote for President and Vice President of the United
States for the term beginning on the twentieth day of January, two
thousand and one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For President For Vice President
-------------------------------------------------------
Electoral Votes of Each State George W. Joe
Bush Al Gore Dick Cheney Lieberman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama--9.............................................. 9 ............ 9 ............
Alaska--3............................................... 3 ............ 3 ............
Arizona--8.............................................. 8 ............ 8 ............
Arkansas--6............................................. 6 ............ 6 ............
California--54.......................................... ............ 54 ............ 54
Colorado--8............................................. 8 ............ 8 ............
Connecticut--8.......................................... ............ 8 ............ 8
Delaware--3............................................. ............ 3 ............ 3
District of Columbia--3................................. ............ 2 ............ 2
Florida--25............................................. 25 ............ 25 ............
Georgia--13............................................. 13 ............ 13 ............
Hawaii--4............................................... ............ 4 ............ 4
Idaho--4................................................ 4 ............ 4 ............
Illinois--22............................................ ............ 22 ............ 22
Indiana--12............................................. 12 ............ 12 ............
Iowa--7................................................. ............ 7 ............ 7
Kansas--6............................................... 6 ............ 6 ............
Kentucky--8............................................. 8 ............ 8 ............
Louisiana--9............................................ 9 ............ 9 ............
Maine--4................................................ ............ 4 ............ 4
Maryland--10............................................ ............ 10 ............ 10
Massachusetts--12....................................... ............ 12 ............ 12
Michigan--18............................................ ............ 18 ............ 18
Minnesota--10........................................... ............ 10 ............ 10
Mississippi--7.......................................... 7 ............ 7 ............
Missouri--11............................................ 11 ............ 11 ............
Montana--3.............................................. 3 ............ 3 ............
Nebraska--5............................................. 5 ............ 5 ............
Nevada--4............................................... 4 ............ 4 ............
New Hampshire--4........................................ 4 ............ 4 ............
New Jersey--15.......................................... ............ 15 ............ 15
New Mexico--5........................................... ............ 5 ............ 5
New York--33............................................ ............ 33 ............ 33
North Carolina--14...................................... 14 ............ 14 ............
North Dakota--3......................................... 3 ............ 3 ............
Ohio--21................................................ 21 ............ 21 ............
Oklahoma--8............................................. 8 ............ 8 ............
Oregon--7............................................... ............ 7 ............ 7
Pennsylvania--23........................................ ............ 23 ............ 23
Rhode Island--4......................................... ............ 4 ............ 4
South Carolina--8....................................... 8 ............ 8 ............
South Dakota--3......................................... 3 ............ 3 ............
Tennessee--11........................................... 11 ............ 11 ............
Texas--32............................................... 32 ............ 32 ............
Utah--5................................................. 5 ............ 5 ............
Vermont--3.............................................. ............ 3 ............ 3
Virginia--13............................................ 13 ............ 13 ............
Washington--11.......................................... ............ 11 ............ 11
West Virginia--5........................................ 5 ............ 5 ............
Wisconsin--11........................................... ............ 11 ............ 11
Wyoming--3.............................................. 3 ............ 3 ............
-------------------------------------------------------
Total--538.......................................... 271 266 271 266
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: One elector from the District of Columbia cast a blank
ballot.
Christopher J. Dodd,
Mitch McConnell,
Tellers on the part
of the Senate.
William M. Thomas,
Chaka Fattah,
Tellers on the part of the
House of Representatives.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The state of the vote for President of the
United States, as delivered to the President of the Senate, is as
follows:
The whole number of electors appointed to vote for President of
the United States is 538, of which a majority is 270.
George W. Bush, of the State of Texas, has received for
President of the United States 271 votes.
Al Gore, of the State of Tennessee, has received 266 votes.
The state of the vote for Vice President of the United States,
as delivered to the President of the Senate, is as follows:
The whole number of the electors appointed to vote for Vice
President of the United States is 538, of which a majority is 270.
Dick Cheney, of the State of Wyoming, has received for Vice
President of the United States 271 votes.
Joe Lieberman, of the State of Connecticut, has received 266
votes.
This announcement on the state of the vote by the President of
the Senate shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons
elected President and Vice President of the United States, each for
the term beginning on the 20th of January 2001, and shall be
entered, together with a list of the votes, on the Journals of the
Senate and the House of
Representatives. -------------------
CORRECTION TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF SATURDAY, JANUARY 20,
2001 AT PAGE H67
-------------------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ENERGY AND COMMERCE
COMMITTEE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Mr. [Dennis] HASTERT [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting
in the Congressional Record the following memorandum of
understanding:
January 20, 2001.
On January 3, 2001, the House agreed to H. Res. 5, establishing the rules
of the House for the 107th Congress. Section 2(d) of H. Res. 5 contained a
provision renaming the Banking Committee as the Financial Services
Committee and transferring jurisdiction over securities and exchanges and
insurance from the Commerce Committee to the Financial Services Committee.
The Commerce Committee was also renamed the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Financial
Services jointly acknowledge as the authoritative source of legislative
history concerning section 2(d) of H. Res. 5 the following statement of
Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier during floor consideration of the
resolution:
``In what is obviously one of our most significant changes, Mr. Speaker,
section 2(d) of the resolution establishes a new Committee on Financial
Services, which will have jurisdiction over the following matters:
(1) banks and banking, including deposit insurance and Federal monetary
policy;
(2) economic stabilization, defense production, renegotiation, and
control of the price of commodities, rents, and services;
(3) financial aid to commerce and industry (other than transportation);
(4) insurance generally;
(5) international finance;
(6) international financial and monetary organizations;
(7) money and credit, including currency and the issuance of notes and
redemption thereof; gold and silver, including the coinage thereof;
valuation and revaluation of the dollar;
(8) public and private housing;
(9) securities and exchanges; and
(10) urban development.
``Mr. Speaker, jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and
exchanges is transferred in its entirety from the Committee on Commerce,
which will be redesignated under this rules change to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and it will now be transferred from the new Committee
on Energy and Commerce to this new Committee on Financial Services. This
transfer is not intended to convey to the Committee on Financial Services
jurisdiction currently in the Committee on Agriculture regarding commodity
exchanges.
``Furthermore, this change is not intended to convey to the Committee on
Financial Services jurisdiction over matters relating to regulation and SEC
oversight of multi-state public utility holding companies and their
subsidiaries, which remain essentially matters of energy policy.
``Mr. Speaker, as a result of the transfer of jurisdiction over matters
relating to securities and exchanges, redundant jurisdiction over matters
relating to bank capital markets activities generally and depository
institutions securities activities, which were formerly matters in the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, have been
removed from clause 1 of rule X.
``Matters relating to insurance generally, formerly within the
jurisdiction of the redesignated Committee on Energy and Commerce, are
transferred to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services.
``The transfer of any jurisdiction to the Committee on Financial Services
is not intended to limit the Committee on Energy and Commerce's
jurisdiction over consumer affairs and consumer protection matters.
``Likewise, existing health insurance jurisdiction is not transferred as
a result of this change.
``Furthermore, the existing jurisdictions of other committees with
respect to matters relating to crop insurance, Workers' Compensation,
insurance anti-trust matters, disaster insurance, veterans' life and health
insurance, and national social security policy are not affected by this
change.
``Finally, Mr. Speaker, the changes and legislative history involving the
Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Energy and Commerce do
not preclude future memorandum of understanding between the chairmen of
these respective committees.''
By this memorandum the two committees undertake to record their further
mutual understandings in this matter, which will supplement the statement
quoted above.
It is agreed that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will retain
jurisdiction over bills dealing broadly with electronic commerce, including
electronic communications networks (ECNs). However, a bill amending the
securities laws to address the specific type of electronic securities
transaction currently governed by a special SEC regulation as an
Alternative Trading System (ATS) would be referred to the Committee on
Financial Services.
While it is agreed that the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial
Services over securities and exchanges includes anti-fraud authorities
under the securities laws, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will retain
jurisdiction only over the issue of setting of accounting standards by the
Financial Accounting Standards Board.
W.J. ``Billy''
Tauzin,
Chairman,
Committee on
Energy and
Commerce.
Michael G.
Oxley,
Chairman,
Committee on
Financial
Services.
Sec. 19.3 The Congressional Record has been corrected to depict not
only the letter from a Member to the Speaker regarding his
resignation from the House but also a copy of the actual letter of
resignation from the Member to the state official concerned.
On September 11, 2002,(35) the following omissions were
noted in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. 148 Cong. Rec. 16621, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMISSION FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9,
2002 AT PAGE 16339
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 5, 2002.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker. I have been nominated by President Bush and
confirmed by the Senate to serve as United States Representative to
the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture, with the rank
of Ambassador. Therefore, I have submitted my resignation as a
Member of the House of Representatives, effective close of
business, September 9, 2002. I am forwarding to you a copy of my
letter of resignation to Ohio Governor Bob Taft.
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve with the
distinguished men and women of the House of Representatives for the
past twenty-four years. I look forward to working with the Members
of the House as I continue service to the Nation in my new
position.
Sincerely,
Tony P. Hall,
Member of Congress.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 5, 2002.
Hon. Bob Taft,
Governor, State of Ohio,
Columbus, OH.
Dear Governor Taft: I have been nominated by President Bush and
confirmed by the Senate to serve as United States Representative to
the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture, with the rank
of Ambassador. Therefore, I hereby resign as a Member of the House
of Representatives, effective close of business, September 9, 2002.
It has been a privilege and high honor to serve the people of
the Third Congressional District of Ohio as their Representative
for the past twenty-four years and I am grateful for the trust they
have placed in me. I look forward to continuing service to the
people of Ohio and the Nation in my new position.
Sincerely,
Tony P. Hall,
Member of Congress.
Correction by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 19.4 By unanimous consent, remarks inserted in the Congressional
Record and attributed to a Member without his permission were
deleted from the Record at the request of that Member.
On July 31, 1974,(36) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. 120 Cong. Rec. H7371 [Daily Ed.], 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Otto] PASSMAN [of Louisiana]. Mr. Speaker, appearing on
page E5098 of the Congressional Record for Monday, July 29, there
is an extension of remarks attributed to me.
I did not request or authorize this extension, nor did I have
any knowledge of it. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that it be
withdrawn from the greenbound Record, and for the permanent Record
to be corrected accordingly.
The SPEAKER.(37) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 19.5 Where there were technical errors in the estimated allocation
of appropriate levels of budget outlays and total new budget
authority contained in the joint statement accompanying the
conference report on a concurrent resolution on the budget, the
chair of the Committee on the Budget, by unanimous consent,
inserted a corrected estimated allocation in the Congressional
Record.
On May 13, 1976,(38) the following unanimous-consent
request was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. 122 Cong. Rec. 13758, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Brock] ADAMS [of Washington]. . . .
The statement of managers includes, as required by section 302
of the Budget Act, an allocation of the appropriate levels of new
budget authority and outlays among the committees of the House and
Senate. This allocation is a complex undertaking, as it involves
not only the identification of proper spending responsibilities for
all new programs, but also for the original funding provided for
all ongoing programs. Over the next few weeks, the Budget Committee
will be working with other committees to clarify these allocations
and the way that they will be used as the base for congressional
budget scorekeeping in the future. Unfortunately, there were
several technical errors not involving matters of policy in the
allocations presented in the statement of managers. Therefore, I
ask unanimous consent that the allocation tables pursuant to
section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, contained in the joint
explanatory statement of the managers on Senate Concurrent
Resolution 109 which was printed in the Record of May 7, at pages
13026 and 13027, be corrected and printed in the Record in full at
this point.
The SPEAKER.(39) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 19.6 The House by unanimous consent reprinted in the Congressional
Record a conference report and joint explanatory statement to
rectify the earlier omission of one page from the joint statement
from the papers filed in the House (though included in the papers
filed in the Senate).(40)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Parliamentarian's Note: Because a conference report represents an
agreement between the two Houses of Congress, the House will
not normally entertain a request to correct the depiction of a
conference report in the Record. However, in this case, the
version of the conference report printed by the House contained
an omission of one page that was not present in the Senate
version. This unanimous-consent request therefore brought the
two versions into conformity with one another. For an example
of the Chair not entertaining a request to alter a conference
report that had already been filed, see Sec. 19.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 13, 1998,(41) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. 144 Cong. Rec. 26007, 26011, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1260, SECURITIES LITIGATION UNIFORM
STANDARDS ACT OF 1998
Mr. [Thomas] BLILEY [of Virginia]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the Senate
bill (S. 1260) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to limit the conduct of securities
class actions under State law, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
(For conference report and statement, see Proceedings of the
House of Friday, October 9, 1998, at page 24971.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(42) Pursuant to the rule,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) each will control 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. John Shimkus (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include for the Record
a complete copy of the conference report on S. 1260.
When the conference report was filed in the House, a page from
the statement of managers was inadvertently omitted. That page was
included in the copy filed in the Senate, reflecting the agreement
of the managers. We are considering today the entire report and
statement of managers as agreed to by conferees and inserted in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Since the Chair is aware that the
papers filed in the Senate contain that matter as part of the joint
statement, its omission from the joint statement filed in the House
can be corrected by a unanimous consent request.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The text of the Conference Report on S. 1260 is as follows:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 105-803) . . .
Additionally, it was the intent of Congress, as was expressly stated
during the legislative debate on the Reform Act, and particularly during
the debate on overriding the President's veto, that the Reform Act
establish a heightened uniform Federal standard on pleading requirements
based upon the pleading standard applied by the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals. Indeed, the express language of the Reform Act itself carefully
provides that plaintiffs must ``state with particularity facts giving rise
to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of
mind.'' The Managers emphasize that neither the Reform Act nor S. 1260
makes any attempt to define that state of mind.
The managers note that in Ernst and Ernst v. Hochfelder, the Supreme
Court left open the question of whether conduct that was not intentional
was sufficient for liability under the Federal securities laws. The Supreme
Court has never answered that question. The Court expressly reserved the
question of whether reckless behavior is sufficient for civil liability
under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in a subsequent case, Herman & Maclean
v. Huddleston, where it stated, ``We have explicitly left open the question
of whether recklessness satisfies the scienter requirement.''
The managers note that since the passage of the Reform Act, a data base
containing many of the complaints, responses and judicial decisions on
securities class actions since enactment of the Reform Act has been
established on the Internet. This data base, the Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse, is an extremely useful source of information on securities
class actions. It can be accessed on the world wide web at http://
securities.stanford.edu. The managers urge other Federal courts to adopt
rules, similar to those in effect in the Northern District of California,
to facilitate maintenance of this and similar data bases.
Tom Bliley,
M.G. Oxley,
Billy Tauzin,
Chris Cox,
Rick White,
Anna G. Eshoo,
Managers on the Part
of the House.
Alfonse
D'Amato,
Phil Gramm,
Chris Dodd,
Managers on the Part
of the Senate.
Sec. 19.7 In response to a unanimous-consent request ostensibly
proposing to effect technical corrections in a conference report or
its accompanying joint explanatory statement, the Chair advised
that, although the points of correction could be inserted in the
Congressional Record, neither the report nor the joint explanatory
statement could be altered.(43)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. For an example of the Congressional Record being corrected with
respect to the use of certain typefaces in a conference report
(in order to distinguish between inserted remarks and text of
the joint explanatory statement of managers), see 144 Cong.
Rec. 26537-39, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 15, 1998) and 144
Cong. Rec. 27384, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 20, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 3, 2000,(44) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. 146 Cong. Rec. 20560, 106th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ralph] REGULA [of Ohio]. . . .
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have two technical changes to the
conference report that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the
Record at this time.
First on page 177, the increase of $4 million for heavy vehicle
propulsion is an error. The $4 million increase is for advanced
power electronics.
Secondly, page 135, the Lincoln Pond/Colonial Theater should be
Lincoln Road Colony Theater.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]). Let
the Chair just clarify for the gentleman from Ohio. Those
corrections, the gentleman needs to make those in the Record. The
gentleman cannot correct the conference report or joint statement
by asking unanimous consent.
So the gentleman knows, they will show up in the Record; the
Record will reflect congressional intent. But the Chair does not
want the gentleman to be left with the impression that it was done
by asking unanimous consent, to correct the joint statement that
cannot be done.
Correction of Votes
Sec. 19.8 During an early period of use of the electronic voting
system, certain Members, having unsuccessfully attempted to cast
their votes using the new system, requested unanimous consent to
have their votes in the Congressional Record corrected, to which
the Speaker pro tempore responded by requesting such Members
withhold their unanimous-consent requests until the Speaker could
be consulted.
On February 5, 1973,(45) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. 119 Cong. Rec. 3219-20, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask unanimous consent that I may correct the Record. During
the last rollcall I used my card right in this machine here, and I
thought I looked up at the voting register. I understand now from
the assistant tally clerk that I am not recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I voted ``yea.''
Mr. Speaker, I also understand that the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) also voted, and he has been notified that his vote did
not register.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Record
may be corrected to show that I voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [William] Hungate [of Missouri]).
The gentleman's statement will appear in the Record.
Mr. [Harold] GROSS [of Iowa]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right
to object, this is not a correction of the rollcall?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise the gentleman
from Iowa that this is not a correction, this is a statement, and
the gentleman's statement will appear in the Record.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, did the Chair state that my statement
will appear in the Record? I had asked unanimous consent for the
Record to show that I had voted ``yea.'' I voted during the last
rollcall, and the gentleman from New York also voted during the
last rollcall, and we ask unanimous consent to correct the Record
to show that we voted. And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
has told me that he voted on one other occasion, and that the
machine did not record his vote at that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman from Massachusetts
withhold his unanimous-consent request, and the Chair would ask
that the gentleman discuss the matter with the Speaker.
Mr. O'NEILL. I will. . . .
Mr. [Charles] RANGEL [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I too would
like to make the same sort of a request, specifically as it relates
to rollcall No. 10 in the question of the establishment of a select
committee to study the operation and implementation of rules 10 and
11 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, taken on January
31, 1973, I was incorrectly recorded as not having voted.
I actually cast my vote ``yea'' on the question.
I ask unanimous consent that the Record and the Journal be
corrected to indicate my vote ``yea'' in this matter.
Further, Mr. Speaker, concerning the last rollcall vote, I also
would like to discuss that matter with the Chair for the purpose of
having my vote recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state to the gentleman
from New York that the gentleman's statement will appear in the
Record, and the Chair would appreciate it if the gentleman will
also discuss this matter with the Speaker, since this is a matter
of first impression.
Mr. RANGEL. I thank the Speaker.
On February 6, 1973,(46) the Speaker made an
announcement regarding the use of the electronic voting system:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. 119 Cong. Rec. 3558, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. 689 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER.(47) The Chair would like to make a
brief statement about the use of the electronic voting system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members now have been using this new voting system for several
days. A sufficient number of Members have spoken to the Chair about
its use to demonstrate that there is some general misunderstanding,
or lack of understanding, about the safeguards which have been
built into this system. The Chair would like to stress two points:
First, when a Member inserts his card in a voting station, he
should carefully note whether the blue light--that is the light on
the far right of the voting station--goes off momentarily and then
illuminates. When this light comes on, and only then, is the
mechanism ready to receive the Member's vote. The Member then
depresses the appropriate button--yea, nay, or present--before
removing his card. When he depresses the button of his choice, that
button will also light. It may take a second or two for this voting
light to come on. The Member should continue to depress the button
until it does illuminate.
Second, having voted in this fashion, a Member can very quickly
and simply verify whether or not he is correctly recorded, or is
recorded at all, on the rollcall or quorum call then in progress,
simply by reinserting his card in the same or any other voting
station and observing which button lights. If he has previously
voted in the affirmative, for example, the yea button will light to
indicate that the computer already has registered his vote.
A Member also can verify his vote by watching the master panel
on the wall of the Chamber above the Press Gallery. However, a
Member can more accurately check his vote by the procedure lust
explained.
If a Member has any difficulty with the system, he should of
course check with the employees of the House who are positioned at
the majority and minority tables next to the monitoring screens.
Sec. 19.9 Although the Speaker will not entertain unanimous-consent
requests to correct the Congressional Record on a vote taken by
electronic device or where a vote was changed by submission of a
vote card to the Tally Clerk, the incorrect transcription by the
Official Reporters of Debate of an announced vote change in the
well may be corrected in the Record by unanimous consent.
On September 24, 1975,(48) the following announcement
was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. 121 Cong. Rec. 30059, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER.(49) It has been called to the Chair's
attention that the Record of yesterday incorrectly indicates
changes of votes made by two Members, one of whom being the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will point out, however, that the errors in the
Record were errors in transcription of the notes taken by the
reporters, and that the proper votes by each Member were accurately
recorded in the electronic system and can be verified by the voting
cards themselves.
The Chair has taken precautions to assure that in the future
any changes of votes recorded by the Official Reporters of Debates
will be checked against the voting cards submitted to the tally
clerk before they are noted in the Congressional Record.
Sec. 19.10 The Congressional Record was corrected by unanimous consent
to depict as not voting a Member who had been incorrectly recorded
as voting ``aye'' on eight rollcall votes taken by electronic
device on the preceding day.
On September 20, 1978,(50) where it was documented by a
Member that he had been absent from Washington, D.C. (attending
functions in his home district), the following correction to the Record
was permitted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. 124 Cong. Rec. H10245 [Daily Ed.], 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. [James] BURKE of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I
was incorrectly recorded on the votes which were taken. I was
necessarily absent from the Chamber and was unable to record my
votes. Rollcall votes Nos. 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, and
800 incorrectly show ``aye'' votes.
I had asked that I be paired on rollcall vote No. 795, which is
on H.R. 21460, the Health Centers Amendments of 1978 and wish that
the Record be corrected to reflect these changes.
Sec. 19.11 The Speaker declined to entertain unanimous-consent requests
to correct the Congressional Record on votes taken by electronic
device, as it is each Member's responsibility to assure that a vote
has been properly cast and verified prior to the announcement of
the result by the Chair.
On June 29, 1987,(51) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. 133 Cong. Rec. 18088, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN.(52) Are there any other amendments to
the bill not precluded by clause 2 of rule XXI?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. William Hughes (NJ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George (Buddy)] DARDEN [of Georgia]. Mr. Chairman, I was
in the Chamber and I respectfully object to the proceedings. I was
in the Chamber and it was my intention to vote. I was on my feet
while the Chairman was in the process.
The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry to say to the gentleman I did not see
the gentleman.
Mr. DARDEN. I respectfully object. I want to be heard on this
matter.
The CHAIRMAN. The vote is final at this point. The gentleman
may want to make a statement for the record.
Are there any other amendments to the bill not precluded by
clause 2 of rule XXI?
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I was in the Chamber. My card was in
the machine. I was attempting to cast my vote in this matter and I
respectfully object to the vote in that the Chair failed to
recognize me. A number of times I specified I was trying to vote. I
was present and I respectfully object to the fact that the Chair
would not allow my vote to be recorded. It would make no objection
to the outcome.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can only say to the gentleman that he
was obviously where the Chair did not see the gentleman. The Chair
does not know when a Member's card goes into the machine, as the
gentleman knows. Unless the gentleman was in the well, the Chair
would have no way of knowing the gentleman had his card in the
machine.
Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent I be recorded
as voting on this issue and that my vote in this matter was
``aye.''
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not have the authority to correct
a vote once it has been cast.
Mr. DARDEN. I submit there is no correction because I know what
I did and I was here.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may make a statement for the
Record.
Sec. 19.12 The Chair announced the unique circumstances of a
malfunction in the electronic voting system, and the House by
unanimous consent permitted the correction of an electronic vote in
the Congressional Record.
On June 26, 2000,(53) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. 146 Cong. Rec. 12371, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. For a statement by the
chair of the Committee on House Administration concerning this
malfunction in the electronic voting system, see 146 Cong. Rec.
12141-42, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. (June 23, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]). As
stated by the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration on
Friday, June 23, 2000, the Clerk has informed the Committee on
House Administration of a recent anomaly on a recorded vote.
Representative Roybal-Allard was absent on rollcall number 305 on
June 21, 2000 and was in possession of her voting card. The Clerk
was made aware of the fact that she was recorded on that rollcall,
but on no others on that day, but due to the lateness of the hour,
could not get confirmation from her by the time the vote was made
public that she was absent and in possession of her voting card.
Since then, the Clerk has received that confirmation. For that
reason and the statistical improbability of the recurrence of that
anomaly, the Chair and the Chairman of the Committee on House
Administration believe that it is proper to immediately correct the
Record and the Journal.
As stated in Volume 14, Section 32 of Deschler-Brown
Precedents:
Since the inception of the electronic system, the Speaker has resisted
attempts to permit corrections to the electronic tally after announcement
of a vote. This policy is based upon the presumptive reliability of
electronic device and upon the responsibility of each Member to correctly
cast and verify his or her vote.
Based upon the explanation received from the Chairman of the
Committee on House Administration and from the Clerk, the Chair
will continue to presume the reliability of the electronic device,
so long as the Clerk is able to give that level of assurance which
justifies a continuing presumption of its integrity. Without
objection, the Chair will permit the immediate correction of the
Record and Journal under the unique circumstances certified by the
Clerk.
There was no objection.
Correction of Parliamentary Rulings
Sec. 19.13 The Chair has the right under the precedents and applicable
standards to refine rulings on points of order in the Congressional
Record in order to clarify, but not change the substance of, the
rulings of the Chair.
On February 19, 1992,(54) the Chair responded to
parliamentary inquiries as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. 138 Cong. Rec. 2461, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(55) The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. Michael McNulty (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, if a Member has reason to believe that
the Chair has made an inaccurate ruling, and if, further, that
Member has reason to believe that that inaccurate ruling was
further made problematic by the addition of words to the Record
spoken by the Chair or the deletion of words in the Record spoken
by the Chair, what is the recourse of action available to the
Member to bring about the appropriate correction?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the Member discuss the nature of
the concern with the Chair so that he can further understand the
concern?
Mr. WALKER. I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday,
February 5, the Chair was asked to rule on the matter of the rule
on the task force concerning the holding of hostages by Iran in
1980.
At that time, this Member suggested that the Chair had ruled
inaccurately by suggesting that this matter did not apply, because
we were dealing with a subunit of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
When I go back and find the Record, I discover that that is
precisely what the Chair ruled. I at that point challenged the
ruling of the Chair. We had a vote. The Chair was upheld despite
the fact that the ruling is inaccurate.
Later on, in raising questions about that, the Chair then made
a number of statements to clarify its position. When I put the
Record of the House, the written Record of the House, against the
tapes of that day, I find that words were added to the Chair's
message. I also find that things were deleted from what the Chair
actually said in the course of clarifying its decision.
My question is: Given the nature of the fact that there was a
ruling that I believe may have substantial precedents to it, as far
as I know it was the first ruling of its kind, I believe that it
was done inaccurately, I would now like to figure out how it is we
can go about correcting both the ruling of the Chair and the fact
that the Record has been changed with regard to the words of the
Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman
from Pennsylvania that the ruling of the Chair that day was
sustained by a vote, and that the Chair subsequently has the right
to clarify his ruling.
Mr. WALKER. I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. And it did not change the thrust of
the ruling.
Mr. WALKER. In clarifying its ruling, does not the Chair have
an obligation to the House to accurately reflect his ruling in the
presentation to the House and not then modify that statement later
on by both adding words and deleting words from the Chair's
statement as the official Record appears?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair believes that the gentleman
who was occupying the Chair that day accurately reflected his views
when he responded to the statement of the gentleman.
Mr. WALKER. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WALKER. Well, if that is the case, then why does the
permanent Record of the House as reflected on the videotape differ
with the Record reflected in the printed Record of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Because the gentleman was attempting
to clarify his ruling as a result of the inquiry from the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. So a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WALKER. Even in matters then where precedent is being set,
we can have the person who occupies the Chair modify their words in
the Record and thereby change, in my opinion, the intent of the
ruling.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without changing the ruling, the Chair
may do that.
Mr. WALKER. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WALKER. Is it not true that Members are not granted that
right, so therefore that is a special right that has now been
created for the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members have the right to revise and
extend their remarks continuously.
Mr. WALKER. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WALKER. Under recent rulings, Members have been admonished
very clearly that they are not to change in any way the substantive
value of what they say in those revisions and extensions. In my
opinion, the Chair has done that here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. To the best of the knowledge of the
Chair, the person who was in the Chair on that day did not change
the substance of his ruling.
Mr. WALKER. Well, by eliminating certain words, I would say to
the Chair that he has, because he refers to an entity which would
in fact then clarify the fact that his original ruling was wrong.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
entitled to his opinion.
Mr. WALKER. Well, I thank the Chair for that. At least that has
not been taken away from me.
Sec. 19.14 In response to a point of order grounded in clause 9(a) of
rule XIV (now clause 8 of rule XVII)(56) (requiring the
Congressional Record to be a substantially verbatim transcript of
House proceedings) that a ruling of the Chair on the previous day
appeared in the Record with substantive changes, the Chair stated
that the modifications in the Record of the prior day did not
change the intent or substance of the ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. House Rules and Manual Sec. 967 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 19, 1995,(57) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. 141 Cong. Rec. 1599-1602, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. [Barney] FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(58) The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. David Dreier (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of
this session, the House adopted a new rule which says the
Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of
remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to
technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by
the Member making the remarks involved.
In the Congressional Record that we received this morning,
reflecting yesterday's proceedings, at page H301 in the transcript
of the remarks of the Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from
Florida, there are two changes that were made between what he, in
fact, said and what is in the Record.
The first change is as follows:
He said yesterday with regard to the statements of the
gentlewoman from Florida about the book of the Speaker, ``It is the
Speaker's opinion that innuendo and personal references to the
Speaker's conduct are not in order.''
That has been altered and that does not appear verbatim in the
Congressional Record. Instead, it says, ``It is the Speaker's
opinion that innuendo and critical references to the Speaker's
personal conduct are not in order.''
Additionally, later on in response to a parliamentary inquiry
from the gentleman from Missouri, the Speaker pro tempore said, as
I recollect it, ``it has been the Chair's ruling, and the
precedents of the House support this, a higher level of respect is
due to the Speaker.''
In the Congressional Record that has been changed to ``a proper
level of respect.''
Now, I do not believe that changing ``personal'' to
``critical'' and ``proper'' to ``higher'' is either technical,
grammatical, or typographical. Both make quite substantive changes.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that by the standard that the
Speaker yesterday uttered, the gentlewoman from Florida was judged,
but if you take today's standard of revised, illegitimately revised
version that is in the Record, there would be no objection to what
the gentlewoman from Florida said.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair might respond to the
gentleman.
The Chair would recite from the manual that in accordance with
existing accepted practices, the Speaker may make such technical or
parliamentary insertions, or corrections in transcript as may be
necessary to conform to rule, custom, or precedent. The Chair does
not believe that any revision changed the meaning of the ruling.
The Chair would under the circumstances inform the House on
behalf of the Parliamentarian that the new rule is as it might
apply to the role of the Chair will be examined. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The interpretation of the Chair is
that the modifications that were made based on the precedents that
the Chair has just outlined have not changed the intent.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Does modification mean change?
Mr. [Melvin] WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in the Judiciary
Committee a couple of weeks ago, we adopted a set of rules which
provide that a hearing can be called only by the committee on 7
days' notice. We conducted a hearing that was not so called, and
the chairman of that committee advised the committee that the word
``committee'' does not mean committee, it means chair instead and
invited us to seek an opinion from the Parliamentarian which we
did, and the Parliamentarian's opinion indicated that the word
``committee'' means, in fact, ``committee.''
My parliamentary inquiry is: Should we take this as an
indication, in conjunction with yesterday, that we are going to
make up the rules as we go along and make technical changes to suit
the whims of the chairs of the committees and whoever is presiding
over the House, or can we rely now on the rules as they are
written?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can rely on the rules that
have been written, and we will proceed under the adopted rules of
the House.
The gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. [John] DINGELL [of Michigan]. I appreciate the Chair
recognizing me. I would like to continue with my parliamentary
inquiry.
I hope the Chair will have the goodness to let me complete my
inquiry before I am ruled out of order and required again to take
my seat.
My question is: What is now the status of the original ruling
by the previous occupant of the chair in connection with the matter
of the 1-minutes yesterday and the remarks of the gentlewoman from
Florida?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not changed at all.
Mr. DINGELL. Have they been changed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the Chair might respond to the
gentleman's parliamentary inquiry----
Mr. DINGELL. May I complete my parliamentary inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has asked a question,
the Chair wishes to respond to the gentleman's parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. DINGELL. May I complete my parliamentary inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In response to the gentleman's
parliamentary inquiry, the Chair has interpreted there will not be
a change based on the precedents that have been established. The
statement that appeared in the Record was not different than that
that had been provided.
Mr. DINGELL. If there is no change, Mr. Speaker, then why were
the words changed, and what is the impact of the change of the
words?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the Chair might respond to the
parliamentary inquiry, the revisions that were made were technical
and not substantive. That is the ruling of the Chair.
The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am very puzzled when
you tell me they are technical and not substantive.
Would you instruct your Members that you would recognize me and
I am proceeding in regular order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized.
The House will be in order.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The question is this, and it is a
very serious one: When you say that ``personal'' and ``critical''
are the same thing, we were talking about references to the
Speaker. Is it the Chair's ruling that given the circumstances any
personal reference to the Speaker will inevitably be critical?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Based on the precedents that have been
provided especially during the 1-minute session, which is what came
up under Speaker Reed, it is very clear that these kinds of
references are not in order.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am talking now that
there are two separate questions here, the ruling which my friend
from Michigan was pursuing, and the new rule which the Republicans
brought to this House as part of the Contract that said you do not
change the Congressional Record; that is subsequent to all of the
precedents you are talking about. There are two questions: One,
your right to change the ruling; but, two, separate, the one I am
focusing on, your right to change words in the Congressional Record
in ways that are neither typographical, grammatical or technical,
and I submit that changing ``personal'' to ``critical,'' one more
sentence, ``personal'' to ``critical,'' and ``higher'' to
``proper'' are none of those. My question is: Why are you ignoring
your new rule and changing the words in the Congressional Record,
because they look better?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will announce that it is
obvious that these kinds of modifications have been raised as a
question, and in the future the Chair will continue to be
extraordinarily sensitive in dealing with these matters.
Sec. 19.15 The Speaker announced that consistent with clause 9 of rule
XIV (now clause 8 of rule XVII),(59) statements and
rulings of the Chair appearing in the Congressional Record would be
a substantially verbatim account of those words as spoken during
the proceedings of the House, subject only to technical,
grammatical, and typographical corrections.(60)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. House Rules and Manual Sec. 967 (2019).
60. Parliamentarian's Note: This policy does not prohibit the Chair
from revising a procedural ruling to accurately depict the
parliamentary situation, so long as the substance of the
Chair's statement is not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 1995,(61) the following announcement was
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. 141 Cong. Rec. 1866, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER.(62) The Chair announces that consistent
with clause 9 of rule XIV, statements and rulings of the Chair
appearing in the Record will be a substantially verbatim account of
those words as spoken during the proceedings of the House, subject
only to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. Newt Gingrich (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the permanent Record of January 18 at pages
301 and 303 will reflect this policy.
There was no objection.
Questions of Privilege
Sec. 19.16 A resolution asserting that a colloquy between Members
carried in the Congressional Record of a preceding day is not a
true and accurate record of the proceedings that took place, and
directing that the Record be corrected to carry a true and accurate
record of the proceedings, presents a question of the privileges of
the House under rule IX.(63)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 7, 1979,(64) the following resolution was raised
as question of the privileges of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. 125 Cong. Rec. 10099-100, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and
Manual Sec. 704 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD OF MAY 3, 1979
Mr. [Andrew] JACOBS [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 260) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 260
Whereas the Congressional Record of May 3, 1979, on page 9667, is not a
true and accurate record of the proceedings that took place on the floor of
the House on May 3, 1979, in that an exchange between Mr. Dannemeyer, of
California, and Mr. Jacobs, in fact was as follows:
``Mr. Jacobs. I offered an amendment a few moments ago to cut $400
million in pork barrel spending and I asked for a rollcall vote, and less
than 20 people stood. Will the gentleman say whether he stood for a
rollcall vote?
``Mr. Dannemeyer. I think that there were many of us who stood on that
issue.
``Mr. Jacobs. Did the gentleman stand?
``Mr. Dannemeyer. I have been supporting budget cuts almost without
exception.'' and the Congressional Record for May 3, 1979, erroneously
reports the exchange as follows:
``Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman. I offered an amendment to cut $400 million in
spending and I asked for a rollcall vote, and less than 20 people stood.
Would the gentleman say whether he stood for the rollcall vote?
``Mr. Dannemeyer. I think there were many of us who stood on that issue.
I supported the proposal by a voice vote but did not stand to require a
rollcall because there seemed so little support for the issue.
``Mr. Jacobs. Did the gentleman stand?
``Mr. Dannemeyer. I have been supporting budget cuts almost without
exception.''
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Record of the House be corrected and that the accurate
account of the exchange be printed therein.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(65) Under the precedents of
the House, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs) is recognized
for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. John Murtha (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] DANNEMEYER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, not only will I yield, but I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dannemeyer).
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say
that this Member intended, at the beginning of the proceedings
today, to strike from the Record the sentence, ``I supported the
proposal by a voice vote but did not stand to require a rollcall
because there seemed so little support for the issue.'' That
sentence I think should be stricken.
Mr. JACOBS. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
Mr. [Peter] KOSTMAYER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KOSTMAYER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Indiana aware
that I was part of the colloquy that day?
Mr. JACOBS. Yes, I am aware of that fact.
Mr. KOSTMAYER. I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana. I
think he has characterized the situation accurately and that indeed
the meaning of the words of the gentleman from Indiana, as well as
the meaning of my own words, were altered by a change in the
Record, and I support the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I might say to the gentleman from
California that the only quarrel I think that either the gentleman
from Pennsylvania or I might have is not any confusion that the
gentleman might have had a few moments after his own statement
about what his own statement had been in response to inquiries by
the gentleman. from Pennsylvania, but that when the Record was
altered subsequently it was altered without notice to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania or myself in order that we might be asked to
agree to change our own language to conform with the change that
the gentleman wished to make. It seems to me that that is the most
dangerous part of this kind of proceedings. For example, if it were
not opposed to the precedents of the House to do just that, it
would be possible for me to ask a Member of this body, ``Are you a
loyal American?'' and receive the answer, ``Yes,'' and then
subsequently being entrusted with the Record for alteration of my
own words, ask just the opposite, ``Is the gentleman disloyal to
his country?'' And if he had not known the altered part of the
colloquy, the answer would remain, ``Yes.'' I believe that is the
precedent and the reason for the general House rule that, while
remarks can be revised and extended, the meaning of the remarks
should not be altered.
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. I yield further to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DANNEMEYER. I think the gentleman's point is well taken,
and I do not want to put any Member in a position of having his
responses be embarrassing to that Member. Hindsight would indicate,
probably, that when this Member revised and extended his remarks
within the prerogative of that privilege as I saw the light,
perhaps I should have given copies of the proposed revision to the
Member in the well and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Kostmayer), as well, for an opportunity to revise what they thought
the revision should be and what the response should be.
I think the suggestion which has been made, that we strike that
second sentence, would be consistent with what I think should be
done in terms of correcting the Record, and it would be fair, and
it is a good indication as to what the office is of revising and
extending remarks and when they should be, and how they should be
treated.
Mr. JACOBS. I thank the gentleman, and I think we need take no
more time of the House. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs).
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 19.17 A Member whose remarks during debate were omitted from
printing in the Congressional Record may rise to a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX to offer a resolution
requiring correction of the Record and a report by the Clerk as to
the circumstances surrounding the omission.
On July 29, 1983,(66) the following resolution was
raised as a question of the privileges of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. 129 Cong. Rec. 21685, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. For the filing of the
Clerk's report on this issue, see 129 Cong. Rec. 22080, 98th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Aug. 1, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker. I rise to a
point of privilege.
The SPEAKER.(67) The gentleman will state his
privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 289
Whereas the Clerk of the House is making an electronic recording of the
official proceedings of the House of Representatives to produce a verbatim
account of the proceedings of the House;
Whereas the remarks of Representative Walker of Pennsylvania were not
printed in the Record of July 28, 1983, and instead a statement appears on
page H5856 stating: ``Mr. Walker addressed the Committee. His remarks will
appear hereafter in the Extension of Remarks.'';
Whereas said remarks of Representative Walker of Pennsylvania were
discussed and debated at a point in the Record on pages H5866 to H5867 of
the Record of July 28, 1983;
Whereas the Record does not accurately reflect the proceedings and
statements of the House of Representatives for the date of July 28, 1983:
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Congressional Record of July 28, 1983, should be
corrected to include the remarks of Representative Walker. and be it
further
Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives report to the
House not later than the close of business today. July 29, 1983, as to the
circumstances surrounding this instance and report what actions will be
taken in the future to prevent Member's remarks from being omitted from the
Record.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the resolution. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) is correct; it does raise
a question of the privileges of the House.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman (Mr. Walker) on the
resolution.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that this resolution does interfere with
today's House schedule. For that reason, I intend to make my case
for it very succinctly and hopefully it will not take very much
time of the Members.
Mr. Speaker, last night there was a rather acrimonious and
unnecessary exchange that took place on the floor in which the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) charged several Members with
impugning the motives of the Members of this body.
He named me specifically and I objected strenuously to his
characterization of my remarks.
In the course of that exchange the point was made that my
speech earlier in the day would speak for itself. In fact, I regard
that speech as my best defense against the emotion-laden,
groundless charge that was made, and I did not revise one word of
those remarks.
Lo and behold, when the Record was published this morning, my
best defense did not appear.
An entire exchange involving the remarks of several Members was
missing in its entirety.
I was concerned deeply by their deletion and I sought to find
out how such a thing could have happened.
What I discovered is that another Member was given the
transcripts in order to revise and extend his remarks and,
inadvertently, failed to rush them to the Clerk for printing in
today's Record.
That Member has apologized and I am assured that no harm was
meant.
But some harm was done.
I publicly pointed to my remarks as my defense and yet those
remarks are unavailable when one goes to the Record.
The Record ends up being an incomplete and inaccurate
representation of yesterday's proceedings.
I certainly do not want any interpretation that I purposefully
withheld the materials which, given the context of last night's
debate, could be inferred by some.
In my opinion, we cannot afford to go on having incidents which
call our documents into question and that is the reason for this
resolution. . . .
The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 19.18 A resolution directing the Committee on Rules to investigate
and report to the House within a time certain on alleged
alterations of the Congressional Record was held to give rise to a
question of the privileges of the House under rule
IX.(68)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 24, 1984,(69) the following resolution was
raised as a question of the privileges of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. 130 Cong. Rec. 250-51, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(70) Does the gentleman have
a resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. Donald Pease (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. I have a resolution at
the desk, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 393
Resolved, That the House Committee on Rules shall:
(1) undertake an investigation concerning the matter of accuracy of the
Congressional Record;
(2) determine whether procedures including, but not limited to, requiring
absolute verbatim transcripts of all House proceedings should be
implemented; and
(3) report back to the House within 45 legislative days with
recommendations on how to protect and ensure the accuracy of the
Congressional Record, as well as how to safeguard the individual rights and
privileges of individual Members of the House in that document.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read the preamble.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 393
Whereas, several instances have occurred in which official House
documents and records, including the Congressional Record, have either been
intentionally or mistakenly altered;
Whereas, such instances have produced a Congressional Record which has
differed materially from its original intent and verbatim transcripts of
the actual statements made on the floor;
Whereas, the protection and accuracy of official House records and
documents is one of the rights and privileges of Members of Congress;
Whereas, such falsifications and misstatements distort the legislative
history and intent of legislation considered by the House of
Representatives;
Whereas, such occurrences reflect adversely on individual Members of
Congress and on their capacity to accurately carry out their
responsibilities and duties in accurately reflecting the views of their
constituents, as well as the integrity and sanctity of the legislative
process and general proceedings of the House of Representatives; and
Whereas, the American people have a right to know exactly what is said
and what occurs on the floor of the House of Representatives; Now,
therefore, be it,
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's resolution raises a
question of privilege of the House under rule IX.
privileged motion offered by mr. frost
Mr. [Jonas] FROST [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged
motion.
Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table
the resolution offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). . .
.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
213, nays 144, not voting 76, as follows:
[Roll No. 3] . . .
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 19.19 Mere typographical errors in the Congressional Record or
ordinary revisions of a Member's remarks do not give rise to a
question of privilege for the correction of the Record, as such
changes may be made without the permission of the House.
On April 25, 1985,(71) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. 131 Cong. Rec. 9419, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 689, 704 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION TO CORRECT THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. [Vincent] WEBER [of Minnesota]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Motion offered by Mr. Weber: Mr. Weber moves to correct the Congressional
Record by striking out on page 2281 the remarks beginning with the words
``We'' down to and including the word ``confederation'' and inserting the
word ``are'' before ``a''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(72) The Chair does not
believe the motion as offered by the gentleman states a question of
privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. Tommy Robinson (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
motion to table offered by mr. foley
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay
the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to lay
on the table offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas
200, nays 156, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 76, as follows:
[Roll No. 74] . . .
Sec. 19.20 A resolution alleging that the Congressional Record is not a
``substantially verbatim report'' of House debates as required by
law and House rule, and directing the Committee on Rules to
investigate specified instances of misleading accounts of debates,
was held to constitute a question of the privileges of the House
involving the integrity of House proceedings, and (following
debate) was referred to the Committee on House Administration.
On May 8, 1985,(73) the following resolution was raised
as a question of the privileges of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
73. 131 Cong. Rec. 11072-75, 11077-79, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.; House
Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 704, 999 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RESOLUTION ASKING FOR INVESTIGATION
CONCERNING CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. [Trent] LOTT [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 163) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 163
Whereas, public law provides that the Congressional Record ``shall be
substantially a verbatim report of proceedings'' in the House and Senate
(44 U.S.C. Sec. 901); and
Whereas, pursuant to such public law the Joint Committee on Printing has
promulgated a rule which reads as follows: ``Only as an aid in
distinguishing the manner of delivery in order to contribute to the
historical accuracy of the Record, statements or insertions in the Record
where no part of them was spoken will be preceded and followed by a
``bullet'' symbol, i.e., .''; and
Whereas, during the consideration of a resolution involving the
constitutional prerogatives of the House to punish its own Members for
disorderly behavior the Speaker announced that ``it is essential that the
Congressional Record contain as true and accurate a record of the
proceedings as possible,'' advised that all insertions and extensions would
``appear at the end of the proceedings with a bullet symbol,'' and asked
Members ``to refrain from making any changes in the substance of debate''
(H. Res. 558, 98th Congress, Congressional Record, July 31, 1984, p. H8051
[daily edition]); and
Whereas, a resolution relating to the election of a Member also involves
an important constitutional prerogative of the House, namely the right of
the House to Judge ``the elections, returns and qualifications of its
Members;'' and
Whereas, it is just as essential in debates on such election resolutions
that the Congressional Record contain as true and accurate a record of the
proceedings as possible,'' and that ``all insertions and extensions not
delivered in debate'' be clearly distinguishable in the Record from those
words actually spoken; and
Whereas, the Congressional Record of May 1, 1985, carrying the debate on
H. Res. 146, ``relating to election of a Representative from the Eighth
Congressional District of Indiana,'' contains two instances in which
remarks of Members appear as if they were delivered during debate, i.e.,
without a ``bullet,'' when in fact not one word of either statement was
actually spoken, to wit, the remarks of one Member at pages 10003-10009,
and the remarks of another Member at page 10014; and
Whereas, an insertion made by an Identical consent request by yet another
Member at page 10011 does contain the distinguishing ``bullet'' as required
of such statements ``where no part of them was spoken,'' and
Whereas, the proceedings of the House relating to the election contest in
the Eighth Congressional District of Indiana may be considered as relevant
evidence in ongoing judicial proceedings and must therefore be preserved as
an accurate record, and
Whereas, the accuracy of the Congressional Record is a matter touching on
the integrity of the proceedings of the House and therefore raises a
question of the privileges of the House; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Committee on Rules is hereby authorized and directed
to:
(1) undertake an Immediate investigation into the circumstances
surrounding the inaccurate, distorted, and misleading Congressional Record
account of the proceedings of the House during debate on H. Res. 146,
``relating to election of a Representative from the Eighth Congressional
District of Indiana'' on May 1, 1985; and
(2) report back to the House, within 60 calendar days, its findings with
respect to such account, together with Its recommendations both for (a)
remedying the specific inaccuracies cited in the preamble of this
resolution, and (b) preventing the recurrence of such incidents in the
future, including its recommendation as to whether the Record should
contain a verbatim account of words actually spoken, clearly
distinguishable and set apart from any remarks or words not actually
uttered in debate and instead simply inserted in the Congressional Record
under leave to revise and extend remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Donald] Pease [of Ohio]). The
Chair will state that the gentleman's resolution does state a
question of privilege.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Washington rise?
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I think the
gentleman from Mississippi has undoubtedly expressed a concern
shared on his side of the aisle and perhaps one that should be
investigated by the House as a whole.
I, personally, believe that the appropriate committee to
undertake such an investigation would be the Committee on House
Administration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a motion?
Mr. FOLEY. I move, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution be referred
to the Committee on House Administration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish debate time on
his motion?
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, my impression is that that motion would
be debatable for 1 hour, is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington will
have 1 hour to debate the motion. A motion to refer the resolution
is in order and is debatable.
Does the gentleman from Washington wish to debate?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman intend to designate
the time that he would share in this debate?
Mr. FOLEY. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi for purposes of debate only.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is
entitled to 1 hour and he yields 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Again a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, are we going to
have the full hour of debate or have I been yielded Just 5 minutes
of that 1 hour, or what is the procedure at this point?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is
entitled to 1 hour of debate and It is in his control how much of
that time he uses and how much time he yields to other Members.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, I demand 40 minutes under the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is entitled to 40
minutes under the rule. The time will be divided equally between
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] and the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Foley].
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. . . .
I appreciate the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] offering
the privileged resolution. The issue ought to be enjoined. . . .
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. FOLEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]).
The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, because of the adoption of the motion
of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] there is 40 minutes of
debate, is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. FOLEY. Is that equally divided between the sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is equally divided.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on my own time I will take 5 minutes. .
. .
It is my understanding that only last week a prominent Member
on the other side made a speech in the Record which was not given
but was not bulleted. Under those circumstances it seems there has
been no favoritism in the failure to bullet. . . .
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time, I appreciate
the fairness of the gentleman's comment about there being no
particular suggestion of bad faith or deliberate misconduct here. I
share that view, that if there is any problem, it is one with the
administration of the rules.
I do not think there is any need to reconstruct the rule. The
rule is not really under question here. The question that has been
raised by the resolution is whether in fact an appropriate
following or administration of the rule has occurred and that is
why I insist that the proper committee is the committee that has
administrative responsibility over the Congressional Record. That
is the Committee on House Administration. . . .
Mr. [Robert] DORNAN of California. The press, other than Jack
Anderson and a few others, is not going to be much interested in
this. I found multiple occasions where my predecessor eradicated
the black dot bullet and wrote in franked privileged documents into
the district in 1984 that he made such and such a speech on the
House floor. We went and got the Record, saw that he had not, and
saw the black dot.
So there is a lot of dishonor involved here. Even if this is
just perceived as a point of honor, let us not bury it in House
Administration. Let us do something about it. . . .
Mr. [Frank] ANNUNZIO [of Illinois]. There is a Joint Committee
on Printing. In this Congress there was a change of chairman.
Senator Mac Mathias of Maryland, a Republican, this year is
chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, and I am vice chairman
of the Joint Committee on Printing, because we alternate
chairmanships of these two joint committees.
Mr. [Charles] PASHAYAN [of California]. Mr. Speaker, will the
distinguished chairman yield?
Mr. ANNUNZIO. I would like to finish my statement.
We alternate chairmen. There are three Democratic Members of
this House on the Joint Committee on Printing, as well as two
Republican Members, and the committee is evenly divided between
Republicans and Democrats, between the Senate and the House. So a
matter pertaining to the printing of the Congressional Record, or
any other printing matter, should be referred to our Subcommittee
on Procurement and Printing or to our Joint Committee on Printing.
I just want to make the record clear. . . .
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, under rule XVII, I move to commit the
resolution to the Committee on House Administration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question IS on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley].
The question was taken and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and I make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
245, nays 184, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 100] . . .
So the motion to commit was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 19.21 A resolution alleging that the omission of certain remarks
from the Congressional Record threatened the integrity of the
proceedings of the House, and directing the Committee on House
Administration to report recommendations for reconciling the custom
of permitting Members to revise and extend their remarks for the
Record with the requirement in clause 9 of rule I (now clause 2 of
rule V)(74) of ``complete and unedited audio and visual
broadcasting and recording'' of the proceedings of the House, gave
rise to a question of the privileges of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
74. House Rules and Manual Sec. 684 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 7, 1990,(75) the following resolution was
raised as a question of the privileges of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. 136 Cong. Rec. 1515-16, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. For the announcement
that a task force had been formed to investigate the matter at
issue, see 136 Cong. Rec. 1874, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. (Feb. 20,
1990). For the report of the task force, see 136 Cong. Rec.
37124-27, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 27, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RELATING TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 330) and I ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 330
Whereas the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Savage, addressed the House on
February 1, 1990, in the period known as Special Orders;
Whereas certain of his remarks did not appear in the body of the
Congressional Record of February 1, 1990;
Whereas numerous other examples of deletions from the Congressional
Record of remarks actually uttered on the floor have been mentioned in the
press;
Whereas these omissions seriously threaten the integrity of the
proceedings of the House;
Resolved, That the Committee on House Administration report to the House
as soon as practicable its recommendations with respect to deletions from
the Congressional Record pursuant to permission granted by the House to
revise and extend remarks, in light of the adoption by the House of clause
9, Rule I which directs the Speaker to implement a system of complete and
unedited audio and visual broadcasting and recording of the proceedings of
the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [James] McDermott [of
Washington]). The Chair will rule that the resolution offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] constitutes a question
of the privileges of the House under rule IX since it addresses the
question of the integrity of the Congressional Record in a generic
way. The Chair would note that the remarks mentioned in the
resolution were removed from the Record pursuant to permission of
the House to revise and extend and consistent with precedent and
the Parliamentarian's suggestion.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, as the Chair has just noted, the
particular remarks that were removed from the Congressional Record
that this resolution refers to were, in fact, done at the request
of the Parliamentarians. Nevertheless, I think we have an issue
before Members which is, clearly, one that has to be addressed at
some point by this body.
We have a situation here where remarks were made that were
unparliamentary in nature and where there are real questions about
whether or not they should have been said on the floor. In this
gentleman's opinion, they should not have been.
However, the question before Members is this: We now have two
records of the proceedings of the House of Representatives. One of
them is printed in the Congressional Record. The other is on
videotape for all Members to see. One record is, in fact, the
accurate presentation of what goes on in the House of
Representatives. The other is a record of what we wish we would
have said, if only we had said it right. The problem is that those
two do not match.
It is this gentleman's contention that we ought to have a
printed record which reflects what the actual proceedings of the
House said and did during any legislative day. In this particular
case, we have a situation where the words that were uttered were,
in fact, words that are substantially changed when a person removes
the offending language. In this gentleman's opinion, rather than
having a situation where we substantially change the speech, what a
person should have said is a situation where the Chair, in noting
offensive speech, orders the Member to order, rather than have a
situation where later on, offensive words are removed.
I think that we are now in a position where the House of
Representatives, because of electronic media, has become a bully
pulpit for all Members. All 435 Members elected to this body have
an ability to come to the floor of the House of Representatives and
speak to the country. Today, the only penalty that exists if a
Member which does something which is just outrageous, is that
someone will come along and suggest we remove the word from the
Congressional Record. For most Members, as politicians, our
reaction to that is ``So what?'' It has already had its impact. In
this case, the words that were offensive, in fact, got reported in
every newspaper, or in many newspapers across the country. The
purpose was achieved. Yet, they do not appear at any point in the
Congressional Record.
All this resolution is attempting to do is have the Committee
on House Administration focus on the fact that we have two
different Congressional Records in existence, and try to come to
some resolution as to how we match those and maintain the integrity
of the proceedings of this body.
I would ask the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
Mr. [Frank] SENSENBRENNER [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in support of this resolution. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has
been very articulate in pointing out that in the case of the
remarks of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Savage] on the floor of
the House of Representatives on February 1, which were widely
reported in the press around the country, did not appear in the
official transcript of proceedings published in the Congressional
Record the next day.
When a controversial statement is uttered on the floor of the
House, that becomes a part of the House, whether the person who
made that mistake wants it a part of that Record or not. The time
has come, given the fact that we have a contemporaneous video
record kept of the proceedings of this House, that we address the
problem of the accuracy of the Congressional Record in a meaningful
way.
This resolution sets the wheels in motion by having the
Committee on House Administration do just that.
Second, I would like to express my concern, and place it on the
record that whomever happens to be occupying the chair at the time
of the offensive words are stated on the floor of the House of
Representatives has a duty under the rules of the House to call the
Member to order who has uttered those offensive words, and to have
a ruling on whether the words are, indeed, in violation of the
rules of the House in parliamentary procedure in the precedents of
the House.
It should not happen that in the dead of night offensive words
get x-ed out of the Record or, as it happens, that another Member
should have to jump up and demand that the speaker's words be taken
down for a formal ruling of the Chair. The rules place that duty in
the hands of the Member who happens to be occupying the Chair.
I have read the allegedly unparliamentary words uttered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Savage], and I agree with the
Parliamentarian and with the gentleman from Pennsylvania that at
least insofar as they related to the gentlewoman from Colorado
[Mrs. Schroeder] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank],
they were unparliamentary and should have been stricken from the
Record.
But there are procedures contained in the Rules of the House of
Representatives that allow that to be done and set a precedent as
to what type of debate is in order and what type of debate is not
in order. It is one of the duties of the Chair to enforce those
rules.
So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
giving me this time, and I hope this sets the House on the road to
having a more accurate Record, as well as reminding whoever happens
to be occupying the chair that one of the duties is to make sure
that unparliamentary language is not put in the Record.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks,
because it does seem to me that that is one of the crucial issues
here, that the Chair has tremendous power, and I for one never
minimize the tremendous power the Chair wields over this body.
The Chair also has responsibilities, and one of those
responsibilities is to maintain the decorum of the House. In this
particular instance it would have been well for the Chair to have
instructed the gentleman from Illinois that he was out of order at
the point that the out-of-order remarks took place.
Mr. [Richard] DURBIN [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am very happy to yield to the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Does the gentleman think there is any hypocrisy involved in any
Member who has ever asked to revise and extend his remarks to vote
in favor of the gentleman's motion?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that as
far as I am personally concerned, I do not revise and extend my
remarks. I do not ask for permission to revise and extend.
Mr. DURBIN. God bless you.
Mr. WALKER. I do not revise and extend my remarks because I
believe my remarks should remain in the Record the way they were
spoken on the floor. I would wish that other Members would follow
the same procedure. I realize that under the rules of the House
right now that is not something that is typically done, and many
Members revise and extend their remarks.
Mr. DURBIN. The gentleman sees no inconsistency in Members
rising for 1 minute and asked permission to revise and extend their
remarks and yet supporting the gentleman in his motion?
Mr. WALKER. I would say to the gentleman that this gentleman
personally does not do that. If the gentleman from Illinois will
listen to this gentleman when I get up for 1 minute speeches, I
always ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, and
I do not ask to revise and extend.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, if there are no other Members who wish
to speak, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McDermott). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
373, nays 30, answered ``present'' 16, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 13] . . .
Sec. 19.22 A resolution alleging factual inaccuracies (but not
transcription errors) in a state of the Union message of the
President and directing the placement of asterisks in the
Congressional Record to denote such inaccuracies was held not to
give rise to a question of the privileges of the House under rule
IX.(76)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
76 House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 20, 2003,(77) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. 149 Cong. Rec. 25255-56, 108th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [James] McDERMOTT [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
rule IX, I rise to a question of privileges of the House, offer a
resolution, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(78) The Clerk will report
the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. John Duncan (TN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
RESOLUTION
Correcting the Record of Tuesday, January, 28, 2003.
Resolved, That an asterisk be placed in the permanent Record of Tuesday,
January 28, 2003, noting that the following statements contained in the
State of the Union Address by the President of the United States are
inaccurate:
(1) ``The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
(2) ``Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.''
(3) ``From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of
Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from
the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspections sites, and monitoring the
inspectors themselves.''
(4) ``Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and
statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and
protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will hear argument on the
question of whether the resolution constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 16, I gave
notice of my intention to raise a question of privileges of the
House.
Mr. Speaker, the first definition of rule IX(1) is ``affecting
the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the
integrity of its proceedings.'' Rule IX is designed to give Members
of the House the means to protect the dignity and integrity of this
body, and that is what my resolution seeks to do.
I believe that our rights, our dignity, and our integrity are
affected and are harmed when inaccurate statements are made in our
Chamber and recorded in our official proceedings without note being
taken that they are inaccurate. I believe that the integrity of the
Congressional Record is harmed and the dignity of the body issuing
the Record is harmed.
I am aware that it is conceivable that Members of this body
may, at least in theory, at times make statements on the floor that
might be shown to be inaccurate. When this occurs, however, other
Members have the opportunity and the responsibility to engage in
debate to identify the offending statements. Readers of the
Congressional Record, citizens, future historians, have the
opportunity to learn from our debate what is and is not accurate.
When the four statements I have identified were made in this
Chamber on January 28, there was no such opportunity to engage the
person making these statements in debate in order to identify the
statements as inaccurate as there is normally in the House. Unless
we act today, when future historians go back to examine our
proceedings, they will find these four statements presented in the
Record unchallenged.
Normally, dubious statements in the Record are not
unchallenged. Normally, we collectively take responsibility for the
accuracy of the statements made in the Record through our debate
and discussion. The statements of January 28 were made outside the
normal process Congress uses to identify inaccurate statements.
Therefore, the only opportunity Congress has to protect the
integrity of its proceedings is to identify in the Record the
statements that are inaccurate.
I believe that the integrity of our proceedings, as protected
under rule IX, requires the House to consider my resolution. To
fail to consider this resolution would leave the implication that
these statements were of no consequence, or that this body did not
care to identify them as inaccurate. I do not think we can afford
to leave that impression in a journal that will be examined in the
future as a basis for writing the history of our entrance into the
war.
Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I ask that we consider this
resolution at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The resolution alleges certain inaccuracies in the address of
the President of the United States before a joint session of the
two Houses earlier in this Congress and resolves that those precise
statements be d by asterisks in the permanent Congressional Record.
The Chair has examined precedents permitting questions of the
privileges of the House to address the accuracy and propriety of
the Congressional Record. In each of these occasions where
questions of privilege have been permitted, it was alleged that a
Member had been proceeding out of order, that remarks were
improperly transcribed, or that unauthorized matter was inserted in
the Record.
On several occasions, the Chair ruled that where remarks that
were made in order were printed in the Record, collateral
challenges under the guise of questions of privilege were not in
order. (See Hinds V, 6974; Cannon's VIII, 3469, 3498). While the
Chair is not aware of any precedent with regard to the accuracy of
an address by the President of the United States in a joint
session, the Chair rules that allegations of factual inaccuracy in
the contents of a speech, as opposed to the fidelity of its
transcription, whether by the President or by a Member, are matters
for subsequent proper debate and do not give rise to a question of
the privileges of the House. To rule otherwise would be to permit
collateral challenges under the guise of a question of privilege to
the factual correctness of every word uttered, whether or not
alleging the unauthorized inclusion of those remarks on the Record.
The Chair, therefore, rules that the resolution does not
constitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Is the effect of your ruling that whatever the
President says must be considered correct since we have no chance
to debate him, we have no chance to question him?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has ruled that debate over
the next weeks or months in the House can go to the question of the
factual accuracy of the previous statements of the President; but
it would not be proper to do so in this type of resolution or in
this form.
Mr. McDERMOTT. So the body does not have a way to deal with the
statements made in the State of the Union message? We must accept
it, and there it is?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House has the right and the
responsibility to respond to the President's address during
subsequent debate.
Sec. 19.23 A resolution alleging impropriety by a presiding officer and
improper alteration of the Congressional Record, and directing that
a previously-formed select committee investigate the matter and
that the Record be corrected, presents a question of the privileges
of the House under rule IX.(79)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 4, 2007,(80) the following resolution was
raised as a question of the privileges of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
80. 153 Cong. Rec. 23194-95, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [John] BOEHNER [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged
resolution at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(81) The Clerk will report
the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
81. John Hastings (FL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 623
Whereas clause one of House rule XXIII (Code of Official Conduct) states,
``A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer or employee of the
House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect
creditably on the House,'';
Whereas the House Ethics Manual states that, ``The public has a right to
expect Members, officers and employees to exercise impartial judgment in
performing their duties'' and ``this Committee has cautioned all Members
`to avoid situations in which even an inference might be drawn suggesting
improper action' '';
Whereas clause eight of House rule XVII states, ``The Congressional
Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of remarks made during the
proceedings of the House, subject only to the technical, grammatical, and
typographical corrections authorized by the Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner making the remarks'';
Whereas during proceedings of the House on August 3, 2007, the gentleman
from Ohio, Mr. Boehner, the Republican Leader, offered a privileged
resolution, H. Res. 612;
Whereas after the clerk completed reading the resolution, the gentlewoman
from California, Ms. Tauscher, who was in the chair, recognized the
gentleman from Maryland, stating, ``For what purpose does the gentleman
from Maryland rise?'';
Whereas the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, the Majority Leader, then
proceeded to debate Representative Boehner's motion, stating, ``Madam
Speaker, enough is enough'' ;
Whereas in response to the chair's query, ``Does the gentleman have an
amendment?'' Majority Leader Hoyer stated, ``I move to table the
resolution'';
Whereas the chair then recognized the Republican Leader who raised a
point of order that the chair failed to acknowledge, which the chair
declined to entertain;
Whereas as the chair was putting the question to the House, Republican
Leader Boehner stated, ``isn't it correct that the gentleman from Maryland
engaged in debate, which allows the House to then proceed with up to one
hour of debate on this resolution?'';
Whereas the chair stated, ``The chair did not yet rule that the question
constitutes a question of privilege'';
Whereas a video recording produced by the Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer confirms that the chair, in fact, never ruled on
whether the resolution offered by the Republican Leader constituted a
question of privilege;
Whereas the Speaker, as the presiding officer, has a duty to be a fair
and impartial arbiter of the proceedings of the House, held to the highest
ethical standards in deciding the various questions as they arise with
impartiality and courtesy toward all Members, regardless of party
affiliation;
Whereas the Republican Leader, and any other Member of the House raising
a point of order, is entitled to state a point of order and to receive a
ruling on it from the chair;
Whereas statements made on the floor of the House during the
aforementioned proceedings of August 3, 2007 do not appear in the
Congressional Record for that day, and the same Congressional Record
reports as having been spoken statements that were not made;
Whereas the House adopted H. Res. 611, establishing a Select Committee to
investigate voting irregularities occurring in the House on August 2, 2007;
and
Whereas H. Res. 612 was offered in response to the events stemming from
the incident of August 2, 2007: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of
August 2, 2007 is directed to investigate and include in the initial report
its findings and resulting recommendations concerning the actions of the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Tauscher) while presiding over the House
on August 3, 2007 at the time the Republican Leader offered H. Res. 612 and
the actions which led to the differences between the statements in the
Congressional Record and those actually spoken on that day; and,
(2) the Congressional Record for the legislative day of August 3, 2007 be
corrected to reflect verbatim the words actually spoken during
consideration of H. Res. 612.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution presents a question of
privilege.
motion to table offered by mr. clyburn
Mr. [James] CLYBURN [of South Carolina]. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the resolution be laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to
table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
216, nays 182, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 833] . . .
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 20. Revising and Extending Remarks
Members may ask unanimous consent to revise and extend their
remarks in order to include matter in the Congressional Record that was
not actually spoken on the floor.(1) This long-standing
practice represents an exception to the general principle that the
Record be a substantially verbatim transcript of the proceedings of the
House. A unanimous-consent request to revise and extend may be granted
to all Members, or it may be specific to an individual Member. Because
this authority is conditioned on the consent of all Members, any Member
may object to a request to revise and extend.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For prior treatment of revising and extending remarks for the
Record, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 19, 20.
2. See, e.g., 139 Cong. Rec. 6669, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 29,
1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When such a unanimous-consent request is objected to, a motion to
the same effect is not in order.(3) A unanimous-consent
request to allow all Members to revise and extend may be initiated by
the Chair sua sponte.(4) If general leave for all Members to
revise and extend their remarks is objected to, individual requests for
specific Members to revise and extend may still be
granted,(5) but if general leave is granted, then such
individual requests are unnecessary.(6) General leave to
revise and extend may be later vacated by unanimous
consent.(7) While individual requests to revise and extend
are typically granted to allow a Member to include a single extension
in the Congressional Record, multiple extensions on the same
legislative day are permissible and there is no limit to the number of
extensions that may be granted.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 20.3, infra.
4. See Sec. 20.7, infra.
5. See Sec. 20.1, infra.
6. See 132 Cong. Rec. 19371, 19374, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. (Aug. 6,
1986).
7. See, e.g., 129 Cong. Rec. 32719, 32746, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov.
15, 1983).
8. See Sec. 20.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for general leave for all Members to revise and extend
their remarks on a particular measure usually allow Members five days
to submit their remarks for inclusion in the Congressional
Record.(9) General leave may be granted for specific
measures (including measures not yet brought up for
consideration),(10) specific subjects,(11) or on
any topic. General leave to revise and extend remarks on the subject of
a particular special-order speech may be granted even if the special-
order speech is not actually delivered due to an adjournment of the
House.(12) Members have debated to what extent remarks not
delivered on the floor, but inserted into the Record under authority to
revise and extend remarks, should constitute part of the legislative
history of the measure under consideration.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. For an example of a request that specified one day only, see
Sec. 20.10, infra.
10. See Sec. 20.8, infra. For an example of general leave being granted
for multiple measures via a single unanimous-consent request,
see 164 Cong. Rec. H8249 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 2d Sess.
(Sept. 13, 2018).
11. See Sec. 20.9, infra.
12. See Sec. 20.4, infra.
13. See Sec. 20.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the 106th Congress, unanimous-consent requests permitting
all Members to revise and extend their remarks were made on a daily
basis, usually at the end of the legislative day. In the 106th
Congress, however, a single such request was made on opening day to
cover the entire first session of the Congress, obviating the need for
daily requests.(14) In the 112th Congress, this blanket
authority to revise and extend was expanded to include the entire
Congress.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 20.11, infra. For an example of an earlier type of request
covering an extended period of adjournment (August recess), see
Sec. 20.2, infra.
15. See Sec. 20.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the 112th Congress, the House generally granted unanimous
consent for all Members to revise their remarks on any subject
occurring prior to sine die adjournment (until publication of the final
edition of the Congressional Record for that session or
Congress).(16) However, such requests have been considered
unnecessary as duplicative of the blanket authority granted on opening
day and are no longer made. At the end of a session or Congress,
committee and subcommittee chairs of House committees will be granted
unanimous consent to insert summaries of the work of such committees or
subcommittees in the Record.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 20.13, infra.
17. See Sec. 20.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the long-standing custom of the House (dating from at least
1980) to permit only minor, technical revisions to remarks made on the
subject of disciplinary measures before the House, in order to compose
the most accurate record of how the disciplinary matter was
resolved.(18) Similarly, Members may not revise and extend
remarks regarding a point of order, in order to maintain an accurate
record of what arguments were heard by the Chair before issuing a
ruling on the point of order.(19) However, Members may
include material for the Congressional Record after disposition of the
point of order.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 20.15, infra. See also 133 Cong. Rec. 36265-71, 36274-76,
100th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 18, 1987) and 130 Cong. Rec. 21650-
52, 21663, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. (July 31, 1984). For an
exception to this general practice, see 148 Cong. Rec. 14299-
305, 14307-14, 14316-19, 107th Cong. 2d Sess. (July 24, 2002)
(permission granted to revise and extend remarks on expulsion
proceedings). For the House's authority to discipline Members,
see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 12 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch.
12.
19. See 122 Cong. Rec. 31873-74, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 22, 1976);
House Rules and Manual Sec. 628 (2019); and Sec. 20.16, infra.
For points of order generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31
Sec. Sec. 1-13 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 31.
20. See Sec. Sec. 20.17, 20.18, infra. See also 148 Cong. Rec. 9492-98,
107th Cong. 2d Sess. (June 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When making an individual unanimous-consent request to revise and
extend remarks, a Member may not embellish the request with additional
oratory in the nature of debate. While normally the time taken to make
such a request is not deducted from the time of the Member yielding for
the request, if the requesting Member does engage in additional debate,
the Chair will deduct time.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See Sec. Sec. 20.27, 20.29-20.31, infra. For similar proceedings
regarding unanimous-consent requests to insert extraneous
materials into the Congressional Record, see Sec. 21.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colloquies
Colloquies between Members, in which two or more Members yield to
one another in serial fashion to clarify mutual understanding of the
matter at issue, occur frequently in House debates and are carried in
the Congressional Record.(22) However, it is improper for
Members to insert colloquies not actually spoken on the floor, and
requests to insert colloquies will not be entertained in either the
House or the Committee of the Whole.(23) Revising colloquies
may be permitted, but Members are advised to address only their portion
of the colloquy, and not to change the overall substance of the
discussion.(24) Allegations that a revision to a colloquy
materially altered the thrust of the discussion, and directing that the
Record be corrected to accurately reflect remarks of Members, gives
rise to a question of the privileges of the House.(25) Apart
from blanket requests to allow all Members of the House to revise and
extend their remarks, it is a general rule that one Member may not ask
unanimous consent to permit another Member to revise or extend
remarks.(26) Members have been permitted to insert into the
Record a colloquy engaged in by Senators.(27) In one
instance, the Majority Leader was granted unanimous consent to revise
and extend remarks on the subject of the weekly schedule colloquy
between party leaders.(28)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. See Sec. 20.22, infra.
23. See Sec. 20.20, infra. For an example of the Chair initially
entertaining a unanimous-consent request to insert a colloquy
(before correcting himself), see Sec. 20.21, infra.
24. See Sec. Sec. 20.23, 20.24, infra.
25. See Sec. 20.25, infra. For questions of privilege generally, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 11 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 11.
26. See Sec. Sec. 20.32, 20.33, and 21.14, infra.
27. See 152 Cong. Rec. 2791, 109th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 7, 2006). Under
an earlier form of clause 1 of rule XVII, many references in
debate to the Senate were prohibited, but ``quotations from
Senate proceedings'' were permissible. In the 109th Congress,
this rule was simplified to permit references in the Senate
that do not engage in personalities. House Rules and Manual
Sec. 945 (2019).
28. See Sec. 20.26, infra. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3
Sec. 6.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In General
Sec. 20.1 After a Member had objected to a unanimous-consent request
that all Members be permitted to extend their remarks in the
Congressional Record on a resolution adopted without debate
(accepting the report of the Committee on the Judiciary on the
proposed impeachment of President Nixon), that Member and several
others obtained separate permission to extend their own remarks on
the resolution.
On August 20, 1974,(29) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. 120 Cong. Rec. 29361-62, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 176, 806 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and agree to the House resolution (H. Res. 1333)
taking notice of the actions of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on the Judiciary on the investigation of impeachment
grounds and the resignation of Richard M. Nixon, accepting the
report of the committee, and commending the chairman and members of
the committee.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 1333
Resolved, That the House of Representatives
(1) takes notice that
(a) the House of Representatives, by House Resolution 803, approved
February 6, 1974, authorized and directed the Committee on the Judiciary to
investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds existed for the
House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach
Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America; and
(b) the Committee on the Judiciary, after conducting a full and complete
investigation pursuant to House Resolution 803, voted on July 27, 29, and
30, 1974 to recommend Articles of impeachment against Richard M. Nixon,
President of the United States of America; and
(c) Richard M. Nixon on August 9, 1974 resigned the Office of President
of the United States of America;
(2) accepts the report submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary
pursuant to House Resolution 803 (H. Rept. 93-1305) and authorizes and
directs that the said report, together with supplemental, additional,
separate, dissenting, minority, individual and concurring views, be printed
in full in the Congressional Record and as a House Document; and
(3) commends the chairman and other members of the Committee on the
Judiciary for their conscientious and capable efforts in carrying out the
Committee's responsibilities under House Resolution 803.
The SPEAKER.(30) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] RHODES [of Arizona]. Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, a second will be considered as
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill) that the House suspend
the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 1333.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
412, nays 3, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 505] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . .
. -------------------
REQUEST FOR GENERAL LEAVE ON HOUSE RESOLUTION 1333
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks on the resolution just agreed to.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Massachusetts?
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, I would just like to observe that not one word was
spoken in debate on the resolution just passed, no explanation was
given of its terms, and not one word actually spoken will appear in
the Record, and after this resolution will have been agreed to not
one word will have been spoken in explanation of what is probably
the last vote we will have on the issue of the impeachment of the
former President. We were therefore supposed to vote blindly on a
500-page report that nobody has seen but the members of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
This is a highly unusual procedure, and this Member objects to
this procedure.
Mr. O'NEILL. If the gentleman will yield, I would suggest that
the gentleman take it up with the leadership on his side of the
aisle.
Mr. BAUMAN. I think my protest applies to the leadership on
both sides of the aisle.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Massachusetts?
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
Sec. 20.2 By unanimous consent, Members were permitted to extend their
remarks in the Congressional Record during a period of adjournment
to a day certain on subjects occurring prior to the adjournment.
On August 22, 1974,(31) the following unanimous-consent
request was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. 120 Cong. Rec. 30078-79, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION TO REVISE AND EXTEND REMARKS NOTWITHSTANDING
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [Thomas] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. I ask unanimous
consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until
September 11, 1974. all Members of the House shall have the
privilege to extend and revise their own remarks in the
Congressional Record on more than one subject, if they so desire,
and also to include therein such short quotations as may be
necessary to explain such extension of remarks, but this order
shall not apply to any subject matter which may have occurred or to
any speech delivered subsequent to the adjournment of the House.
Members are reminded that remarks must be signed, and will be
accepted only in room H132 of the Capitol from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The SPEAKER.(32) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 20.3 Unanimous consent is required to insert statements in the
Congressional Record which are not actually made on the floor, and
a motion to insert material in the Record is not in order.
On June 29, 1976,(33) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. 122 Cong. Rec. 21146, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST TO INSERT MATERIAL IN RECORD
Mr. [Frank] THOMPSON [of New Jersey]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that I may be permitted to insert some statements
at this point in the Record.
The SPEAKER.(34) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New Jersey?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from New Jersey tell us
whether these are the orders of the Committee on House
Administration that were adopted Monday?
Mr. THOMPSON. If the gentleman will yield, they are.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, may I move to insert some statements
at this point in the Record?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will inform the gentleman from New
Jersey that he cannot make a motion on that point. However, the
gentleman can ask unanimous consent for a special order to address
the House at the conclusion of legislative business.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
following the close of business today, I may have a special order
of 15 minutes.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New Jersey?
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
Sec. 20.4 In response to parliamentary inquiries, the Chair stated that
if the House adjourned in the absence of a quorum, special-order
speeches could not be delivered, but that permission had already
been granted for all Members to revise and extend their remarks on
the specific subject of retiring Members.
On October 14, 1978,(35) the following parliamentary
inquiries were entertained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. 124 Cong. Rec. 38712-13, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(36) The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. John Brademas (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George] DANIELSON [of California]. Mr. Speaker, my
parliamentary inquiry is this: In the event that there should not
appear a quorum, I know that the House would have the right and the
power to adjourn, but could the House also observe the special
orders that have heretofore been ordered?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is distressed but he will
have to advise the gentleman from California that the answer to
that question is no.
The Chair would further add that general leave has been granted
to all Members to revise and extend their remarks.
Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this:
On a special order which may not have been requested, in the event
a special order had already been requested, the usual one to honor
one of our colleagues who are retiring from the House, could those
proceedings still continue in the event we do not realize 218
Members?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise the gentleman
from California (Mr. Danielson) that all Members have permission to
insert their remarks in the Record on the subject of retiring
Members but it is not possible to engage in colloquy on special
orders.
Mr. DANIELSON. I thank the
Chair. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will further advise the
Members of the House that special leave has already been granted
with respect to retiring Members of the House.
Sec. 20.5 Pending a request for general leave to permit all Members to
revise and extend their remarks on a particular measure, Members
discussed to what extent words not spoken on the floor of the House
should form part of the legislative history of a measure, and the
Speaker responded to parliamentary inquiries regarding, inter alia,
the format of the Congressional Record.
On March 2, 1988,(37) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. 134 Cong. Rec. 2962-64, 100th Cong. 2d Sess. For a similar debate
on documenting the legislative history of a measure in the
Congressional Record, see 139 Cong. Rec. 1977-80, 103d Cong.
1st Sess. (Feb. 3, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST FOR GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. [Augustus (Gus)] HAWKINS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days
in which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 557, the Senate
bill just passed.
The SPEAKER.(38) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I do so simply to inquire of the gentleman
whether or not we might be able to just have a statement at this
point to indicate that no one is to use Extensions of Remarks on
this bill in order to make legislative history.
Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I
hesitate because I am very doubtful if I can limit the Members'
right to make such a request.
The SPEAKER. May the Chair comment: In the opinion of the
Chair, it would be impossible for anyone to establish by unanimous
consent whether or not a court at some future undisclosed date
might construe something placed in the Record as legislative
history or legislative intent. But I think the Chair would indicate
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that courts sometimes are
inclined to make a distinction in their evaluations between those
things that were said actually in debate and other things that may
have been inserted following the passage of the bill and it would
be clear to a court in the future the distinction between the two.
Those things inserted pursuant to the gentleman's request within
the next five legislative days obviously would appear as additions
to the Congressional Record which would make it clear to any future
court that they had been inserted rather than spoken during the
debate.
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, I appreciate
the Chair's explanation. But do we have some assurance that the
extensions that we are talking about here all will appear in the
Extensions of Remarks and none of those will find their way into
the body of the Record as a part of the debate of this bill?
The SPEAKER. If they should, they would be in a different type
style, the Chair is advised.
Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, even if they
are extensions where the Member spoke, say, briefly on the floor,
did a 1-minute speech on the floor, could that not end up being a
speech that is added on to and, therefore, could, in fact, govern
legislative history?
The SPEAKER. Well, yes, the gentleman is theoretically correct
in that Members are given the privilege of revising and extending
remarks they have made on the floor. It is conceivable that a
change could be made in the manner in which the remark might have
been transcribed earlier. . . .
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct insofar as
those cases which come up in 6 months are concerned, but those
video tapes are destroyed after 6 months, so, therefore, there is
not a permanent record, and the actual permanent record is that
which appears in the Record. All this gentleman is seeking is some
assurance that that which appears in the Record will be that which
is the true legislative history on the floor. I will simply take a
statement from the chairman of the committee that that is the
intention that the committee would have with regard to establishing
legislative history.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will instruct that the Official
Reporters of Debates shall adhere strictly to the official rules of
the Joint Committee on Printing in which the precise formula for
distinguishing between that which was part of the debate on the
floor and that which is inserted subsequently, not part of the
debate on the floor, shall be made clear.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object,
do I understand the Chair is saying that if some Member adds
material to the body of the Record, even though he spoke on the
floor, that material will be italicized so it can be distinguished,
and so it, therefore, would not necessarily constitute legislative
history? Is that what I understand the Chair is telling me?
The SPEAKER. The rules of the Joint Committee on Printing, if
the Chair fully understands them, do not require a revision, if
within the parameters of the speech, to be so distinguished; they
do require, if the Chair is correctly informed, that anything
extraneously added and not a part of a speech officially made, nor
a revision, presumably a correction made by a Member who had
addressed the House, shall be so distinguished.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object,
this gentleman has no problem with that. This gentleman is
concerned about a possible extension of remarks. If I understand
what the Chair is saying, with regard to an extension of remarks
under that situation; for instance, if a Member decides to add five
pages of material, that would not fall under the rule as the Chair
has stated it, and, therefore, it would be italicized. This
gentleman is satisfied with that if that is the case.
If we are talking about grammatical changes, I do not have a
problem with that. If we are talking about making incomplete
sentences into complete sentences, I do not have a problem with
that. But I do have a problem about adding pages of material that
could end up being legislative history.
So do I understand that if some Member attempts to add
substantial new material over what he or she spoke on the floor,
that at that point that would be distinguished in a way that it
would not appear that it was actually spoken on the floor?
The SPEAKER. The Chair would want to be somewhat precise in
responding to the gentleman's inquiry. The Official Reporters of
Debates have been asked to adhere strictly to the rules of the
Joint Committee on Printing. I think the appropriate rule is rule
No. 7. The Congressional Record shall contain a substantially
verbatim account of remarks actually made during proceedings of the
House subject to technical, grammatical, and typographical
corrections authorized by the Member making the remarks involved.
The substantially verbatim account shall be clearly distinguishable
by a different typeface from material inserted under permission to
extend remarks. . . .
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I am seeking just basically a yes or
no answer here. Is it the gentleman's intention that none of the
material inserted into the Record after the debate is over, in
other words, pursuant to the gentleman's particular request, should
be considered as legislative history, that we will not have
legislative history there?
Mr. HAWKINS. No. If the gentleman will yield, not as it
conforms to what was previously said in the House and it was based
on something factual with respect to that Member. I cannot give the
gentleman any such assurance. That is the answer.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
Sec. 20.6 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated that
there is no limit under the Joint Committee on Printing rules on
the number of items a Member may include in the Extension of
Remarks portion of the Congressional Record.
On May 25, 1994,(39) the Chair responded to
parliamentary inquiries as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. 140 Cong. Rec. 11942, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. I have a parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Lewis] Payne of Virginia). The
gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I noticed when the names were read,
and I did not object to it at the time, that someone was putting 17
different items into extension of remarks. Is that not above the
limit that we normally would have in the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not aware of any limit
under the rules.
Mr. WALKER. There is no limit? I always heard informally that
the limit was 10.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. But the Chair will state that is
unusual.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair. . . .
Sec. 20.7 During a pro forma session of the House, the Chair initiated
a unanimous-consent request to allow all Members to revise and
extend their remarks in the Congressional Record.
On October 20, 1995,(40) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. 141 Cong. Rec. 28740, 28774, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore [Mr. Upton]. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(41) The Pledge of
Allegiance will be led by the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Frederick Upton (MI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The house will now stand in recess
subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 2 minutes a.m.), the House stood
in recess subject to the call of the
Chair. -------------------
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Petri) at 6 o'clock and 35 minutes
p.m. -------------------
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(42) Without objection, on
this day all Members are permitted to extend their remarks and
include extraneous material in that section of the Record entitled
``Extension of Remarks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Thomas Petri (WI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no
objection. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT TO TUESDAY OCTOBER 24, 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, when the House
adjourns today, it will adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
October 24, 1995, for morning hour debates.
There was no objection. . .
. -------------------
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, pursuant to the
previous order of the House, the House stands adjourned until 12:30
p.m. on Tuesday, October 24, for morning hour debates.
There was no objection.
Accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.), under its
previous order, the House adjourned until Tuesday, October 24,
1995, at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debates.
Sec. 20.8 In response to a parliamentary inquiry the Chair advised that
a Member may obtain unanimous consent to revise and extend his
remarks in the Congressional Record on a bill not yet under
consideration.
On April 18, 2002,(43) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. 148 Cong. Rec. 4958, 107th Cong. 2d Sess. For a similar request
regarding a measure to be considered the following day, see 144
Cong. Rec. 22214, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 25, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION FOR MEMBER TO REVISE AND EXTEND REMARKS ON H.R. 586,
FAIRNESS FOR FOSTER CARE FAMILIES ACT OF 2001
Mr. [James] McDERMOTT [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks on the bill which
is before us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(44) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. John Sweeney (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no
objection. -------------------
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. [William] THOMAS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. THOMAS. How can the gentleman from Washington revise and
extend his remarks on the bill before us when the bill has not been
laid before us?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. By unanimous consent, a Member is
allowed to revise and extend his remarks on a bill that is yet to
be considered.
Mr. THOMAS. As long as it is yet to be considered. The
gentleman said ``the bill before us.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's unanimous consent
request is perfectly in order.
Sec. 20.9 The House by unanimous consent permitted all Members to
insert remarks and extraneous material in the Congressional Record
on the topic of a later special-order speech.
On May 20, 2004,(45) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. 150 Cong. Rec. 10639, 108th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOMENT OF SILENCE IN HONOR OF MEMORIAL DAY AND OUR FALLEN
HEROES
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(46) The Chair would ask the
House to observe a moment of silence in honor of Memorial Day and
our fallen heroes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. Michael Simpson (ID). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. [James] WALSH [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on a
special order speech on the topic of fallen heroes and that all
such remarks be printed in the Congressional Record of May 20,
2004.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
Mr. [Charles] RANGEL [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object and I will not object, I just want to take this
opportunity to thank my friend and colleague from New York for
affording this House the opportunity to express ourselves on this
Memorial Day in honor of these fallen heroes. I appreciate working
with him and I thank him very much for this opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Sec. 20.10 A unanimous-consent request to allow Members to revise and
extend their remarks for the Congressional Record typically
specifies a time limit for submitting such statements (which
customarily extends to five legislative days, but which may be as
short as one legislative day).
On April 24, 2012,(47) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. 158 Cong. Rec. 5425, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL LEAVE
Ms. [Sheila] JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members have 1 legislative day to revise and
extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on the subject
of my 1-minute regarding Pastor Joel Osteen and Co-Pastor Victoria
Osteen of the Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(48) Is there objection to
the request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. John Culberson (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Authority to Revise and Extend Remarks For Entire Session
Sec. 20.11 The House by unanimous consent granted permission for all
Members to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material
within the established limits in that section of the Congressional
Record entitled ``Extension of Remarks'' for the entire first
session of the 106th Congress.(49)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. Parliamentarian's Note: Beginning in the 112th Congress, such
requests have applied to the entire Congress and not merely to
one session thereof. See 157 Cong. Rec. 103, 112th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 5, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 1999,(50) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. 145 Cong. Rec. 247, 106th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRANTING MEMBERS OF HOUSE PRIVILEGE TO EXTEND REMARKS AND
INCLUDE EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL IN CONGRESSIONAL RECORD FOR FIRST
SESSION OF 106TH CONGRESS
Mr. [Richard] ARMEY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that for the first session of the 106th Congress, all
Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include
extraneous material within the permitted limit in that section of
the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(51) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. Edward Pease (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 20.12 The House by unanimous consent granted permission for all
Members to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material
within the established limits in that section of the Congressional
Record entitled ``Extension of Remarks'' for the entire 115th
Congress.
On January 3, 2017,(52) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. 163 Cong. Rec. H29 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar
authority granted in previous Congresses, see: 161 Cong. Rec.
H32 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6, 2015); 159
Cong. Rec. 44, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2013); and 157
Cong. Rec. 103, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRANTING MEMBERS PERMISSION TO EXTEND REMARKS AND INCLUDE
EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD DURING THE
115TH CONGRESS
Mr. [Kevin] McCARTHY [of California]. Madam Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that during the 115th Congress, all Members be
permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous
material within the permitted limit in that section of the Record
entitled ``Extensions of Remarks.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(53) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. Chris Collins (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Authority to Revise and Extend Remarks After Adjournment
Sec. 20.13 The House by unanimous consent authorized all Members, until
the publication of the last edition of the Congressional Record, to
revise and extend their remarks and include brief extraneous
material on any matter occurring before adjournment sine die.
On December 22, 2010,(54) the following unanimous-
consent request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. 156 Cong. Rec. 23609-10, 111th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRANTING MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE PRIVILEGE TO REVISE AND EXTEND
REMARKS IN CONGRESSIONAL RECORD UNTIL LAST EDITION IS PUBLISHED
Mr. [James] McDERMOTT [of Washington]. Madam Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that Members may have until publication of the
last edition of the Congressional Record authorized for the Second
Session of the 111th Congress by the Joint Committee on Printing to
revise and extend their remarks and to include brief, related
extraneous material on any matter occurring before the adjournment
of the Second Session sine die.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(55) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. Donna Edwards (MD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Authority for Committees to Summarize Their Work in the Congressional
Record
Sec. 20.14 The House by unanimous consent permitted the chair and
ranking minority member of each standing committee and subcommittee
to extend their remarks in the Congressional Record and to include
a summary of the work of their committee or subcommittee.
On December 22, 2010,(56) the following unanimous-
consent request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. 156 Cong. Rec. 23609, 111th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZING CHAIR AND RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF EACH STANDING
COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE TO EXTEND REMARKS IN RECORD
Mr. [James] McDERMOTT [of Washington]. Madam Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the chair and ranking minority member of
each standing committee and each subcommittee be permitted to
extend their remarks in the Congressional Record, up to and
including the Record's last publication, and to include a summary
of the work of that committee or subcommittee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(57) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. Donna Edwards (MD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Revising and Extending Remarks on Disciplinary Matters
Sec. 20.15 The Speaker reminded all Members, following adoption of a
resolution censuring a Member, that in order to retain a full and
accurate record of the proceedings, all insertions and extensions
not actually delivered in the debate would appear at the end of the
debate with a bullet symbol, and that any revisions of remarks
actually delivered should be confined to technical and grammatical
(as opposed to substantive) corrections, consistent with the
limited unanimous-consent permission previously obtained by the
manager of the resolution.
On June 10, 1980,(58) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. 126 Cong. Rec. 13820, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 65, 66, 375, and 915 (2019). For the original
unanimous-consent request to revise and extend, see 126 Cong.
Rec. 12656, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 29, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENSURE OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES H. WILSON OF CALIFORNIA
The SPEAKER.(59) Will the gentleman from California
(Mr. Charles H. Wilson) kindly appear in the well?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON of California presented himself at the
bar of the House.
The SPEAKER read House Resolution 660, as amended, as follows:
H. Res. 660
Resolved,
(1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured.
(2) That upon adoption of this resolution, Representative Charles H.
Wilson forthwith present himself in the well of the House of
Representatives for the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker;
and
(3) That the House of Representatives adopt the report of the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct dated May 8, 1980, in the matter of
Representative Charles H. Wilson.
The SPEAKER. The matter is
closed. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER REGARDING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ON
HOUSE RESOLUTION 660
The SPEAKER. The chair desires to make a statement regarding
the record of proceedings on House Resolution 660, in the matter of
Representative Charles H. Wilson.
Although unanimous consent has been obtained for several
Members to revise and extend their remarks on this matter, it is
essential that the Congressional Record contain as true and
accurate a record of the proceedings as possible. All insertions
and extensions not delivered in debate will appear at the end of
the proceedings with a bullet symbol. The Chair trusts that Members
will, in revising remarks they actually delivered in debate on this
subject, confine their revisions to those which are necessary to
correct technical and grammatical errors, and, consistent with the
permission obtained by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) on
page 12656 of May 29, 1980, refrain from making any changes in the
substance of debate.
Revising and Extending Remarks on Points of Order
Sec. 20.16 In debate on a question of order, remarks may not be revised
or extended, and extraneous material may not be inserted in the
Congressional Record.
On July 24, 1998,(60) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. 144 Cong. Rec. 17276-78, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. For a similar
instance, see 122 Cong. Rec. 31873-74, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
(Sept. 22, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
motion to recommit offered by mr. berry
Mr. [Robert] BERRY [of Arkansas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(61) Is the gentleman from
Arkansas opposed to the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. James Kolbe (AZ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BERRY. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Berry moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4250 to the Committee on Ways
and Means and to the Committee on Education and the Workforce with
instructions to report back the same to the House forthwith with the
following amendments to the portions of the same within their respective
jurisdiction:
Page 38, beginning on line 9, strike ``does not meet the plan's
requirements for medical appropriateness or necessity'' and insert ``is not
medically necessary and appropriate''.
Page 39, beginning on line 16, strike ``does not meet the plan's
requirements for medical appropriateness or necessity'' and insert ``is not
medically necessary and appropriate''.
Page 48, beginning on line 17, strike ``does not meet the plan's
requirements for medical appropriateness or necessity'' and insert ``is not
medically necessary and appropriate''.
Page 53, beginning on line 17, strike ``meets, under the facts and
circumstances at the time of the determination, the plan's requirement for
medical appropriateness or necessity'' and insert ``is, under the facts and
circumstances at the time of the determination, medically necessary and
appropriate''.
Page 60, line 17, strike all that follows the first period.
Page 60, after line 17, insert the following new subparagraph:
``(V) Medical necessity and appropriateness.--The term `medically
necessary and appropriate' means, with respect to an item or service, an
item or service determined by the treating physician (who furnishes items
and services under a contract or other arrangement with the group health
plan or with a health insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage
in connection with such a plan), after consultation with a participant or
beneficiary, to be required, according to generally accepted principles of
good medical practice, for the diagnosis or direct care and treatment of an
illness or injury of the participant or beneficiary.''.
Page 227, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 233, line 3,
and insert the following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):
Subtitle C--Deduction for Health Insurance Costs of Self-Employed
Individuals
SEC. 3201. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS OF SELF-EMPLOYED
INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--The table contained in subparagraph (B) of section
162(l)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as
follows:
In the case of taxable years The applicable percentage
beginning in calendar year: is:
1999, 2000, and 2001............ 60 percent
2002............................ 70 percent
2003 or thereafter.............. 100 percent.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to
taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
Mr. BERRY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. [Dennis] HASTERT [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued reading the motion to recommit. . . .
point of order
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Does the gentleman from
Illinois insist on a point of order?
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I insist on a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas) on the point of order.
Mr. [William] THOMAS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, contained
among the numerous provisions in the motion to recommit is striking
the medical savings accounts. Notwithstanding the gentleman's
representation that this will save billions of dollars a year, the
Congressional Budget Office says that simply is not so. In fact, it
will save less than $1 billion a year. That is the point on which
the point of order turns, because the gentleman's addition of the
acceleration of the self-employed deduction in fact scores more
than $1 billion and therefore is subject to a 303 Congressional
Budget Act point of order. It in fact increases the budget before
the final budget is adopted in a given fiscal year. It applies
clearly in this particular instance. A point of order, therefore,
lies against the gentleman and I would urge the Chair to sustain
the 303(a) Congressional Budget Act point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has made
a point of order.
Does the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) wish to be heard
on the point of order?
Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) wish to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. [Benjamin] CARDIN [of Maryland]. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is
recognized on the point of order.
Mr. CARDIN. If I understand the gentleman from California's
point is that the striking of the medical savings account provision
would not save as much money as accelerating the self-employed
insurance deduction by 4 years.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a document
that has been received from the Joint Committee on Taxation that
shows that striking the medical savings account provision will save
$4.1 billion, the self-employed health insurance deduction would
cost $3.4 billion, for a net revenue savings to the treasury of
$687 million.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland may insert
the documents after the point of order but not during debate on the
point of order.
Is there any other Member who wishes to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that point, if I am correct, the
point of order is being raised as it relates to having----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct. The Chair must rely
on what is being said to the Chair and so insertion into the Record
during the debate on the point of order is not in order at this
time.
Sec. 20.17 Where a special order of the House permitted only the
managers of a bill to offer pro forma amendments for debate, the
Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent allowed another Member
to revise and extend his remarks with respect to a point of order
(in distinctive typeface) after the ruling on a point of
order.(62)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. Parliamentarian's Note: If the special order had permitted any
Member to offer pro forma amendments, Rep. Gilman could have
offered such an amendment on the prior amendment that was ruled
out of order. However, since this authority was confined to the
managers of the bill only, Rep. Gilman was permitted, in the
alternative, to extend his remarks in the Record following
disposition of the point of order on the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 13, 2000,(63) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. 146 Cong. Rec. 14095, 106th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
point of order
Mr. [Benjamin] GILMAN [of New York]. Mr. Chairman, I have a
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN.(64) The gentleman may state his point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. William (Mac) Thornberry (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language appearing in the bill beginning with ``earmarks'' on page
80, line 22, through the end of page 80, line 24 on the ground that
it violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.
The rule I have referenced prohibits provisions changing
existing law on general appropriations bills.
This language clearly is legislative and would override
existing and future legislation of our Committee on International
Relations and other committees that have legislative authority over
funds appropriated in this Act.
Mr. [Herbert (Sonny)] CALLAHAN [of Alabama]. Mr. Chairman, in
the essence of time, I am willing to concede the point of order.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
comments.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the provision removes earmarks and
limitations contained in existing law. Similarly, the provision
addresses earmarks and limitations in subsequent acts. As such, the
provision constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI. The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken
from the bill.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I proceed for an additional
minute?
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman) is permitted to extend his remarks after the ruling on
the point of order.
Mr. GILMAN. Although I am on my feet to object to a particular
provision----
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will suspend, the Chair has
ruled on the point of order.
Mr. GILMAN. I am not discussing the point of order, Mr.
Chairman, just a comment to make about our distinguished chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The order of the House does not provide for any
Member other than the chairman and the ranking member or their
designees to strike the requisite number of words for purposes of
debate.
Sec. 20.18 The Chair clarified that materials purportedly inserted in
the Congressional Record while under recognition to debate a point
of order would appear apart from proceedings on the point of order.
On June 12, 2008,(65) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. 154 Cong. Rec. 12316, 12318-19, 110th Cong. 2d Sess.; House Rules
and Manual Sec. 698 (2019). For similar proceedings, see 148
Cong. Rec. 9492-98, 107th Cong. 2d Sess. (June 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMERGENCY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 2008
Mr. [Charles] RANGEL [of New York]. Madam Speaker, pursuant to
House Resolution 1265, I call up the bill (H.R. 5749) to provide
for a program of emergency unemployment compensation, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5749
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008''. . . .
point of order
Mr. [Gerald (Jerry)] WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I raise
a point of order against consideration of this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(66) The gentleman will
state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. Ellen Tauscher (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order
against consideration of this bill because the bill violates clause
10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives which
provides in pertinent part that ``it shall not be in order to
consider any bill if the provisions of such measure affecting
direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the
deficit'' over the 5- or 10-year budget scoring window.
This rule is commonly referred to as the pay-as-you-go rule or
PAYGO and was enacted by the majority with great fanfare at the
beginning of this Congress.
In reviewing the estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office, I note that they have scored this bill as increasing the
deficit by $14 billion over the next 5 years, and nearly $10
billion over the coming decade.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the table prepared
by the Congressional Budget Office appear at this point in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, given this overwhelming
evidence that this bill does have the net effect of increasing the
deficit over both scoring windows, I must respectfully insist on my
point of order that the bill violates the PAYGO rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be
heard?
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's motion
receive the consideration it deserves.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois makes a
point of order against consideration of H.R. 5749 on the ground
that the bill includes provisions affecting direct spending or
revenues that would have the net effect of increasing the Federal
budget deficit. That point of order sounds in clause 10 of rule
XXI.
The special order of business prescribed by the adoption of
House Resolution 1265 waives any such point of order. The Chair
will read the operative sentence of House Resolution 1265: ``All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI.''
The Chair finds that the point of order raised by the gentleman
from Illinois has been waived.
The Chair therefore holds that the point of order is overruled.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I respectfully
appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of
the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
motion to table offered by mr. rangel
Mr. RANGEL. I move to table the appeal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to
table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
217, nays 185, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 410] . . .
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Salazar [of Colorado]). The
Chair would clarify that the insertion by the gentleman from
Illinois will appear separately from the point of order in the
Record.
Revising and Extending Colloquies Between Members
Sec. 20.19 Neither the House nor the Committee of the Whole permits the
insertion of an entire colloquy not actually delivered in debate.
On December 15, 1995,(67) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. 141 Cong. Rec. 37133, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Howard (Buck)] McKEON [of California]. I thank the
chairman. In the interest of time, I ask that the remainder of our
colloquy be placed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(68) The Chair would advise
the gentleman that colloquies cannot be inserted in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. Jack Kingston (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKEON. I ask that the remainder of the statement be
inserted in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, each Member may
submit his own statement in the Record.
Sec. 20.20 A colloquy between Members must be spoken on the floor and
may not be inserted in the Congressional Record as an extension of
remarks.
On June 26, 2002,(69) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. 148 Cong. Rec. 11384, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas] REYNOLDS [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I yield as
much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas).
Mr. [William] THOMAS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that a colloquy between the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and myself be made a part of the
Record.
Mr. [Alcee] HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]). Under
the rules, that cannot be done by unanimous consent.
Sec. 20.21 The Chair clarified that an earlier unanimous-consent
request to insert a colloquy into the Congressional Record could
not be granted, but that two separate statements may be inserted.
On July 31, 2012,(70) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. 158 Cong. Rec. 12835-36, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jefferson] MILLER of Florida. . . .
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert a floor
colloquy between me and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(71) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. Michael Simpson (ID).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With respect to the gentleman's
earlier request to enter a colloquy that was granted earlier, the
Chair would clarify that a colloquy may not be inserted into the
Record but that two statements may be inserted independently under
general leave. . . .
Mr. [Michael] MICHAUD [of Maine]. Mr. Speaker, I am
particularly pleased with this package . . .
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for Mr. Miller. He had mentioned
earlier about a colloquy. If those colloquies are entered
separately, will that be made a part of the Record?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we could go ahead and do
the colloquy at this time, that way we'll make sure it's in the
Record.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague
about section 102 of the bill. That provides medical care for
certain medical conditions for veterans and their families who
lived at Camp Lejeune from 1957 through 1987.
Sec. 20.22 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised
that a colloquy between Members actually spoken on the floor would
so appear in the Congressional Record.
On June 18, 2002,(72) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. 148 Cong. Rec. 10565, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Doug] OSE [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I just want to be
sure that I am clear in terms of my colloquy with the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) in the sense that we did enter it into
the Record, and it is going to show up in the Journal and what have
you, and it will be a part of the legislative record as a part of
the recorded record that the transcriptionists and others are
taking part in, just to clarify that point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Henry] Bonilla [of Texas]). The
gentleman is correct. All of the exchange as spoken between both
gentlemen will be recorded.
Sec. 20.23 Where a colloquy between two Members is substantially
revised by one Member, the Congressional Record may display the
revised portions in a distinct typeface to indicate that they were
not remarks spoken on the floor.
On July 11, 1996,(73) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
73. 142 Cong. Rec. 16888, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Christopher] SMITH of New Jersey. . . . Mr. Chairman, this
may be in error, but we have from the gentleman's staff a copy of
the language of the bill, and it has, from Planned Parenthood,
their ID number, which suggests to this Member, and I hope the
gentleman will clarify this, that this language was written and
then tendered and offered to this Congress, written by Planned
Parenthood. Is that the case?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I take these 5 minutes
to make an inquiry of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the
ranking member on the committee.
I am holding in my hand the amendment that Mr. Obey offered,
the substitute to the Istook amendment, the Obey substitute, which
in essence guts the real and tangible parental involvement
provisions of Istook and makes it essentially a sense of the
Congress. In looking at the actual page of text that was given to
staff the amendment offered at the top of the page one immediately
notices that it is a fax from Planned Parenthood. The question
arises as to what role Planned Parenthood had in drafting the
language. I hope the gentleman will shed light on this. Again, the
top of the page reads as follows: From Planned Parenthood ID 202-
293-4349. The Obey language then follows. Title V, section 503 of
the labor HHS bill: ``No part of any appropriations contained in
this act shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant
or contract recipient or agent acting for such recipient related to
any activity designed to influence legislation or appropriations
pending before Congress.'' Mr. Chairman Planned Parenthood gets
tens of million of dollars from title X--so its a fair question as
to whether or not they are drafting amendments for themselves.
Mr. Chairman, there may be a satisfactory explanation for this
but we have from the gentleman's staff a copy of the language of
the bill, and it has ``From Planned Parenthood,'' and their ID
number, which suggests to this Member, and I hope the gentleman
will clarify whether or not this language was written and offered
to this Congress, by and for Planned Parenthood. Is that the case?
Mr. [David] OBEY [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that is absolute, total nonsense and
baloney. I absolutely totally resent the implication. Anyone who
knows me knows I have been around here long enough to write my own
amendments. I wrote this amendment in the full committee. I
discussed it then. If the gentleman has a copy of something from
Planned Parenthood, it is because they got a copy of the amendment
and faxed it to somebody else, and the gentleman ought to know
better than to even ask that question.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the
question, they had no influence in writing this legislation?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman let the Record show that
this page of text with ``From Planned Parenthood'' came from your
staff. It is clearly a fair question as to who wrote this
amendment? Did Planned Parenthood influence the text?
Mr. OBEY. You are asking what?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I ask the gentleman, did they write
the amendment?
Mr. OBEY. I wrote the legislation, every word of that.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I appreciate that clarification, Mr.
Chairman. We know they lobby and they do write legislation that
ends up on this floor.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I appreciate that explanation, Mr.
Obey. It's still a mystery as to how the language disseminated by
your staff to ours ended up as a fax from Planned Parenthood.
Mr. OBEY. I do not write legislation for any lobbyist.
Sec. 20.24 Although neither the House nor the Committee of the Whole
permits wholesale revision of a colloquy between two or more
Members, each individual participant may, by unanimous consent,
revise and extend his or her own remarks without changing the
general substance of the whole.
On July 27, 1989,(74) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
74. 135 Cong. Rec. 16536-37, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
request for permission for members to revise and extend their
remarks on a colloquy
Mr. [Leslie] ASPIN [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members may revise and extend their
comments on the colloquy that we just had.
Mr. [Thomas] FOGLIETTA [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks on the colloquy
we just had.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. [Richard] Durbin [of Illinois]].
The Chair would advise the gentleman from Wisconsin that the
general thrust of the colloquy cannot be changed, but each Member
can seek unanimous consent to revise and extend their own remarks.
Mr. [Wayne (Curt)] WELDON [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks on the
colloquy just had.
Mr. [John] MURTHA [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks on the colloquy
just had.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the various
unanimous-consent requests are granted.
There was no objection.
Sec. 20.25 A Member may not, under leave to revise and extend remarks
in the Congressional Record, alter the nature of a colloquy with
another Member, and a resolution asserting that a portion of the
debate carried in the Record of a preceding day is not a true and
accurate record of the proceedings presents a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.(75)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 698, 699 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 7, 1979,(76) the following resolution was raised
as a question of the privileges of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. 125 Cong. Rec. 10099-100, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and
Manual Sec. 704 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD OF MAY 3, 1979
Mr. [Andrew] JACOBS [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 260) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 260
Whereas the Congressional Record of May 3, 1979, on page 9667, is not a
true and accurate record of the proceedings that took place on the floor of
the House on May 3, 1979, in that an exchange between Mr. Dannemeyer, of
California, and Mr. Jacobs, in fact was as follows:
``Mr. Jacobs. I offered an amendment a few moments ago to cut $400
million in pork barrel spending and I asked for a rollcall vote, and less
than 20 people stood. Will the gentleman say whether he stood for a
rollcall vote?
``Mr. Dannemeyer. I think that there were many of us who stood on that
issue.
``Mr. Jacobs. Did the gentleman stand?
``Mr. Dannemeyer. I have been supporting budget cuts almost without
exception.'' and the Congressional Record for May 3, 1979, erroneously
reports the exchange as follows:
``Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman. I offered an amendment to cut $400 million in
spending and I asked for a rollcall vote, and less than 20 people stood.
Would the gentleman say whether he stood for the rollcall vote?
``Mr. Dannemeyer. I think there were many of us who stood on that issue.
I supported the proposal by a voice vote but did not stand to require a
rollcall because there seemed so little support for the issue.
``Mr. Jacobs. Did the gentleman stand?
``Mr. Dannemeyer. I have been supporting budget cuts almost without
exception.''
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Record of the House be corrected and that the accurate
account of the exchange be printed therein.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(77) Under the precedents of
the House, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs) is recognized
for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. John Murtha (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] DANNEMEYER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, not only will I yield, but I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dannemeyer).
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say
that this Member intended, at the beginning of the proceedings
today, to strike from the Record the sentence, ``I supported the
proposal by a voice vote but did not stand to require a rollcall
because there seemed so little support for the issue.'' That
sentence I think should be stricken.
Mr. JACOBS. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
Mr. [Peter] KOSTMAYER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KOSTMAYER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Indiana aware
that I was part of the colloquy that day?
Mr. JACOBS. Yes, I am aware of that fact.
Mr. KOSTMAYER. I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana. I
think he has characterized the situation accurately and that indeed
the meaning of the words of the gentleman from Indiana, as well as
the meaning of my own words, were altered by a change in the
Record, and I support the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I might say to the gentleman from
California that the only quarrel I think that either the gentleman
from Pennsylvania or I might have is not any confusion that the
gentleman might have had a few moments after his own statement
about what his own statement had been in response to inquiries by
the gentleman. from Pennsylvania, but that when the Record was
altered subsequently it was altered without notice to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania or myself in order that we might be asked to
agree to change our own language to conform with the change that
the gentleman wished to make. It seems to me that that is the most
dangerous part of this kind of proceedings. For example, if it were
not opposed to the precedents of the House to do just that, it
would be possible for me to ask a Member of this body, ``Are you a
loyal American?'' and receive the answer, ``Yes,'' and then
subsequently being entrusted with the Record for alteration of my
own words, ask just the opposite, ``Is the gentleman disloyal to
his country?'' And if he had not known the altered part of the
colloquy, the answer would remain, ``Yes.'' I believe that is the
precedent and the reason for the general House rule that, while
remarks can be revised and extended, the meaning of the remarks
should not be altered.
Mr. DANNEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. I yield further to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DANNEMEYER. I think the gentleman's point is well taken,
and I do not want to put any Member in a position of having his
responses be embarrassing to that Member. Hindsight would indicate,
probably, that when this Member revised and extended his remarks
within the prerogative of that privilege as I saw the light,
perhaps I should have given copies of the proposed revision to the
Member in the well and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Kostmayer), as well, for an opportunity to revise what they thought
the revision should be and what the response should be.
I think the suggestion which has been made, that we strike that
second sentence, would be consistent with what I think should be
done in terms of correcting the Record, and it would be fair, and
it is a good indication as to what the office is of revising and
extending remarks and when they should be, and how they should be
treated.
Mr. JACOBS. I thank the gentleman, and I think we need take no
more time of the House. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacobs).
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 20.26 The Majority Leader has been granted unanimous consent to
revise and extend remarks on the subject of the weekly schedule
colloquy between party leaders.
On July 16, 2015,(78) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. 161 Cong. Rec. 11773, 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. [Steny] HOYER [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the
majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, for the purpose of inquiring about
the schedule of the week to come and thereafter.
(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Kevin] McCARTHY [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Allocation of Time for Requests to Revise and Extend
Sec. 20.27 A Member controlling time in debate may yield for another
Member's request to revise and extend remarks without being charged
for the time consumed by the request, provided that the Member
securing permission to revise and extend does not also engage in
debate.
On June 27, 2002,(79) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. 148 Cong. Rec. 11849, 11851, 107th Cong. 2d Sess. For similar
parliamentary inquiries on this issue, see 141 Cong. Rec. 9216,
104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 24, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Louise] SLAUGHTER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I yield such
time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano).
Mrs. [Grace] NAPOLITANO [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I express
my opposition to this shameful bill that is particularly harmful to
our senior women who live longer and have the largest consumption
of purchases of drugs.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [John] LINDER [of Georgia]. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(80) The gentleman from
Georgia will state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
80. Steven LaTourette (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at what point does this series of
speeches become credited against their time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After their request for unanimous
consent to revise and extend their remarks in opposition, the Chair
will count against the minority's time any speeches that are given.
To this point, the Chair has not heard any.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. [Patsy] MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of
my constituents to oppose the rule and the passage of this bill as
a fatal step towards privatization of Social Security. . . .
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentlewoman
from New York that one came close to debate.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we will watch it. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. [Marcy] KAPTUR [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I express my strong opposition to this pitiful
bill that denies senior women across America access to affordable
prescription drugs because the Republicans gave all the money away
to companies like Enron in tax cuts, and they were not deserved.
Mr. [Randall (Duke)] CUNNINGHAM [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I
object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. An objection is heard to the last
request to revise and extend.
Sec. 20.28 A unanimous-consent request to revise and extend remarks
that contains oratory extending beyond a simple declarative
statement of the Member's attitude towards the underlying measure
constitutes debate (sustained by tabling of appeal).
On July 11, 2013,(81) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
81. 159 Cong. Rec. 11323-24, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar rulings,
see 159 Cong. Rec. 11406, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (July 11, 2013)
and 159 Cong. Rec. 11410-11, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (July 11,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James] McGOVERN [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I yield
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) for a unanimous
consent request.
Mr. [Cedric] RICHMOND [of Louisiana]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong
opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because
it's sinful, it increases poverty in America, and it takes the food
off the table of American families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(82) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
82. Mark Meadows (NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time
will be charged.
point of order
Mr. [Steny] HOYER [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the
ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman make a point of
order?
Mr. HOYER. I make a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. HOYER. The point of order is that, in fact, consistent with
your rulings today, that the gentleman's unanimous consent request
was not any different, in substance or in length, than the
unanimous consent requests that have been made on a number of
occasions, and time was not charged. That is inconsistent. It is a
subjective judgment, and I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard
on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The decision on how and when a Member will be charged in debate
is a matter confined to the discretion of the Chair. However, the
question of whether the form of a unanimous consent request is in
order under the rules is a proper subject for a ruling from the
Chair.
In the opinion of the Chair, it is not in order to embellish a
unanimous consent request with debate. Remarks in the form of
debate are charged to the Member yielding.
The request by the gentleman from Louisiana contained remarks
in the nature of debate. The point of order is overruled.
Mr. HOYER. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of
the Chair stand in the judgment of the House?
Mr. [Pete] SESSIONS [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the
appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to
table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
226, noes 196, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 347] . . .
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 20.29 A Member controlling time in debate may yield for another
Member's request to revise and extend remarks without being charged
for the time thereby consumed, provided that the Member securing
permission to revise and extend does not embellish such request
with oratory.
On June 23, 2005,(83) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. 151 Cong. Rec. 13903, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David] OBEY [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the
purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of the Obey amendment and also the 81 percent of the American
people who said the Republican-controlled Congress is out of tune
with their values and this is a perfect example. . . .
announcement by the acting chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN.(84) Members recognized for
unanimous-consent requests should not embellish such requests with
oratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
84. Paul Gillmor (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.30 The Chair advised that time for debate would be charged
against the Member yielding to other Members who engage in debate
under the guise of requests to revise and extend remarks.
On March 21, 2010,(85) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
85. 156 Cong. Rec. 4113-14, 4117-18, 4121-22, 4148-49, 111th Cong. 2d
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I yield for
the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
Mr. [John] FLEMING [of Louisiana]. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to this flawed health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request to our soft-spoken colleague from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
(Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. [John] CULBERSON [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to this flawed 4,700-page health care bill.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(86) As recorded in section
957 of the House Rules and Manual, although a unanimous consent
request to insert remarks in debate may comprise a simple,
declarative statement of the Member's attitude towards the pending
measure, it is improper for a Member to embellish such a request
with oratory, and it can become an imposition on the time of the
Member who was yielded for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will entertain as many requests to insert as many as
may be necessary to accommodate Members, but the Chair must also
ask Members to cooperate by confining such requests to the proper
form. Further embellishments will be charged to the time of the
gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We will certainly
comply with your directive and appreciate it.
I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the
former mayor of Dayton, Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. [Michael] TURNER [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to this flawed health care bill. . . .
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. [Scott] GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to this unconstitutional health care bill. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be charged. . . .
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, was there any time consumed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. You were charged once.
Mr. DREIER. For what, half a second?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman was charged 5 seconds.
Mr. DREIER. Five seconds. Is there any way we can try and get
that back, Mr. Speaker?
I reserve the balance of my time. . . .
Mr. [James] McGOVERN [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I yield
to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for the
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. [Eni] FALEOMAVAEGA [of American Samoa]. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in total opposition to all my friends who oppose the legislation on
the other side of the aisle, but in full support of this most
historical bill. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be charged. . . .
Mr. [Sander] LEVIN [of Michigan]. I yield for the purpose for a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Etheridge).
Mr. [Bobby] ETHERIDGE [of North Carolina]. Mr. Speaker, I rise
on behalf of a young man by the name of Will Privitt who tonight
will be able to get insurance for the first time. He was born with
a preexisting condition. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan will be
charged time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fattah) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. [Chaka] FATTAH [of Pennsylvania]. I rise in support of the
health care reform bill in honor of a friend of mine, Linda Taylor,
who died because of the lack of insurance in a breast cancer
illness that she faced. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan will be
charged time consumed.
Sec. 20.31 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised
that the time consumed by embellished speeches under the guise of
requests to revise and extend remarks would be charged against the
yielding Member.
On May 16, 2012,(87) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
87. 158 Cong. Rec. 6903, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(88) The Chair would advise
Members to confine their unanimous-consent requests to a simple,
declarative statement of the Member's attitude toward the measure.
Further embellishments will result in a deduction of time from the
yielding Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
88. Jo Ann Emerson (MO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Ms. [Gwen] MOORE [of Wisconsin]. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her
inquiry.
Ms. MOORE. The declarative statement that you referred to, am I
not correct, Mr. Speaker, that that could also include a sentence,
a complete sentence?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will only deduct time for
embellishments.
Ms. MOORE. I thank the Chair.
Requests for Others to Revise and Extend
Sec. 20.32 A Member may not request unanimous consent for another
designated Member to revise and extend remarks in the Congressional
Record, as that permission must be obtained by the Member
personally or by way of general leave for all Members to revise and
extend their remarks.
On May 3, 1977,(89) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
89. 123 Cong. Rec. 13249, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] HAMMERSCHMIDT [of Arkansas]. Mr. Speaker, I further
request that the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Harsha) be allowed to revise and extend his remarks
immediately following my own statement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [of Texas]). The
gentleman from Arkansas will have to make a request for all Members
to revise and extend their remarks in order to have that done.
Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, that motion will be made later.
. . .
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I restate my request that the distinguished
ranking minority member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha), be
allowed to revise and extend his remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. General leave has already been granted
for all Members to extend their remarks.
Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman's remarks
appear following mine?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise the gentleman
that the remarks of other Members will have to be placed at the end
of the debate. The gentleman cannot obtain the permission he
requests.
Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary
inquiry. I did notice a request that the distinguished chairman's
remarks be allowed to be inserted at a particular point in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The same ruling will have to be
applied. The Chair did inadvertently make that ruling but the
remarks of the chairman will be placed in the same place following
debate in accordance with the request that all Members have
permission to revise and extend their remarks.
Sec. 20.33 Where a Member asked unanimous consent to insert into the
Congressional Record the remarks of another Member, the Chair
advised that the remarks could be inserted pursuant to an existing
order for general leave.
On March 19, 2012,(90) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
90. 158 Cong. Rec. 3615-16, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. See also House Rules
and Manual Sec. 692 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
general leave
Mr. [Lamar] SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which
to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials
on H.R. 3992 currently under consideration. . . .
Mr. [Howard] BERMAN [of California]. Madam Speaker, I rise in
support of H.R. 3992. . . .
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of the
ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren, be
included in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(91) The gentleman's request
will be covered by the earlier general leave order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. Virginia Foxx (NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. BERMAN. I would like to introduce the entire statement of
Ranking Member Conyers and subcommittee Ranking Member Lofgren into
the Record. I am unclear whether I am able to do that at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Permission for all Members to revise
and extend their remarks was previously obtained by unanimous
consent.
Sec. 21. Insertion of Extraneous Material
In addition to revising or extending one's own remarks for the
Congressional Record, a Member may also be permitted (by unanimous
consent) to include extraneous material.(1) This material
may take any form, but is usually correspondence, newspaper articles,
analysis of legislative measures, and similar documents.(2)
The same standards of decorum apply to such insertions as they do to
words spoken on the floor, and unparliamentary insertions will not be
permitted.(3) Other Members may inspect materials proposed
to be inserted,(4) but any objection to the insertion of
extraneous material must be timely made.(5) Questions of
personal privilege, normally delivered in person on the floor of the
House, may also be included in the Record as simply an insertion of
material relevant to the question of personal privilege.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 21.3, infra.
2. See Sec. 21.1, infra.
3. For the rules regarding unparliamentary remarks and their depiction
in the Congressional Record, see Sec. 22, infra. For earlier
treatment of insertions of unparliamentary material, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 20.19-20.22.
4. See Sec. 21.2, infra.
5. See Sec. 21.4, infra.
6. See Sec. Sec. 21.11, 21.12, infra. For questions of personal
privilege generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 11
Sec. Sec. 20-33 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Joint Committee on Printing rules, no insertion of
extraneous material that exceeds two Congressional Record pages may be
permitted unless the Member: (1) obtains a cost estimate for the
insertion from the Public Printer; and (2) announces said cost estimate
on the floor in connection with the request.(7) This policy
allows Members to object to insertions whose printing costs are
considered excessive.(8) It is the responsibility of the
Member making the request to obtain the cost estimate from the Public
Printer,(9) and requests lacking specific estimates will not
be entertained. Insertions that are specifically contemplated by the
rules of the House, such as macroeconomic analyses(10) or
Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, are not subject to this
policy.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Joint Committee on Printing Rule #13. See Sec. 21.7, infra.
8. See Sec. 21.5, infra.
9. See Sec. Sec. 21.6, 21.8, infra.
10. See Sec. 21.9, infra.
11. See Sec. 21.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with unanimous-consent requests to revise and extend
remarks,(12) a unanimous-consent request to insert
extraneous material may not be embellished with additional oratory in
the nature of debate. If a Member does embellish the request with
debate, the time will be deducted from the Member to whom it had been
allocated.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 20, supra.
13. See Sec. 21.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In General
Sec. 21.1 The chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce obtained
unanimous consent to insert into the Congressional Record certain
correspondence between himself and his Senate counterparts.
On August 10, 1984,(14) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 24059-60, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION FOR INCLUSION OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO H.R.
5640, SUPERFUND EXPANSION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1984
Mr. [John] DINGELL [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, the rule on H.R.
5640 provided for the linkage between RCRA and the Superfund
legislation. Because of understandings with our good friends and
colleagues on the minority side and because of a letter which I
received, along with my good friend and colleague, the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Broyhill], from
our colleagues on the Senate side, Senator Stafford, Senator
Randolph, and Senator Chaffe, I will not make that request.
I ask unanimous consent, however, Mr. Speaker, that in view of
the commitments on the part of the Senate to pass Superfund
legislation during this session that I be permitted to insert the
correspondence between me and my distinguished colleagues.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(15) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John Murtha (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The correspondence referred to is as follows:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington DC, August 7, 1984.
Hon. Claude Pepper,
Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,
the Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request a hearing before the
Rules Committee . . .
The Committee on Ways and Means has requested a closed rule for
consideration of Title V of H.R. 5640. On behalf of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, I am constrained to oppose this request.
Although H.R. 5640 was not divided for reference among the
committees of jurisdiction, the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
in the spirit of comity, did not consider amendments to those
sections of Title V which amend the Internal Revenue Code. Instead,
the Committee followed a procedure whereby Members made motions
embodying revenue recommendations with respect to H.R. 5640. Those
motions agreed to by the Committee were included in the report of
the Committee (H. Rept. 98-890, Part I, pp. 76-83) and transmitted
to the Committee on Ways and Means as recommendations.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce agreed that those
recommendations not incorporated in the version of H.R. 5640
approved by the Committee on Ways and Means would be brought to the
attention of the Committee on Rules, with the request that the
Rules Committee make in order Floor amendments reflecting such
recommendations. The Committee on Rules was advised of the
procedure followed by the Energy and Commerce Committee by letter
dated July 27, 1984 (copy enclosed).
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Committee on Rules
grant a rule making in order the following amendments to Title V:
An amendment allowing the termination of taxes when the balance of
unobligated funds in the Superfund trust fund reaches certain
levels; an amendment providing for reduced taxation of recycled
metals; and an amendment providing for certain import taxes
relating to chemical feedstocks.
In addition to these amendments, I also request that two other
amendments be made in order to the tax provisions of Title V. These
amendments would restore tax provisions in H.R. 5640 which were
important to certain Members of the Committee but which the
Committee on Ways and Means eliminated entirely in its amendment to
Title V. The amendments are: An amendment exempting copper from the
list of taxable feedstock chemicals and metals; and an amendment
providing for taxation of the disposal of hazardous substances.
I also request that the Rules Committee make in order
amendments to the authorizing provisions of Title V of the
legislation, which are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
On November 3, 1983, the House overwhelmingly approved H.R.
2867, the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983. That
legislation reauthorizes and strengthens the hazardous waste
regulatory program, which requires safe handling of hazardous
wastes from the point of generation through final disposal and is
designed to prevent a recurrence of the past unsafe disposal
practices that created the very problems addressed by the Superfund
program and H.R. 5640. The two programs are interdependent and
address the prospective and retrospective aspects of the toxic
waste problem. Indeed, S.757, the counterpart to H.R. 2867 passed
by the Senate only two weeks ago, contains significant amendments
to the existing Superfund law and addresses the dangers, also
addressed in H.R. 5640, posed by leaking underground gasoline
storage tanks.
The Congress now has a unique and compelling window of
opportunity within which to address the full spectrum of the
interrelated hazardous waste problems by considering together bills
amending both organic statutes. It would be unfortunate, indeed, if
the Congress were to abandon the opportunity--and the challenge--to
forge a comprehensive, integrated national policy on the hazardous
waste issue and continue its record of progress in the effort to
bring the nation's most dangerous environmental problem under
control. Therefore, I request also that the rule provide that
following passage of H.R. 5640 by the House, it shall be in order
to proceed to the consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R.
2867, the Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983; to
amend the Senate amendments with a substitute containing the texts
of H.R. 2867 and H.R. 5640 as passed by the House; and to move to
request a conference with the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5640 is critically important environmental
legislation, and I greatly appreciate the action you have taken in
promptly scheduling a hearing before your Committee on this
measure. Expeditious action by the Rules Committee will provide the
House with the opportunity to consider this vital legislation prior
to the August recess and facilitate its enactment into law prior to
the adjournment of the 98th Congress.
With warm regards,
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell,
Chairman.
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington DC, August 9, 1984.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Chairman;
Hon. James T. Broyhill,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and
Commerce House of Representatives, Washington DC.
Dear John and Jim: We are writing to urge that you do not link
reauthorization of Superfund to reauthorization of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A move to connect the two
bills will unnecessarily complicate matters and will delay final
action on the RCRA bill.
As members of the Senate who are committed to seeing an strong
Superfund bill enacted this year, we are in the process of marking
up such a bill in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. It
is our intention to complete markup in early September.
Bills to reauthorize and strengthen RCRA have already been
passed in both chambers and are ready to be dealt with in
conference. These bills are important measures in their own right
and enactment of RCRA amendments should not be delayed. In the
interest of assuring enactment of both RCRA and Superfund this year
in our mutual efforts to protect human health and the environment,
we urge you to refrain from attaching Superfund to RCRA.
Good luck with Superfund. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely yours,
Robert T. Stafford,
Chairman.
Sec. 21.2 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised
that extraneous material submitted for inclusion in the
Congressional Record by unanimous consent should be delivered to
the Official Reporters of Debate.
On July 30, 1998,(16) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 144 Cong. Rec. 18215-16, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tony] HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. [Robert] SCOTT [of Virginia]. Madam Speaker, I include for
the Record a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern
District of New York, which stated that taking testimony from
certain witnesses who had been subpoenaed and scheduled to testify
would impede an ongoing criminal investigation.
The letter referred to is as follows:
Department of Justice,
Southern District of New York,
April 28, 1998.
Re Teamsters investigation. . . .
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Madam Speaker, how much
time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. [Jo Ann] Emerson [of Missouri]).
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Peter] HOEKSTRA [of Michigan]. Madam Speaker,
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, is it a rule of the House that
documents that are to be entered in the record should be in the
House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House has authority by unanimous
consent to admit those documents for printing.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, if they have asked for unanimous
consent, should I not have access to those documents when they are
inserted?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The documents are available with the
Official Reporters of Debate.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, if the document has been inserted
for the record, should the Clerk or someone have the document?
Mr. [Xavier] BECERRA [of California]. Madam Speaker, regular
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The documents should be delivered to
the Official Reporters of Debate.
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, there was no objection raised
earlier to any unanimous consent made before.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is merely responding to a
parliamentary inquiry.
The documents submitted by unanimous consent are delivered to
the Official Reporters of Debates.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, have they been delivered?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire of the
Official Reporters.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. We have inquired, and the documents are not
available.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. They should be submitted to the
Official Reporters, or they will not appear in the record.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I would just like a copy as soon
as they ever get delivered to the House.
Sec. 21.3 Extraneous material may be inserted in the Congressional
Record by unanimous consent.
On September 13, 2000,(17) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 146 Cong. Rec. 17810, 106th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Gary (Gene)] TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, a
preliminary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is how
would I have this document from the Bureau of Public Debt published
on June 30, 2000, how would I have this document that shows the
public debt increasing by $40 billion inserted at the Record at
this appropriate time?
Mr. [Michael (Mac)] COLLINS [of Georgia]. Mr. Speaker, regular
order.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(18) The gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) could ask for unanimous consent to submit
the document for the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
for a publication of the Treasury Department to be inserted in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Mississippi? . . .
There was no objection.
Sec. 21.4 Extraneous material may be inserted in the Congressional
Record by unanimous consent, but if any Member makes a timely
objection, the material may not be inserted.
On April 14, 2005,(19) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 151 Cong. Rec. 6381, 6389, 6393-94, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
general leave
Mr. [Phil] GINGREY [of Georgia]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which
to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 211.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Duncan [of Tennessee]). Is
there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. [Alcee] HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds
to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. [Carolyn] MALONEY [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I request
permission to place in the Record, in response to this statement,
statements by Bar Associations across this country, women's
organizations, women's legal defense, asserting what I have said
that children are put second to credit card companies. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Sweeney [of New York]). Is
there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New York?
Mrs. MALONEY. And this is wrong. Where are the family values in
this Congress?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is not under
recognition.
Mrs. MALONEY. Is it just rhetoric or do you really care about
children?
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
What was the objection about?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objection was regarding the
placement of extraneous material in the Record.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary
inquiry, what is the ruling of the Chair?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair heard objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Further parliamentary inquiry, so the
gentlewoman from New York's request to put in the Record the
material?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The material will not be placed in the
Record. Objection was heard.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there is objection to a
Member's placing in the Record, a Member who had made a statement
supporting the things that she asked to be submitted, that is being
denied?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. [Jerrold] NADLER [of New York]. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker. What is the basis for the objection to a request for
insertion into the Record of material?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It takes unanimous consent to place
extraneous material in the Record. An objection was heard to such a
request; therefore, unanimous consent was not obtained.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, is it not customary as a normal matter
of comity in this House to allow all material requested to be
placed in the Record?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unanimous consent was sought. It was
not obtained because the gentleman from Texas was on his feet and
objected; therefore, the material does not get inserted in the
Record.
Mr. [Frank] SENSENBRENNER [of Wisconsin]. Parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is the material asked to be inserted covered
under the General Leave that was requested at the beginning of the
debate by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey)?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The general leave was for extension of
remarks and not for insertion of extraneous material.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There has been no ruling. The Chair
merely heard objection.
Ms. [Maxine] WATERS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, does the rule not state that the
objection must be asked for prior to the speaking of the Member?
This Member spoke, and the objection was asked for after the party
spoke. My understanding is it should have been done ahead of time.
What is the correct rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York made a
unanimous consent request, which was heard in total. At the
conclusion of that request, the Chair queried for objection, and
the gentleman from Texas rose and objected. Therefore, unanimous
consent was not obtained.
Ms. WATERS. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I think what I observed
was she asked unanimous consent. There was no objection. She
proceeded to speak. She spoke, and the objection was not timely. It
was asked for after she had completed speaking. That is what I saw.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York was
yielded for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. At the
conclusion of that consent request, objection was made by the
gentleman from Texas.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit that that was not a timely
objection. It was not timely.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It was a contemporaneous objection;
when the Chair queried for objection, the gentleman was on his
feet. Therefore, it was timely.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. And I would oppose
that, and I would support my colleague, who again would ask that we
have a vote on the ruling by the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California
appeal the ruling of the Chair that the objection was timely?
Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Based on my statement, he is now
again appealing the ruling of the Chair based on that it was
untimely.
I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) if that is
right.
Mr. NADLER. Yes, it is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, shall the decision of
the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
motion to table offered by mr. sensenbrenner
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman kindly withhold
that motion.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw for now the motion
to table.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in light of new information, I
withdraw the appeal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California
withdraw her appeal?
Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw; and I thank the
gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, with the Speaker's
permission, I ask unanimous consent that the extraneous material
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) be made a
part of the Record following her remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Limitations on Insertions (The ``Two Page Rule'')
Sec. 21.5 The Minority Leader announced that he would object to any
unanimous-consent request to insert extraneous matter in the
Congressional Record exceeding two Record pages and costing in
excess of $10,000.
On June 16, 1987,(20) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 133 Cong. Rec. 16239, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
statement of the minority leader regarding extensions of
remarks
Mr. [Robert] MICHEL [of Illinois]. Mr. Chairman, I have
instructed my leadership and House floor staff to have an objection
made to any unanimous-consent request made regarding the Extension
of Remarks or inclusion of additional or extraneous material if the
inclusion of such material will result in a cost estimated by the
Public Printer to exceed $10,000.
I would like to look at such inclusion to make sure that these
are moneys well spent. I have noted that we have gotten quite
excessive lately and it has just got to stop.
I also will have my floor representatives require that every
such request must be made at a microphone so that all can clearly
understand exactly what the request was.
I thank the Chair for its indulgence in this matter.
Sec. 21.6 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated that
it is the Member's responsibility and not that of the Chair to
ascertain the cost of printing extraneous material and obtaining
consent of the House where necessary, under Rule 13 of the Joint
Committee on Printing rules.
On February 11, 1994,(21) the Chair responded to
parliamentary inquiries as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 140 Cong. Rec. 2244-45, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. [Jolene] Unsoeld [of
Washington]). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Madam Speaker, I would
like to use my 5 minutes to begin with to propound a parliamentary
inquiry relating to the matter of extensions of remarks in the
Congressional Record.
In yesterday's Congressional Record, that would be February 10,
on pages H 460 to H 476, material was submitted to the
Congressional Record costing the taxpayers $6,132, where there was
not an announcement of that cost prior to the material being
submitted.
My parliamentary inquiry is this, does the Chair have a
responsibility to ascertain the amount of taxpayer expense in
Extension of Remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In response to the inquiry of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Chair understands the situation to
be as follows: the gentlewoman from Colorado requested permission
to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend her remarks
and to include extraneous material. Due to the length of the matter
submitted, the material was moved by the official reporters from
the beginning of the day to appear following legislative business.
This normally is a signal to the Government Printing Office to
return the material to the Member should a printing estimate be
required, submissions in excess of two Congressional Record pages.
That apparently did not occur in this situation, so the submission
was printed.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair for that explanation, but it does
not really answer the question I propounded.
My question was this, does the Chair have a responsibility to
ascertain the length of the material, when Members submit it for
the Record?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the practice of the Chair to
advise the Member that is making this request to go to the
appropriate official reporters, if an estimate is required.
Mr. WALKER. So it is the responsibility of the Chair and not of
the Member to deal with the questions of cost for long-winded
material that goes into the Record?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No, it is the responsibility of the
Member.
Mr. WALKER. So the Member has the responsibility, if they have
a large amount of material, to present that to the House prior to
asking the permission; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. To ask permission with the estimate of
the cost in hand.
Mr. WALKER. And in this particular case, as I understand it,
that procedure was not followed; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman did not have an
estimate and, for that reason, the matter was held over until the
end of the Record.
Mr. WALKER. Is there a procedure for recovering the amount of
money spent that was spent and not properly agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would have to take that
under advisement.
Mr. WALKER. I would be very happy to have the Chair take it
under advisement. As I understand it, the Government Printing
Office indicates that the amount of money is $6,132.
Since the Chair is taking it under advisement, could the Chair
tell me when I might get an indication from the Chair as to the
answer to my question?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Unsoeld). The Chair has already
been advised that in the future, the Government Printing Office
will be more diligent in returning such material to the Member,
rather than just printing it.
Mr. WALKER. I understand that, but the Chair has taken the
question that I asked a few minutes ago under advisement. I am
asking when I will be advised as to the Chair's position on the
matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As soon as the Chair would get the
answer.
Mr. WALKER. And that would be within the next month?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will seek to obtain that
information as soon as possible, but is not in control of the
source of the answer.
Mr. WALKER. May I assume that this is an answer that I might
get before the end of the session?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair sees no reason to presume
otherwise.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair.
Sec. 21.7 The chair of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure by unanimous consent inserted extraneous material in
excess of two pages in the Congressional Record notwithstanding its
printing cost, under the condition initiated and stated by the
Chair that the material not be construed as a revised joint
explanatory statement of the managers of a previously filed
conference report.
On October 10, 1998,(22) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 144 Cong. Rec. 25501-503, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBMISSION OF EXTRANEOUS MATTER EXCEEDING 2 PAGES OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. [Bud] SHUSTER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to insert in the Record updated explanatory
materials relating to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, commonly known as ISTEA, and to extend my remarks in the
Record and to include therein extraneous material not withstanding
the fact that it exceeds 2 pages and is estimated by the Public
Printer to cost $9,376. This material will serve as a useful record
for interpreting this important legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ken] Calvert [of California]). Is
there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, and notwithstanding
the cost, the gentleman may insert extraneous material in the
Record, but that material does not constitute a revised joint
statement of managers to accompany a conference report previously
filed.
There was no objection.
Introductory Note to Updated Explanatory Materials
The House Conferees from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA
21) are pleased to published the accompanying updated explanatory materials
related to TEA 21. These materials reflect what we intended the legislative
history of TEA 21 to be, had there been adequate time to develop a complete
report.
TEA 21 is comprehensive surface transportation legislation that
reauthorized the Federal highway, transit, highway safety grant and surface
transportation research programs for Fiscal Years 1998 through 2003. It
also contains legislation extending the Highway Trust Fund and its taxes,
changes to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
that ensure the trust fund revenues are spent, budgetary offsets to pay for
the increased levels of funding authorized, provisions related to ozone and
particulate matter standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration Act of 1998, provisions related to rail programs,
comprehensive ``one-call'' notification programs, and the Sportfishing and
Boating Safety Act of 1998.
The Conference Report on TEA 21 (House Report 105-550) passed the House
of Representatives and the Senate on May 22, 1998, and was signed into law
by the President on June 9, 1998, as Public Law 105-178.
Sec. 21.8 The Chair will not respond to parliamentary inquiries
regarding the cost of printing matter in the Congressional Record.
On February 27, 2003,(23) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 149 Cong. Rec. 4691, 108th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne (Curt)] WELDON of Florida. . . .
I think the time has arrived for us to do the right thing. This
is a moral and ethical decision. We are talking about scientists
creating human embryos for the purpose of exploiting them and
destroying them, and there is no scientific evidence today that
this is justifiable.
Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the studies I
referred to above.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [James] McGOVERN [of Massachusetts]. Parliamentary inquiry,
Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Sweeney [of New York]). The
gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Chair can inform me
how much it will cost the American taxpayer to reprint the several
months of studies that have just been submitted for the Record?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform the gentleman
that that is not a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. [Louise] SLAUGHTER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. I very much
want to rise and join my colleagues in opposition to this rule and
to the underlying bill.
Sec. 21.9 Submissions of material to the Congressional Record that are
specifically contemplated by House rules are not subject to the
``two page rule.''(24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Parliamentarian's Note: In this case, the submission of a
macroeconomic impact analysis was specifically required by
clause 3(h)(2)(A)(iii) of rule XIII (repealed in the 114th
Congress). See House Rules and Manual Sec. 849a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 8, 2003,(25) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 149 Cong. Rec. 10954, 108th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACROECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF H.R. 2, THE ``JOBS AND GROWTH
RECONCILIATION TAX ACT OF 2003'' PREPARED BY THE STAFF OF THE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(26) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. John Culberson (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] THOMAS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
clause 3(h)(2)(A)(iii) of rule XIII, I submitted the following
macroeconomic impact analysis:
In accordance with House Rule XIII.3(h)(2), this document, prepared by
the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (``Joint Committee staff''),
provides a macroeconomic analysis of H.R. 2, the ``Jobs and Growth
Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003.'' The analysis presents the results of
simulating the changes contained in H.R. 2 under three economic models of
the economy. The models employ a variety of assumptions regarding Federal
fiscal policy, monetary policy, and behavioral responses to the proposed
changes in law.
1. Description of Models and Results Format
(a) models . . .
Sec. 21.10 A committee chair submitted a Congressional Budget Office
cost estimate of a measure in the Congressional Record, and
(unnecessarily) obtained an estimate from the Public Printer on the
cost of printing said material.(27)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Parliamentarian's Note: The submission of a cost estimate for the
printing was unnecessary in this case, as the submission of CBO
estimates to accompany legislation is specifically contemplated
by clause 3(d) of rule XIII. See House Rules and Manual
Sec. 841 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 14, 2003,(28) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. 149 Cong. Rec. 17944, 108th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT BIOSHIELD ACT OF 2003
HON. CHRISTOPHER COX
state of california
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, July 14, 2003
Mr. [Christopher] COX [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I hereby
submit for inclusion in the Record the cost estimate from the
Congressional Budget Office for H.R. 2122, the Project BioShield
Act of 2003, reflecting that implementing H.R. 2122 would increase
discretionary spending by $0.3 billion in 2004. The Public Printer
estimates that the cost of including the CBO estimate in the Record
is $975. Because this estimate dated July 9, 2003, was not received
by the Committee in time for inclusion in the Committee Report on
the legislation.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 9, 2003.
Hon. Christopher Cox,
Chairman, Select Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the
enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2122, the Project BioShield Act of
2003.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Jeanne De Sa,
who can be reached at 226-9010, and Sam Papenfuss, who can be
reached at 226-2840.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Enclosure.
Questions of Personal Privilege
Sec. 21.11 A Member rose to a question of personal privilege under rule
IX(29) to refute press allegations against him in his
representative capacity, and did so primarily through an insertion
into the Congressional Record (rather than addressing Members on
the House floor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 23, 1976,(30) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. 122 Cong. Rec. 4062, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of personal privilege.
Last month I was attacked by Jack Anderson in a column. He
subsequently, upon being presented with facts, retracted the
charges against me completely. I would like to answer them at this
point.
(Mr. BAUMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the January 15, 1976, issue of the
Washington Post and many other newspapers across the Nation the
daily column entitled ``The Washington Merry-Go-Round,'' written by
Jack Anderson and Les Whitten contained the following brief
paragraph:
Arch-conservative Congressman Robert Bauman (R-Md.) has been raising
money for Ronald Reagan. But Bauman pocketed $2,626.52 of the money,
according to a voucher, ``for out-of-pocket expenses.''
Mr. Speaker, obviously, on its face, this item implied many
things, including the possibility that I had in some manner acted
dishonestly. On the same day I sent the following letter to Mr.
Anderson:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 15, 1976.
Mr. Jack Anderson,
Mr. Les Whitten,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Anderson and Mr. Whitten: In your daily column, ``The
Washington Merry-Go-Round,'' which appeared in the Washington Post
and other newspapers today, January 15, 1976, you have written the
following item:
``Arch-conservative Congressman Robert Bauman (R-Md.) has been
raising money for Ronald Reagan. But Bauman pocketed $2,626.52 of
the money, according to a voucher ``for out-of-pocket expenses.''
This statement is totally untrue in every detail and could have
been proven so had you or your staff contacted me. Quite obviously
you have either published this falsehood with the malicious intent
of damaging my reputation or you are so grossly negligent in
writing your column that your action amounts to malice.
Sec. 21.12 A Member recognized for a question of personal privilege
under rule IX(31) obtained unanimous consent for all
Members to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material in the Congressional Record on the subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2005,(32) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. 151 Cong. Rec. 9094, 9100, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
Ms. [Sheila] JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(33) On the basis of House
Report 109-51 and certain media coverage thereof, the gentlewoman
may rise to a question of personal privilege under rule IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. John Boozman (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for
1 hour.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume. . .
. -------------------
GENERAL LEAVE
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the
subject of my question of personal privilege today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Is there objection to
the request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Allocation of Time
Sec. 21.13 If a Member engages in debate during a unanimous-consent
request to insert extraneous material into the Congressional
Record, the Chair may deduct time from the Member to whom it was
allocated.
On July 31, 2014,(34) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. 160 Cong. Rec. 13734, 13736, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. For similar
rulings regarding unanimous-consent requests to revise and
extend remarks, see Sec. Sec. 20.30, 20.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jared] POLIS [of Colorado]. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) for the purpose of a
unanimous consent request.
(Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the
Record the story . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(35) The time of the
gentleman from Colorado will be charged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Randy Hultgren (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, again, if there
is discretion that can be shared, that was directly from the
article that I asked to be entered into the Record. On many
occasions I have been on this floor and been part of many debates
in the 5 years I have been honored to serve with the Congress and
have used the exact same approach and have never been charged. Is
there any discretion that the Speaker can give us direction on?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is exercising his discretion
as the Chair has said previously. The Chair has discretion in this
matter.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I have a further
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, with that being
said to debate, even though the same practices are used by Members,
rulings can change by the Chair on this particular issue?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does have discretion. The
guidance has been to confine the request to a simple declaratory
statement of the Member's attitude toward the pending measure.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, for
clarification, that is exactly what I did, which is I read a
statement from the article.
I am confused, Mr. Speaker. I am just maybe a junior Member
from a small farm in New Mexico, but it seems that if I am reading
from the article directly, that I don't appear to be violating any
rules to be charged time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Embellishments or statements on other
matters are debate and will be charged to the manager.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I have a further
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this was not an
embellishment. This was a direct quote from the article. It appears
to me that my understanding of an embellishment are my own words
being added.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has advised that
embellishments or statements on other matters are debate and will
be charged.
Sec. 21.14 A unanimous-consent request to insert extraneous matter in
the Congressional Record should be propounded by the Member in
possession of the extraneous matter.
On November 7, 1991,(36) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. 137 Cong. Rec. 30633, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF LETTER IN MEMBER'S STATEMENT
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Gillespie (Sonny)] Montgomery [of
Mississippi]). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WALKER. Would it be an appropriate parliamentary inquiry to
ask unanimous consent that the letter the gentlewoman just referred
to be placed in the Record at this point?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform the gentleman
that that is really not a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I am asking whether or not it would be
appropriate in the procedures of the House at the moment for there
to be a unanimous-consent request that the letter to which the
gentlewoman just referred be put in the Record at this point?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is normally the prerogative of
the Member possessing the letter. Is the gentleman asking that the
letter be put in the Record?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the
letter be included in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
Mr. [William (Bill)] ALEXANDER [of Arkansas]. Mr. Speaker, I
object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman was not standing when he made the
objection.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. WALKER. It is not timely at the present time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. WALKER. It was not a timely objection, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair looked at the gentleman
sitting and nothing else had transpired. Then the Chair recognized
that the gentleman was standing and the Chair put the question
again.
Sec. 22. Deletion of Unparliamentary Remarks
The rules of decorum prohibit unparliamentary references to other
Members and unparliamentary remarks may be stricken from the
Congressional Record.(1) Members have no unilateral
authority to remove their remarks (unparliamentary or not) from the
Record, but must obtain the consent of the House to do so. Where a
Member removes language from the Record (by submitting an edited
version of the remarks to the Official Reporters of Debate), the Member
may ask unanimous consent to have the material re-
inserted.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For prior treatment of deleting or expunging unparliamentary
remarks from the Record, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. 17. For decorum issues generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 40-66 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch.
29.
2. See Sec. 22.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If one Member demands that another Member's words be ``taken down''
as unparliamentary, and the Chair rules that the remarks were out of
order, the words are stricken from the Congressional
Record.(3) Normally, the Chair initiates a unanimous-consent
request to have the unparliamentary remarks removed,(4) but
Members may also offer a motion to that effect.(5) Such
motion is not debatable.(6) Once the remarks are stricken,
the Member may not demand that they remain part of the
Record.(7) When the demand to have words ``taken down'' is
made, the Member whose remarks are at issue may also voluntarily
withdraw them by unanimous consent, and in such cases the remarks are
removed from the Record.(8) Similarly, a Member may ask
unanimous consent to modify words that have been objected to by another
Member, in which case only the words in their modified form appear in
the Record.(9) Requests to withdraw or modify words spoken
in debate may be objected to, and Members have done so in order to
obtain from the Chair a formal ruling on whether the words were out of
order.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Parliamentarian's Note: The process of taking a Member's words down
necessarily involves the Clerk reporting the remarks at issue
back to the House so that the Chair may rule as to whether or
not they are in order. In the depiction of the events in the
Congressional Record, the Clerk's reporting of the
unparliamentary language will typically remain, even in cases
where the words are ruled out of order and stricken from the
place where the Member originally spoke them. The same
situation obtains when a Member voluntarily withdraws remarks
after the Clerk has reported them back to the House. See
Sec. 22.8, infra.
4. For an instance where the Chair inadvertently failed to make the
usual unanimous-consent request to strike the unparliamentary
language, see Sec. 22.6, infra.
5. See Sec. Sec. 22.1, 22.13, infra.
6. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 617.
7. See Sec. 22.2, infra.
8. See Sec. 22.7, infra.
9. See Sec. 22.11, infra.
10. See Sec. 22.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Members use unparliamentary language in referencing the
Senate or members of that body, the Chair will call the Member to order
on his or her own initiative. The Chair may also, sua sponte, offer a
unanimous-consent request to have the unparliamentary remarks stricken
from the Congressional Record,(11) though this is rare in
modern practice. With respect to unparliamentary references to the
President or Vice President (or major-party candidates for those
offices), the Chair similarly initiates the call to order but awaits a
demand from the floor to have the offending remarks removed from the
Record.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 22.3, infra.
12. See Sec. 22.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same decorum standards that apply to Members' remarks on the
floor also apply to insertions of extraneous material into the
Congressional Record.(13) Unparliamentary language may not
be inserted into the Record, and the Official Reporters of Debate may
review proposed insertions and consult with Members to ensure
compliance with the rule.(14) The Joint Committee on
Printing has also refused to allow the printing of materials it deemed
profane or obscene.(15) If a Member does insert matter in
violation of the rules of decorum, such matter may not be removed
except by order of the House.(16) When the House orders that
specific materials be placed in the Record, this proscription does not
apply.(17) While it is not in order to reference guests in
the gallery during floor speeches, a Member may insert into the Record
the names of such individuals.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 22.1, 22.23, infra.
14. The Parliamentarian has also, on occasion, reviewed proposed
insertions and advised Members whether certain materials would
be unparliamentary. See Sec. 22.22, infra.
15. See Sec. 22.17, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. 17.23.
16. For examples of unanimous-consent requests to remove
unparliamentary materials from the Record, see Sec. Sec. 22.16,
22.18, and 22.19, infra.
17. See Sec. 22.20, infra.
18. See 140 Cong. Rec. 25760, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 26, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members must seek recognition from the Chair before beginning their
remarks, and Members' remarks made while not properly recognized are
not transcribed for the Congressional Record.(19) Members
who interject remarks while not under recognition are not entitled to
have such remarks printed in the Record. Interrupting Members may have
their names appear in the Record at the point of interruption, but the
interjected remarks are not carried.(20) When multiple
Members begin speaking simultaneously, the Chair may advise Members to
be more orderly in yielding and reclaiming time in order to allow the
stenographers to properly record the debate.(21) Members who
refuse to heed the gavel and continue to speak beyond their allotted
time are no longer properly recognized, and their remarks will not be
carried in the Record.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 22.24, infra. See also 131 Cong. Rec. 2220, 2229, 2231,
99th Cong. 1st Sess. (Feb. 7, 1985).
20. The Official Reporters of Debate may substitute ellipses or
asterisks in lieu of the interjected remarks. See, e.g.,
Sec. 22.25, infra. See also 147 Cong. Rec. 8305, 107th Cong.
1st Sess. (May 23, 2001) and 158 Cong. Rec. 12253, 112th Cong.
2d Sess. (July 25, 2012).
21. See Sec. 22.26, infra.
22. See 149 Cong. Rec. 13884, 108th Cong. 1st Sess. (June 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarks Spoken on the Floor
Sec. 22.1 When a Member's words are ruled unparliamentary by the Chair,
the Chair typically initiates a unanimous-consent request to strike
the offending matter from the Congressional Record, and if such a
request is objected to, a motion to the same effect is in order.
On August 21, 1974,(23) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 120 Cong. Rec. 29652-53, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Augustus (Gus)] HAWKINS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished majority leader (Mr. O'Neill).
(By unanimous consent Mr. O'Neill was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Mr. [Thomas] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I take
this time so I may direct my remarks to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bauman).
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by mutual consent of the leadership on
both sides of the aisle and by the members of the Judiciary
Committee, I offered to this House a resolution. At the completion
of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I asked that all Members may have 5
legislative days in which to extend their remarks and it was
objected to, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bauman). He gave a reason at that particular time.
I told him that I thought he should have cleared it with the
leadership on his own side of the aisle; but nevertheless, Mr.
Speaker, when all the Members had left last night, the gentleman
came to the well and asked unanimous consent of the then Speaker of
the House who was sitting there, if he may insert his remarks in
the Record, with unanimous consent, following the remarks where he
had objected.
So, Mr. Speaker, in today's Record on page 29362 you will find
the remarks of Mr. Bauman. You will not find the remarks of Mr.
McClory, one of the people who had asked me to do this. You will
not find the remarks of other members of the Judiciary Committee,
who were prepared at that time to put their remarks in the Record;
but you will find the remarks of Mr. Bauman and Mr. Bauman alone.
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I demand that
the gentleman's words be taken down.
The SPEAKER.(24) The gentleman demands that the
words be taken down. The Clerk will report the words objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman has
asked my remarks to be taken down, which is the custom of the
House.
I believe my remarks to be true. I know the gentleman is
correct in his asking the words be taken down. Consequently, I
would have to say that the Chair would have to rule my remarks out
of order.
I so await the ruling.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman ask unanimous
consent to withdraw his remarks?
The SPEAKER. The Chair did not understand that.
Mr. BAUMAN. Does he not have to request that, or does not the
Chair have to rule?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will rule when the Clerk reports the
words taken down.
Mr. BAUMAN. Then, I demand the regular order.
The SPEAKER. Regular order is underway.
The Clerk will report the words.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the words objected to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I take this time so I may direct my remarks to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
Yesterday, by mutual consent of the leadership on both sides of the aisle
and by the Members of the Judiciary Committee, I offered to this House a
resolution. At the completion of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I asked that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks
and it was objected to, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bauman). He gave a reason at that particular time.
I told him that I thought he should have cleared it with the leadership
on his own side of the aisle; but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, when all the
Members had left last night, the gentleman came to the well and asked
unanimous consent of the then Speaker of the House who was sitting there,
if he may insert his remarks in the Record, with unanimous consent,
following the remarks where he had objected. So, Mr. Speaker, in today's
Record on page 29362 you will find the remarks of Mr. Bauman. You will not
find the remarks of Mr. McClory, one of the people who had asked me to do
this. You will not find the remarks of other Members of the Judiciary
Committee, who were prepared at that time to put their remarks in the
record; but you will find the remarks of Mr. Bauman and Mr. Bauman alone.
I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a cheap, sneaky, sly
way to operate.
The SPEAKER. The words in the last sentence are not
parliamentary. Without objection, the offending words will be
stricken from the Record.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would
only like to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts and to the
House that as for the gentleman from Massachusetts, I can
understand his concern about my objection yesterday. It was the
only possible way in which I or any other Member could have
actually spoken on the resolution pending.
If he will look at the page numbers he cited, he will find
subsequent to that, that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine), the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Denis), and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Wiggins), all in my presence asked permission and
did extend their remarks. And, of course, the gentleman from
Massachusetts got 5 legislative days to extend on his special
order. I did not object to any of these requests.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that
point?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts cannot proceed at
this point.
Mr. BAUMAN. And, Mr. Speaker, a number of other Members did
extend their remarks, and I did not object.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection?
Mr. [Wayne] HAYS [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, and I think I will object, because I have some kind of a
feeling that when you are right and tell the truth around here,
there is no use of having the words stricken out. Nobody else got
to put anything in the Record, and the gentleman did object.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to demand the gentleman's
words be taken down, if you are speaking of my telling the truth in
the House.
Mr. HAYS. Maybe I will have your words taken down. If you call
me a liar, I will have them taken down.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for any further
discussion.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, I do object and ask the words be taken
down.
The SPEAKER. The regular order is going to be followed. The
Chair is going to conclude this matter and will insist that all
Members remain in order while this matter is being disposed of.
motion offered by mr. sisk
Mr. [Bernice] SISK [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. SISK moves that the words of the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
O'Neill, be stricken from the Record.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 22.2 When the Speaker has ruled that words used in debate are out
of order pursuant to a demand that the words be taken down, the
words are stricken from the Congressional Record with the consent
of the House and the Member using the words may not demand that the
words remain in the Record.
On July 24, 1979,(25) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 125 Cong. Rec. 20380, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. 363 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Peter] RODINO [of New Jersey]. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marks).
Mr. [Marc] MARKS [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, let it be
known that there are some few Republicans in this Chamber who do
appreciate that equal education opportunities for our black
children is vital to our Nation's well-being, and who also believe
that black children should not suffer the indignities suffered by
their parents.
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I demand the
gentleman's word be taken down.
The SPEAKER.(26) The Clerk will prepare the remarks
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marks) and the House will
hear them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Speaker, may I add that to use, as one of my colleagues used,
Lincoln's name to promote the amendment seems to me to be the height of
hypocrisy.
The SPEAKER. In the opinion of the Chair, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania made specific remarks concerning a specific Member of
the House and his quote. The Chair would refer to the use of the
word ``hypocrisy'' as decided by previous rulings in this House,
and the Chair refers to the ruling of Speaker Rayburn, October 25,
1945. The reference in debate was by Representative Cox of Georgia
to another Member:
I was reminded that pretexts are never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to
add malice to falsehood or cowardice to stab a foe who cannot defend
himself.
Those words were ruled unparliamentary when specifically
applied to another Member.
In the opinion of the Chair, the remarks of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania are unparliamentary and not in order.
Without objection, the gentleman's remarks will be stricken
from the record and the gentleman may proceed in order.
There was no objection.
Mr. MARKS. I do not care to do that. Thank you. I want the
remarks to be on the record. Thank you.
The SPEAKER. The House has stricken the remarks from the
record. Without objection.
Sec. 22.3 In response to a point of order, the Chair called to order a
Member for referring to proceedings in the Senate and ordered the
remarks stricken from the Congressional Record without objection.
On December 10, 1980,(27) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. 126 Cong. Rec. 33204, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR HOUSING AMENDMENTS OF 1980
(Mr. EDWARDS of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his
remarks).
Mr. [William (Don)] EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in a moment that will long be remembered with bitterness
by the minorities, women, and the handicapped of America, the
Congress sounded the death knell for the Fair Housing Amendments
Act of 1980. . . .
We must also fully recognize why the measure failed. Republican
leaders, intimidated by a small minority of their own party, aided
and abetted this abdication of responsibility. President-elect
Reagan himself, asked to reassure minorities that a Republican
administration will not turn its back on their needs, issued
meaningless platitudes instead of support for a bill that the House
of Representatives adopted by a 3-to-1 margin. . . .
. . . I urge the Republicans who opposed this bill to
reevaluate their position. It is in the interest of both parties
that the civil rights of all Americans be fully protected.
point of order
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order against the gentleman's remarks. They are not in keeping
with the rule that requires no mention of the other
body.(28)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Parliamentarian's Note: At the time of these proceedings, it was
not in order in the House to characterize proceedings of the
Senate. In the 109th Congress, the rule was changed to permit
such references, so long as the remarks did not engage in
personalities towards members of the Senate. See H. Res. 5, 151
Cong. Rec. 43, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Herbert] Roberts [of Texas]). The
gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) is referring to the
proceedings of the other body. He will please restrict them. They
are out of order and without objection, will be stricken from the
Record.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. I thank the Speaker.
I feel that this defeat is an ominous portent of things to
come. It is also a devastating blow to our best alternative to
busing.
Sec. 22.4 Where a Member has made an improper reference to the
President during debate, the Chair may request that Member to
revise his remarks for the Congressional Record.
On June 26, 1985,(29) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. 131 Cong. Rec. 17394-96, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION PROMISES SHOULD BE KEPT
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [James] TRAFICANT [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, last election,
Mr. Reagan said, ``A President should never say never, but I am
going to say it: I will never tamper with any portion of Social
Security.'' Those are the President's words.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it has become obvious that the President has
deceived America's senior citizens. The President has seen fit to
abandon the elderly, and deceive the American people. It is time
that he be held accountable for his actions and policies.
The Teflon coating is now wearing off, and what has been
revealed is a President that was swept into office on a volley of
empty rhetoric and broken promises. He made a contract with the
American people, and we cannot let him break it.
Senior citizens supported his candidacy on the strength of
misrepresentations. I commend Budget Committee Chairman Gray for
his unbending commitment to this Nation's elderly and for the fine
work he has done in fashioning a fair and humane budget, and I am
hoping that our side of the aisle will hold firm in that conference
with the Senate, and support the American senior citizens like this
President promised on election day. Election promises should be
kept in this country.
point of order
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(30) The gentleman will
state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Gillespie Montgomery (MS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WALKER. Is it not a violation of the rules of the House to
question the motives of the President and to refer to him as being
someone who lies?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. It is not
proper----
Mr. WALKER. So the previous speech was in violation of the
rules of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Let the Chair finish. It is not proper
to call the President a liar; the gentleman is correct.
Mr. WALKER. And so therefore the previous speech was in
violation of the rules of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will let the Chair
comment, the Chair will ask the last 1-minute speaker to revise his
remarks, and take those comments out of the Record.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair. . . .
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member, perhaps I need
some clarification. But if someone can come forward and say that
the President on election time did not make the following
statement, that ``A President should never say never, but I am
going to say It, and I will never tamper with Social Security,''
then I will stand corrected.
But I object to having my words stricken from the Record of the
House on the strength----
point of order
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Under what
permission is the gentleman speaking? The gentleman did not ask a
parliamentary inquiry. Under what permission is the gentleman
speaking?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I did ask for a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize the gentleman
from Ohio if he makes a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WALKER. He did not use the words ``parliamentary inquiry.''
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the statement that I had made in my
1-minute speech was that the President of the country, on election
time, said, ``A President should never say never, but I'll say
never, and I'll never tamper with Social Security.''
I object to the fact that my words were stricken.
Mr. [Daniel] LUNGREN [of California]. Mr. Speaker, this is not
a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will read from Cannon's
Procedure, referencing debate in the House of Representatives:
In referring to the President, a Member shall abstain from language
personally offensive to the President.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, if the language is true, Mr.
Speaker, which it is--and I will stand corrected--I object to
having my words stricken from the Record.
Mr. LUNGREN. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman stated his parliamentary
inquiry. The Chair has ruled.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I accept the ruling.
Sec. 22.5 Where a Member has made an improper reference to the
President during debate, another Member may request unanimous
consent that such remarks be stricken from the Congressional
Record.
On August 1, 2014,(31) a unanimous-consent request
regarding the Record was made (and objected to) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. 160 Cong. Rec. 14016-17, 14023-24, 113th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] GOODLATTE [of Virginia]. Mr. Speaker, at this
time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
Mrs. [Michele] BACHMANN [of Minnesota]. Mr. Speaker, I thank
Mr. Goodlatte and Mrs. Blackburn who is responsible for this
wonderful bill this evening, which I wholeheartedly support. This
is why: last weekend, I think the Nation was stunned when our
President said that he would unilaterally use his power--raw
power--to effectively grant amnesty to 5 to 6 million foreign
nationals here in the United States illegally.
He said that he would do that with his power, and what happened
this week is that this body came together and we decided to answer
the President's unconstitutional call.
So with this DACA bill, effectively, we will put forward the
strongest possible legislative response that this body could put
forward. We say in this bill that the President has no power, no
authority administratively to grant permits which would effectively
grant amnesty to 5 to 6 million foreign nationals illegally in the
United States.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we will put a handcuff on one of
the President's hands.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(32) The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Steve Womack (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an
additional 1 minute.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Now, in the United States Senate, the majority
leader, Harry Reid, has left town. He has left town. Not only did
he fail to complete an immigration bill, but he knows full well
that President Obama may illegally grant amnesty to 5 to 6 million
foreign nationals illegally in the United States without doing
anything.
What Harry Reid has the opportunity to do is to come back and
join us. We will be here any time, any day, anywhere, anyhow. We
will join him here in August, September, whenever, and he needs to
put the other handcuff on this lawless President's hands, so we
constrain this President from granting amnesty.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the American people want us to do. We
do that tonight with this bill. We invite Harry Reid to bring the
Senate back and put the handcuff on the President's other hand, so
that we can have sovereignty again on our southern border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President. . . .
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST TO DELETE REMARKS IN DEBATE
Mr. [David] CICILLINE [of Rhode Island]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to strike from the Congressional Record the words
of the gentlewoman from Minnesota who described placing a handcuff
on one hand of the President's----
Mr. [Edward] ROYCE [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I object as
the request is not timely.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
Excuse me. May I finish my unanimous consent request? Thank
you.
She in one moment described putting one handcuff on one hand of
the President's and a second handcuff on the second hand of the
President's and handcuffing the lawless President of the United
States.
Those are words which are not appropriate in the Congressional
Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be stricken. Impugning
the character and integrity of the President of the United States
is a clear violation of the rules of this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Rhode Island?
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I do object. The request is not timely.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. CICILLINE. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will yield for a moment.
There is no requirement that a unanimous consent request be
timely. The House can consent unanimously to any course of action.
I am asking the House to consent unanimously to striking these
particular words from the Congressional Record. There is no
requirement under the House rules that it be done
contemporaneously, that is, of taking down the words of today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has stated a unanimous
consent request, and there has been an objection.
Mr. CICILLINE. And I have heard no objection.
Mr. ROYCE. There is an objection to the unanimous consent
request, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is an objection.
Sec. 22.6 Where remarks in debate ruled out of order as unparliamentary
on the previous day had inadvertently been permitted to remain in
the Congressional Record, the Speaker by unanimous consent ordered
those remarks stricken from the permanent Record when the House
convened the following day.
On May 10, 1990,(33) the following announcement was
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. 136 Cong. Rec. 9992, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. For the proceedings of
the prior day, see 136 Cong. Rec. 9828-30, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
(May 9, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER.(34) The Chair wishes to make an
announcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has examined the Record of yesterday with respect to
the proceedings wherein the words of the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Torricelli] were ruled out of order and wherein on motion Mr.
Torricelli was thereafter permitted by the House to proceed in
order. It is customary under such circumstances consistent with
clause 4, rule XIV for words which are ruled unparliamentary to be
stricken from the Record by order of the House.
Without objection, the objectionable words will be stricken
from the Record.
There was no objection.
Sec. 22.7 By unanimous consent the House may permit a Member to
withdraw words spoken in debate pending a demand that they be taken
down as unparliamentary (in which case the words are not
transcribed for the Congressional Record).
On September 25, 1991,(35) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. 137 Cong. Rec. 24029-30, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ronald] COLEMAN of Texas. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I think for the gentleman from Georgia to come out here and
promise a check, promise a check to people that are unemployed, is
the height of hypocrisy. The Republican President of the United
States----
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I demand
the gentleman's words be taken down, Mr. Speaker, I demand the
gentleman's words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. [John] Lewis of Georgia). The
gentleman will suspend. The clerk will report the words objected
to.
Mr. [James] TRAFICANT [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, regular order,
regular order.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, this is the regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will await the words of the
Clerk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
Mr. COLEMAN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that in fact
it was not my intention to suggest that the gentleman from
Georgia's promise was the height of hypocrisy, but that in fact the
problem is that the Republican position has been consistently to
not permit that the declaration of an emergency on behalf--excuse
me, I am explaining it----
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, this is not regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not recognized for an
explanation.
Mr. COLEMAN of Texas. I will be more than happy to withdraw the
words, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The words are withdrawn.
Sec. 22.8 By unanimous consent (and by initiative of the Chair) the
House may permit a Member to withdraw words allegedly spoken in
debate although not yet ruled upon by the Chair following a demand
that words be taken down.
On June 9, 1992,(36) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. 138 Cong. Rec. 13902, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENT DENIES BITTER REALITY OF UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS
(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Peter] DeFAZIO [of Oregon]. Mr. Speaker, twice last year
the President vetoed legislation that would have extended
unemployment benefits. On the third try, after months of denial, he
finally signed a bill that would extend unemployment benefits. Then
he had the unmitigated gall to take full credit for extending a
helping hand to those in need, but he did not take credit for the
thousands who had suffered needlessly during those months, the
thousands who lost their dignity, or even their homes, while he
denied the bitter reality of unemployed Americans.
Now it is an election year and millions of unemployed are
raining on the President's parade. Once again he has threatened to
deny the reality of unemployment and veto unemployment benefit
extensions for his own petty personal political gain. Last week the
Department of Labor reported a record 1-month increase.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I demand
that the gentleman's words be taken down.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I did not use the President's name. I do not think
there is any problem.
Mr. WALKER. I demand the gentleman's words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Kweisi] Mfume [of Maryland]).
The gentleman will suspend.
The Clerk will report the words that were taken down.
The Clerk read as follows:
Once again he has threatened to deny the reality of unemployment and veto
the unemployment benefit extension for his own petty political gain.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has referred to Webster's
Dictionary. The primary definition is: ``small, minor, having
secondary rank or importance: having little or no importance or
significance: marked by or reflective of narrow interests and
sympathies.''
The Chair rules that in the opinion of the Chair that does not
transgress the rules of the
House. -------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, what do we do to have the proper words
reported, because the gentleman said, ``his own petty personal
political gains,'' which describes motivation, and that is the
reason for the objection. That was not reported by the Clerk, and
it would have been out of order. So therefore, we are dealing with
two things. First of all, I think the Chair is arguing the wrong
point, because the question is here ascribing motivations, and the
Chair did not even speak to that particular point.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, could I speak to this?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair, in response to the
gentleman's inquiry, reported the words that were handed to the
Chair as recorded. The Chair believes, however, the gentleman from
Oregon, for the sake of debate, will find it in order to withdraw
the word ``personal'' if, in fact, it was uttered.
Mr. DeFAZIO. If the Chair would allow.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oregon make
that request?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, in the interest of
comity with my good friend from the State of Pennsylvania, if he
heard the word ``personal,'' I certainly did not mean to imply
something that would denigrate the President, other than the use of
the word as defined, ``petty,'' regarding the intentions here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws the word,
without objection.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon may proceed
in order.
Sec. 22.9 Where the Congressional Record improperly carries the revised
remarks of a Member not recognized nor yielded to, the remarks may
be deleted from the permanent Record by unanimous consent.
On April 19, 1993,(37) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. 139 Cong. Rec. H1896-97, [Daily Ed.], 103d Cong. 1st Sess. For the
original proceedings at issue here, see 139 Cong. Rec. 6279-80,
103d Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 24, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORRECTION OF THE RECORD
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, on March 24,
1993, during consideration of House Resolution 138, the family
planning rule, out of frustration, I uttered some intemperate
remarks, for which I subsequently apologized in private to the
majority manager of the rule.
After consulting with the Parliamentarian as to proper
procedure, I revised my remarks and presented them to the rule's
manager for review.
Mr. Speaker, I have recently been informed by the
Parliamentarian's office, after their further review of the matter,
that I had not been properly recognized or yielded to at the time I
made my remarks, and therefore, the remarks should not have
appeared in the Record in either altered or unaltered form.
Mr. Speaker, I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the
permanent Record be corrected to remove all remarks attributed to
me which appear in the first column on page H1561 of the March 24
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Gillespie (Sonny)] Montgomery [of
Mississippi]). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
Mr. [Jonas] FROST [of Texas]. Reserving the right to object,
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object, but I would point out to
those watching and remind the gentleman from New York, my friend on
the Rules Committee, that this was a most unfortunate incident and
that the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], who was
managing the rule, was deeply disturbed by the exchange on the
floor. And I think it is appropriate for the gentleman to take this
action.
But again, the gentlewoman from New York was very disturbed by
what did occur on that day.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think
he knows what brought it about, and hopefully with some
conversations that we have had with the Democrat leadership we are
going to be able to iron out these problems so that we do not have
these kinds of frustrations taking place on the floor of the House,
which I think should not have happened, and I thank the gentleman
for his remarks.
Mr. FROST. I would only point out to the gentleman, if members
of the majority are frustrated, there are other ways to express
that frustration, and that the exchange that occurred on the floor
was not appropriate. And I think it is appropriate now for the
gentleman to make this statement.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Sec. 22.10 Where words are taken down and ruled out of order by the
Chair, the Chair may, sua sponte, propound a unanimous-consent
request to strike the words from the Congressional Record.
On January 25, 1995,(38) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. 141 Cong. Rec. 2351-53, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
(Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Robert] DORNAN [of California]. Mr. Speaker, my good
friend, John Lewis, the only two in either Chamber that were there
the day Martin Luther King gave his stirring speech, I hate to
disagree with him on anything, but I was offended by Clinton's
speech last night on 15 points.
I will do a 5-minute special order tonight I have just signed
up for. I can only mention four.
The first one is new covenant. The Ark of the Covenant was the
Old Covenant. The New Covenant was the Son of God, Jesus Christ. I
was offended when he used that term in New York at the Democratic
Convention. He repeated it over and over and over again last night.
No. 2, to put a Medal of Honor winner in the gallery that
joined the Marine Corps at 16, fudging his birth certificate, that
pulled that second grenade under his stomach, miraculously
surviving and saving his four friends, he did that 6 days past his
17th birthday.
Does Clinton think putting a Medal of Honor winner up there is
not going to recall for most of us that he avoided the draft three
times and put teenagers in his place possibly to go to Vietnam?
No. 3, the line on the cold war, . . .
By the way, Mr. Speaker, the second amendment is not for
killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louis without
an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like Grozny,
1776, when they take your independence away.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. [Victor] FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I move the
gentleman's words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Duncan [of Tennessee]). For
what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Mr. FAZIO of California. You cannot just do that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members will suspend. The Clerk
will report the words spoken by the gentleman.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, a number of Members were not on the
floor, including myself, when the gentleman uttered his words. Is
it possible to have those words read back so that we can all hear
it?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman is correct.
The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows:
Even Andrea Mitchell of NBC took note that is Ronald Reagan's
prerogative, George Bush's and all of us who wore the uniform or served in
a civilian capacity to crush the evil empire. Clinton gave aid and comfort
to the enemy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). In the opinion of the
Chair, that is not a proper reference to the President. Without
objection, the words are stricken from the Record.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the words are
stricken from the Record.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] owes the
entire institution, the Congress, and the President an apology.
Mr. DORNAN. Hell no; hell, no.
Mr. FAZIO of California. We have a Commander in Chief. We have
to have a certain decorum here and respect for the body, if not for
the individual. We have a respect for the person who is our
Commander in Chief.
I would like to know that the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dornan] not only understands that but will apologize to his
colleagues and to the President for his behavior.
Mr. DORNAN. Unanimous consent to proceed for 15 seconds?
Mr. [John] LINDER [of Georgia]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] has the floor at this moment.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I would be happy to yield to my
colleague from California, since I have the time, to hear his
response.
Mr. DORNAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DORNAN. To my distinguished friend and colleague, Maj. Earl
Kolbile, Lt. Comdr. J.J. Connell was beaten to death in Hanoi. I
have had friends beaten to death in Hanoi, tortured and beaten. You
have not.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I have asked the gentleman----
Mr. DORNAN. I will not withdraw my remarks. I will not only not
apologize, . . .
I will accept the discipline of the House.
Mr. [Harold] VOLKMER [of Missouri]. I ask that the words of the
gentleman from California be taken down.
Mr. DORNAN. Good, I will leave the floor, no apology, and I
will not speak the rest of the day. The truth is the truth.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. The
gentleman's words have already been taken down----
Mr. VOLKMER. Those words, those words.
Mr. FAZIO of California. The gentleman is challenging the words
that were uttered in response to my question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair rules that those words as
follows ``I believe the President did give aid and comfort to the
enemy, Hanoi,'' were also out of order. The Chair has ruled that,
based on the precedents of the House, the words of the gentleman
from California were out of order, and without objection, both sets
of words will be stricken from the Record.
Mr. [David] BONIOR [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, and I will not object unless I do not get a
satisfactory answer to my concerns, my concerns were with, frankly,
more than just the words that were read. I was particularly
concerned with the last sentence or two of the gentleman from
California's statement, and I would like those words as well to be
read to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has just ruled that those
words were the same words essentially as those earlier taken down
and previously ruled out of order.
The Chair has ruled that those words were also out of order.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I think
the Chair misinterprets my comments, and perhaps I was not clear.
The words I am referring to were the original 1-minute statement by
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], and I am particularly
concerned with the last two lines of it, and I would like them read
back to the House.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BONIOR. The Speaker in previous days has asked that the
gentleman in question, upon words being taken down, be seated.
Would that not be a proper request to be made at this point?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct. The gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan] should be seated at this point.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dornan] did say that he understood the rules of the House, that he
had been censured under the rules of the House for what he said,
and he will not speak for the next 24 hours on the floor of the
House, and it strikes me that we are operating under the rules.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I think the request made by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is still a valid and much-
needed request and, in addition to that, I would certainly like to
hear the last two lines of the gentleman's original statement.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I have a parliamentary inquiry of the
Speaker at this point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. FAZIO of California. When the Speaker rules that the
gentleman should not be allowed to speak for 24 hours, does that
encompass remarks that might be placed in the Record, participation
in special orders, and other activities that might not involve the
gentleman speaking on the floor?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the House's determination as to
whether or not the Member should be allowed to proceed in order for
the remainder of the day. That determination shall not be made by
the Chair.
Mr. FAZIO of California. In other words, is the House required
to vote on whether or not remarks should be placed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unparliamentary remarks cannot be
inserted in the Record.
Mr. FAZIO of California. But remarks that are not ruled
unparliamentary may be placed in the Record if they are not uttered
on the floor; is that the ruling of the Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unparliamentary remarks should not be
inserted in the Record in any manner or form.
Mr. FAZIO of California. They should not be inserted at any
time, but there is a particular provision that we are dealing with
here which removes the Member from the ability to communicate with
his colleagues here.
Is that communication written as well as oral?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the Record the gentleman is
correct.
Mr. FAZIO of California. So in other words, just to confirm the
Speaker's ruling, we will not read or hear from the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan] for the next 24 hours; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unless the House permits him to
proceed in order, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. FAZIO of California. And for the House to permit that would
require a majority vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It would require either unanimous
consent or a majority vote of the House to permit the gentleman to
proceed in order.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I appreciate the Speaker clarifying
the situation.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dornan] is on his feet. Is he not supposed to remain seated until
the determination?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman can either be seated or
leave the Chamber.
Mr. BONIOR. He chose to leave the Chamber; OK.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is it the Chair's understanding that
the final words in the original 1-minute are included in the
gentleman's request?
Mr. BONIOR. The Speaker is correct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is attempting to have them
transcribed at this moment.
The Clerk will report the words in the original 1-minute.
The Clerk read as follows:
By the way, Mr. Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for killing little
ducks and leaving Huey, Duey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It is for
hunting politicians, like Grozny, 1776, when they take your independence
away. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair sees nothing unparliamentary
about those words.
Without objection, the words already ruled out of order will be
stricken from the Record.
There was no objection.
Sec. 22.11 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole may permit
a Member to modify or withdraw words spoken in debate pending a
demand that they be taken down as unparliamentary, and where
challenged words are modified before being reported by the Reading
Clerk, they are shown in the Congressional Record only in their
modified form.
On August 4, 1995,(39) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. 141 Cong. Rec. 22031-32, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] DINGELL [of Michigan]. Mr. Chairman, I want to
reiterate to my colleagues the process under which we are
considering this legislation is no different than we have ever done
wherever we have had differences between two committees, and the
process of working out an amendment between those who supported the
bill is an entirely sensible one. Had the gentleman from Texas
desired to be a participant in that, he could have, * * * and the
result of that is that he did not participate.
Mr. [John] BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the
gentleman's words be taken down.
The CHAIRMAN.(40) The gentleman from Michigan will
suspend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. James Kolbe (AZ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to withdraw his
reference?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the words referred to.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, I do not intend to go along with this unanimous-consent
request unless there is an apology and an explanation that what he
said was inaccurate, totally inaccurate, because I have had
absolutely no involvement with the chairman with regard to the
development of this amendment whatsoever, and so what he said was
inaccurate.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will acknowledge it was
inaccurate, at that time I will be happy to go along with his
unanimous-consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] yield
under his reservation of objection to the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Dingell]?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Dingell].
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure what the Chair
is telling me.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves the right to
object, and under his reservation he has said that he would insist
on having the gentleman's words taken down.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, if I said anything which offends the
gentleman, I apologize.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Further reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, I will not go along with the unanimous-consent request
after the words that were spoken were so evasive as that. The fact
of the matter is the gentleman made a factual allegation with
regard to my role in this bill which was totally inaccurate. I want
him to apologize, and I want him to state that it was not correct
what he said because he knows it was not correct. Otherwise I would
insist that the gentleman's words be taken down.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] insists
that the words of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] be
taken down.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the word ``sulk.''
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that word is withdrawn.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Further reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, I have made it very clear that the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] made an allegation about me that was
incorrect, and I want him to state that it was not correct, and he
knows it was not correct, and then I want him to apologize for it.
Otherwise there is not going to be any withdrawal of my objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] continues
to reserve the right to object.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I would just point out once again I have
had no dealings with the gentleman on this matter. He has no basis
on which to make that statement whatsoever, nor have I had any
dealings in any fashion interpretable in the way that the gentleman
spoke to the other side, and, if he is going to persist in that
allegation, then I am going to insist that his words be taken down.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan care to respond?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am not quiet sure to what I am
supposed to respond.
The CHAIRMAN. A unanimous-consent request has been made to
withdraw the words. The gentleman from Texas has reserved the right
to object to that unanimous-consent request stating, as he has
stated, that he desires an apology and an understanding that it was
factually incorrect.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have asked unanimous consent to
withdraw the words. I have said that if I have said something to
which the gentleman is offended, then I apologize. I am not quite
sure how much further I can go in this matter.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, I will tell the gentleman how much further he can go in
this matter.
Mr. Chairman, I have had no visits with the gentleman about
this manager's amendment except to express my general opposition to
the whole process. The gentleman stated that I behaved in a
particular way when in fact I have had no opportunity to behave
either this way or any other way with the gentleman, and, if what
the gentleman said is simply an outburst of temper, I think, I have
been guilty of the same thing, and I want the gentleman to make it
plain to the House that there has been no opportunity for there to
have been any type of behavior whatsoever.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to make the
observation that the gentleman chose not to be a participant in
moving the bill forward. If I said that he has sulked, that was in
error. I apologize to the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the words are withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
Sec. 22.12 By unanimous consent, the House may permit a Member to
withdraw words spoken in debate pending a demand that they be taken
down as unparliamentary.
On March 13, 1997,(41) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. 143 Cong. Rec. 3834-35, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles] SCARBOROUGH [of Florida]. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and I certainly hope I have
the same timekeeper on my two minutes as the previous speaker had
on his one.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the previous speaker
that the question that was asked was what happened while the
Democrats had control in 1993 and 1994 and when they had control in
the White House in 1993 and 1994.
The previous speaker almost moved me to tears in his very self-
righteous indignation, and then blamed George Bush for killing it.
I may be a dumb country lawyer, I may have graduated from the
University of Alabama, but my recollection was that George Bush was
not President in 1993 or in 1994, that that was in fact William
Jefferson Clinton.
I see some people shaking their heads, so maybe, maybe I am
incorrect in this. But they can be self-righteous all they want.
They had control over this Chamber over the two-year period in 1993
and 1994, they had the President of the United States, and they did
not want to do anything on campaign finance reform.
Now they come to this well in self-righteous indignation trying
to distract people. . . . And if they want to be self-righteous, if
they want to get on the well of the floor and debate this, we will
gladly do it for as long as you want to do it, because you do not
have the moral high ground. And when you had a chance to change
things, you did not do it, and you cannot rewrite history, as much
as you would like to try.
So beat your chest in self-righteous indignation, but pray for
the children tonight, pray for America and whatever you want to do,
but the fact of the matter is, that you are being hypocrites.
Mr. [Willie (Bill)] HEFNER [of North Carolina]. Mr. Speaker, I
ask that the gentleman's words be taken down when he said that the
White House had sold influence to Communist China and other things.
There is no proof of that, and that is absolutely ridiculous, to
come into this body and accuse the President of the United States
of selling influence to a Communist nation.
I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(42) The gentleman from
Florida will suspend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words objected to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Scarborough] seek recognition?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my words about
specifically mentioning the President . . . since while Newsweek
has written an article about that those have not been proven yet,
so I will specifically withdraw the statement regarding the
President . . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for making the
correction, and that saves us a trip back to Hershey.
Sec. 22.13 Where words spoken in debate are taken down and ruled out of
order, the Chair customarily initiates a unanimous-consent request
that the words be stricken from the Congressional Record, but any
Member (including the Chair) may offer a motion to the same
effect.(43)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. Parliamentarian's Note: While the motion to strike the words from
the Record was agreed to by the House, the daily Record
inadvertently retained the offending remarks. For a notice in a
subsequent Record noting the discrepancy, see 143 Cong. Rec.
5943, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 21, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 1997,(44) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. 143 Cong. Rec. 5831-32, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPEAKER'S COMPENSATION FOR COST OF ETHICS INVESTIGATION
(Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [John] LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see
my Republican colleagues on the floor today congratulating Speaker
Newt Gingrich for doing something he should have done months ago,
paying $300,000 for lying to Congress.
Speaker Gingrich admitted to bringing discredit on the House of
Representatives. He has admitted to lying to this House.
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I ask the
gentleman's words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [James] Kolbe [of New York]). The
gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from Georgia will be seated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The Clerk will report the
words.
The Clerk read as follows:
I am surprised to see my Republican colleagues on the floor today
congratulating Speaker Newt Gingrich for doing something he should have
done months ago, paying $300,000 for lying to Congress. Speaker Gingrich
admitted to bringing discredit on the House of Representatives. He has
admitted to lying to this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The words of the gentleman from Georgia constitute a
personality against the Speaker. Under the precedents, the debate
should not go to the official conduct of a Member where that
question is not pending as a question of privilege on the House
floor. The fact that the House has addressed a Member's conduct at
a prior time does not permit this debate at this time. Therefore,
the gentleman's words are out of order.
Without objection, the gentleman's words will be stricken from
the Record.
Mr. [Lloyd] DOGGETT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The question before the House is: Shall the gentleman's words
be stricken from the Record?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
227, noes 190, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 82] . . .
So the motion to strike the words was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 22.14 The House by unanimous consent permitted a Member to re-
insert in the Congressional Record remarks actually spoken in
debate that he had previously improperly redacted from the
transcript that was given to him for revision.
On July 27, 2000,(45) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. 146 Cong. Rec. 16606-607, 106th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION TO INSERT OMITTED REMARKS ON H.R. 4942, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. [James] MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I understand that
in my remarks yesterday, some of those remarks were inadvertently
left out of the Journal. I ask unanimous consent to insert those
remarks in their entirety.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(46) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. Edward Pease (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The text of the remarks as originally delivered is as follows:
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, perhaps some people take
umbrage at the passion of the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton), but I would expect that any of us if facing
the same level of frustration and unfairness would not react in the
same passionate manner. . . .
Let me also say something, and I can only say this, I certainly
would never say this if my own life were different, but having been
educated in Catholic schools all my life, if I were a gay man, I
would feel the same sense of frustration and disappointment that
Councilman Jim Graham expressed on the D.C. council.
That disappointment and the intolerance and, yes, the hypocrisy
of the Catholic church as an institution towards homosexuality
ought to be addressed. So I do not blame them for saying that. I
know he wishes he had not said that, but these are debates that
belonged in the D.C. council. These are debates and issues that
should be settled, should be settled by the D.C. government.
The Catholic institutions within the D.C. government have
plenty of access. They are well respected, deservedly so. They
contribute tremendous benefits to D.C. government and its society.
They will be fully reflected in the legislation that becomes law,
and that is the way it ought to be. We have no business getting
involved in this issue, particularly when we have no legitimate
role to play.
Sec. 22.15 Pending a demand that a Member's words be taken down,
unanimous-consent requests to withdraw or modify words spoken in
debate may be objected to in order to obtain from the Chair a
formal ruling on whether the words were out of order.
On June 13, 2002,(47) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. 148 Cong. Rec. 10232, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] THOMAS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, golly, if any Members listened to the first hour,
they would think our friends on the other side of the aisle were in
opposition to what we wanted to do. That it was a sham, a farce.
And then, lo and behold, their substitute takes the majority's
bill. Now at this point I am running through my knowledge of quotes
that might perhaps put this in perspective, and the only one that
comes to mind is the Yogi Berra quote, ``When you come to a fork in
the road, take it.''
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is an hour of debate about how
horrible this side of the aisle and those who really do want to
eliminate the marriage tax penalty on the other side of the aisle
are in trying to offer permanent repeal.
If I understand what the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui)
is offering is permanent repeal. He is offering the underlying
bill. So if the gentleman from California did not understand the
context in which I referred to his argument about the fact that the
gentleman from Connecticut was not allowed to appear in front of
the full committee, in which I said there had been 17 full
committee hearings, and only one had Members in front of it, is
baloney. I said it was the * * * baloney; and if the gentleman does
not understand the use of that phrase, let me explain it.
Apparently the argument that the Democrats have been making for the
last hour is baloney.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert] MATSUI [of California]. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary
inquiry. I demand that the words of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) be taken down. I think the gentleman has used a
Member's name in a way that is diminishing to the Member, and is
putting the colleague up to contempt and ridicule. If I may have a
ruling, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(48) Does the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui) in his parliamentary inquiry demand that
the gentleman's words be taken down?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MATSUI. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will suspend. The Clerk will
transcribe and report the words.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, rather than delay the process, since a
number of Members really want to go home and rather than trying to
get the Parliamentarians to attempt to divine sentence structure,
the gentleman from California would ask unanimous consent to remove
the statement and put in its place that the argument from the
gentleman from California about the way in which the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) was treated is phony baloney.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state
it.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a ruling from the
Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Is there objection to the gentleman's unanimous-consent
request?
Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker. I would like a ruling from
the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the words so that we can go forward.
Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker. I would like a ruling from
the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to transcribe the words.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in a further attempt to expedite the
process, the gentleman from California asks unanimous consent to
strike the words.
Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in a further attempt to expedite the
process in which the gentleman from California's comments about the
committee's failure to allow a Member to offer testimony at full
committee when that is the extreme exception to the rule rather
than the general rule and the argument that we denied it because of
the gentleman, that that argument that the gentleman was making was
in fact not accurate or factual, which is in a colloquial way
sometimes referred to as baloney, the gentleman from California is
willing to strike that structure which has been presented if it
offends the gentleman because I want to move on with the debate.
The gentleman's argument, notwithstanding that, is still phony; but
if he is so upset with that reference that we continue to delay the
proceedings of the floor, the gentleman from California would ask
unanimous consent that that be struck.
Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read the gentleman's words.
The Clerk read as follows:
So if the gentleman from California did not understand the context in
which I referred to his argument about the fact that the gentleman from
Connecticut was not allowed to appear in front of the full committee, in
which I said there had been 17 full committee hearings, and only one had
members in front of it, is baloney. I said it was the ``Maloney Baloney''
and if the gentleman does not understand the use of that phrase let me
explain it. Apparently the argument that the Democrats have been making for
the last hour is baloney.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is aware that the gentleman
from California was using the word ``baloney'' to characterize only
the rationale offered by his opposition, but the Chair nevertheless
finds that the use of another Member's surname as though an
adjective for a word of ridicule is not in order.
Without objection, the offending word is stricken.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) may proceed in order.
There was no objection.
Unparliamentary Insertions or Extensions
Sec. 22.16 Where a Member had on a previous day made an unchallenged
reference in debate and in a Congressional Record insertion to the
actions of a named Senator,(49) the Speaker, in response
to a parliamentary inquiry, indicated that those remarks were in
violation of the rule of comity between the two Houses and by
unanimous consent the remarks were stricken from the permanent
Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. Parliamentarian's Note: At the time of these proceedings, it was
not in order in the House to characterize proceedings of the
Senate. In the 109th Congress, the rule was changed to permit
such references, so long as the remarks did not engage in
personalities towards members of the Senate. See H. Res. 5, 151
Cong. Rec. 43, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 7, 1975,(50) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. 121 Cong. Rec. 32055-56, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and
Manual Sec. 961 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY CONCERNING ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE
RULES OF THE HOUSE AND THE RULES OF COMITY
(Mr. CLEVELAND asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [James] CLEVELAND [of New Hampshire]. Mr. Speaker, I have
asked for this time for the purpose of addressing the Chair so that
I may make an inquiry, which will be in the nature of a
parliamentary inquiry, of the Chair, in regard to the following
matter:
On last April 17, at page 10458 of the Record, I was commenting
on the manner in which the Senate was handling aspects of the New
Hampshire Senate election, remarks were critical of the Senate and
the Speaker at that time called me to order, and, quoting from the
Speaker's remarks, the Speaker asked me to desist and stated that
my remarks were in violation of the rules of the House and the
rules of comity.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring this to the
attention of the Chair: I noticed on October 1 that at pages 31104-
31105 of the Record the gentleman from New York (Mr. Koch)
addressed the House under the 1-minute rule and had been extremely
critical of the junior Senator from New York (Mr. Buckley).
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the remarks of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Koch), like those of mine earlier in
the year, are in violation of the rules of the House and the rules
of comity.
The SPEAKER.(51) Does the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Koch) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward] KOCH [of New York]. I do, Mr. Speaker.
First, I will not object at this time to the use by the
gentleman in the well of the name of a Member of the other House.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Just a second. I not only used the name of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Koch), but I told him I was going to
be here today and for what purpose.
Mr. KOCH. No, no. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Cleveland) misunderstood me. My reference was to the other Chamber.
The gentleman referred to a Member of the other Chamber by name,
something we may not do.
Mr. CLEVELAND. No; I thought I just said ``the junior
Senator.''
Mr. KOCH. I believe the gentleman from New Hampshire mentioned
his name. I thought I heard it distinctly.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I examined the precedents of the
House, and I know the gentleman is familiar with Jefferson's
Manual, a book that I revere, and, indeed, there are only two
others that I have a higher regard for. One is the Bible, and the
other is Cannon's Precedents.
In Cannon's Precedents, Mr. Speaker, there is a statement that
it is not in order in debate to criticize Members of the other
body, but such rule does not apply to criticisms of statements made
by Members of the other body outside the Chamber.
In my remarks to which the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Cleveland) refers, I did discuss the remarks of a Member of the
other body, the younger brother of a noted columnist.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I might say that that is being
pretty critical right there.
Mr. KOCH. That he is the younger brother of a noted columnist?
In any event, as a result of those remarks, this noted
columnist, for whom I have high regard and personal affection--I
know him quite well and, thank God, he is not a Member of the other
body, so I can even mention his name, Bill Buckley--he took
exception to my remarks in his column.
In examining the precedents, I have come to the conclusion that
I ought not to have mentioned the exact name of that Member of the
other body. Therefore, with the Chair's permission, I would consent
to a withdrawal of that unutterable name and have substituted in
each and every case where that name was mentioned a reference to
the fact that I was referring to the younger brother of a noted
columnist.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair will state that not only was this matter brought to
his attention today, but the Chair noted the remarks of the
gentleman from New York when they appeared in the Record of October
1, 1975, and anticipated that this question might arise.
The Chair has, accordingly, checked the precedents. The
precedents of the House indicate that it is not in order for a
Member of this body to refer to the actions or remarks of a Member
of the other body occurring either within the other body or
elsewhere--Speaker Rayburn, May 5, 1941. The motives of the Member
making the remarks are not relevant to a determination of whether
they are or are not in order, as even complimentary remarks have
been held to violate the rule of comity between the two Houses--
Volume VIII, 2509.
Speaker Rayburn succinctly stated the reason for the rule in
1941, subsequent to the citation given by the gentleman from New
York, observing that--
If there is a thing in the world that is important, it is that there be
comity and good feeling between the two legislative bodies.
To allow references in one body to the actions of Members of
the other, he continued:
In all probability would lead to a situation which might make ordered
legislative procedure impossible. (May 5, 1941, Record, pp. 3566-3567.)
The present and all previous occupants of this Chair have
attempted to preserve the comity between the two Houses.
The Chair notes that the remarks in question were in part
delivered from the floor of the House and in part inserted for
printing in the Record. Had the Chair been aware of the content of
the remarks when uttered or been informed of the contents of the
matter to be inserted, he would have enforced the rule of comity at
that time.
The rule of comity has clearly been violated and, without
objection, the remarks of the gentleman from New York will be
stricken from the Record.
There was no objection.
Sec. 22.17 Where a Member attempted to insert into the Congressional
Record extraneous materials deemed by the Joint Committee on
Printing to be ``obscene,'' the materials were not printed, and a
note by the Joint Committee on Printing on the proper standard for
inclusion appeared instead.
On May 7, 1976,(52) the following notation appeared in
the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. 122 Cong. Rec. 13046, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISLAND TREES BOOK DISPUTE
HON. NORMAN F. LENT
of new york
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, May 7, 1976
Mr. [Norman] LENT [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, it is my custom
to refrain from comment on or Intervene in local school district
disputes except if the Federal Government is somehow involved--
which is all too frequently--or if there be unusual circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to remarks made by
Representative Elizabeth Holtzman, of New York City, which appeared
in the April 2, 1976, issue of the Congressional Record. In her
remarks, the Representative suggested that the Board of Education
of the Island Trees School District, which is situated in my
suburban congressional district, was guilty of censorship and
attempting to abridge the first amendment right of free speech by
removing certain books from its junior and senior high school
libraries.
I rise today, not to address the merits of each book removed--
my colleagues can peruse the annexed list of excerpts from the
disputed books and determine for themselves whether they would want
to expose their children to this literature--but to explain to my
colleagues the responsibilities of local boards of education in New
York State. . . .
[Note.--The Joint Committee on Printing, after reviewing the
excerpts submitted, has refused to reprint the same. The general
rules governing the Record prohibit the inclusion therein of
``profanity, obscene wording or extreme vulgarisms.'']
Sec. 22.18 By unanimous consent, a Member deleted from the permanent
Congressional Record an article he had inserted in a previous day's
Record, alleging that named Members of the House were influenced by
agents of the Soviet Union, and that evidence of that connection
was purposefully kept from the public by a Member.
On September 15, 1983,(53) the following unanimous-
consent request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. 129 Cong. Rec. 24325, 23960, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION TO EXCLUDE AN ARTICLE FROM THE PERMANENT RECORD
Mr. [Robert] LAGOMARSINO [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that an article that I inserted in the
Congressional Record of September 13, 1983, at page E4229, not
appear in the permanent Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(54) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. James McNulty (AZ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 22.19 A Member obtained unanimous consent to delete an insertion
containing material personally offensive to another Member from the
permanent Congressional Record.
On January 27, 1988,(55) the following unanimous-consent
request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. 134 Cong. Rec. H35 [Daily Ed.], 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION TO DELETE REMARKS FROM PERMANENT RECORD
Mr. [Mervyn] DYMALLY [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that my insertion in the Extensions of Remarks
portion of the Congressional Record on page E4982 on December 22,
1987, be deleted from the permanent record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(56) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. Douglas Owens (UT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 22.20 The acting chair of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct (now the Committee on Ethics), inserted in the
Congressional Record a disclosure of the names and pertinent
account information of those Members and former Members of the
House of Representatives found by the committee to have abused the
privileges of the House bank.
On April 1, 1992,(57) the following material was printed
in the Congressional Record pursuant to previously-adopted
resolutions(58) of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. 138 Cong. Rec. 7888, 7896, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
58. See H. Res. 236, 137 Cong. Rec. 25435, 102d Cong. 1st Sess. (Oct.
3, 1991) and H. Res. 393, 138 Cong. Rec. 5519, 102d Cong. 2d
Sess. (Mar. 12, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 393
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. [Elizabeth] Patterson [of South
Carolina]). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. McHugh] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. [Matthew] McHUGH [of New York]. Madam Speaker, pursuant to
House Resolution 236 and 393, I am today disclosing the names and
pertinent account information of those current and former Members
of the House of Representatives who, between July 1, 1988, and
October 3, 1991, were found to have abused their banking privileges
at the so-called House bank.
House Resolution 236 directed the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct to investigate the use and operations of the House
bank and to determine, among other things, whether any Members or
former Members abused their banking privileges. As defined by that
resolution, individuals abused banking privileges by ``routinely
and repeatedly writing checks for which their accounts did not
have, by a significant amount, sufficient funds on deposit to
cover.'' . . .
Mr. [Joseph] EARLY [of Massachusetts]. Madam Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. [Charles] HAYES of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. EARLY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
My colleagues, in my 18 years in this body, I stand here today
a little more ashamed than I have ever been, not for myself but for
this House.
My colleagues, I cannot believe, after the House has gone into
special orders, when every Member is aware there will be no more
votes, when the membership has gone home, the chairman of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. McHugh], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], all
the members of that specific committee linger around.
I am of the impression they were going to try to slide it in,
just make the report, give no one who is on that list a chance.
Sec. 22.21 That certain words may already have been published elsewhere
does not make them admissible in debate, and words not admissible
in debate may not be inserted into the Congressional Record.
On October 2, 1992,(59) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. 138 Cong. Rec. 30708-709, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRIOTISM AND AMERICAN POLITICS
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(60) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Johnson] is recognized
for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. Peter Visclosky (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sam] JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to
just make a couple of more statements here. I think 1970 may seem a
lifetime ago to some, but it will never be long enough to erase the
shameful act of the two Americans that played politics with their
own countrymen, and that is what we are talking about.
Mr. Clinton, Bob, said, and he is talking about Russia in 1970,
``Relations between our two countries were pretty good then. It was
a time of detente.'' . . .
Mr. [Robert] DORNAN of California. Let me read a press release
from today, not a press release, a press statement, out of Little
Rock, today, dated October 2.
``An Arkansas newspaper editor asked if Clinton went to Moscow
while a college student.'' While a college student? He was not
going to class. He was ditching his whole last year at Oxford. He
was taking the money and not doing the work. I have said that every
night for a week, and not one of them has contradicted what I have
said here. All they just say is ``Dornan is not telling the
truth.'' But they will not come up with one fact, and they will not
tell us exactly how long he was in Moscow, whether he went in by a
train or plane, who greeted him there, how did he get his visa? Was
it at 10 Kensington Palace Gardens, at the Russian Embassy? Is that
where he got it? Let me finish this. . . .
William Bennett raises a nice point when he writes in the current issue
of National Review that a distinction should be made between the public and
the private character of Bill Clinton. The private character has to do with
whether or not he has lived scrupulously by his wedding vows. The public
character has to do with whether he has deceived the American people. As a
wag might put it, it is one thing to fornicate Gennifer Flowers; quite
another to do so with the American public.
Here is the paragraph which former Secretary of Education and
drug czar William Bennett makes his point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Visclosky). The Chair would
remind the gentleman from California about the decorum of the
House. The Chair will not diminish current protections against
references to the President, Vice President, and Senators. The
Chair acknowledges that under the precedence and practices of the
House a greater degree of latitude does not exist with respect to
references to nominated candidates for President and Vice President
who are not incumbents or Members of Congress.
However, the Chair believes that in order to maintain decorum
in the House, certain minimal standards of propriety in debate
should apply to all nominated candidates for President and Vice
President.
Thus, the record and character of such candidates may be
properly debated without references which constitute a breach of
decorum.
Mr. DORNAN of California. Mr. Speaker, that ruling came down
last week. Could I ask a question? Was anyone in this House
consulted? Did we ever vote on that rule, or was it just
arbitrarily handed down by the Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Visclosky). The Chair has an
obligation to maintain the dignity and decorum of the House. Words
such as ``liar'' and ``fornication'' have been used in the debate,
and the Chair has determined that that is a breach of the decorum
of the House.
Mr. DORNAN of California. I was quoting from a distinguished
columnist and national figure. Has been on television since I was
in my early twenty's.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot read, but the Chair
can hear the words.
Mr. DORNAN of California. I will not continue.
Would it be, could I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Buckley's
column be put in the Record, would that uphold the decorum of the
House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That would not be proper to insert in
the Record something that it would be improper to say on the floor.
Mr. DORNAN of California. Mr. Speaker, I agree. I will not put
Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s column in, a columnist for United
Press Syndicate, in hundreds of American newspapers, but I will
talk to Bill about it and tell him to not be so blatant in his
writing so I can get it in the Record.
Sec. 22.22 In a one-minute speech, a Member referenced advice given by
the Parliamentarian that it would be ``inappropriate'' to insert in
the Congressional Record sexually explicit material, allegedly
distributed to school-aged children.
On March 23, 1994,(61) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. 140 Cong. Rec. 6057, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. For the original
unanimous-consent request to insert the materials, see 140
Cong. Rec. 6004, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 22, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAPHIC BROCHURES RULED UNFIT FOR PRINTING IN CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD
(Mr. HANCOCK asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. [Melton (Mel)] HANCOCK [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, during my 1-minute speech, I asked unanimous consent
that materials be placed in the Congressional Record. I was
informed by the Parliamentarian that they were inappropriate for
insertion into the Record. Given their near-pornographic nature, I
cannot blame the Parliamentarian for his decision.
What are these items? They are graphic brochures designed to
instruct and entice young people in homosexual sex acts. These same
brochures--masquerading as AIDS education--were made available at a
New York City youth AIDS conference to students as young as 12.
This conference was sponsored by the New York State Department of
Education.
This is exactly the type of prohomosexual propaganda the
Hancock amendment to H.R. 6 is targeting.
If this is not fit for the Congressional Record, it is
certainly not fit for grade-school, junior high, and high school
students. I urge Members to support my amendment upon our return
from Easter break, and oppose any attempts to weaken it.
Sec. 22.23 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised
that the prohibition against references to personal accusations
against the President extends to extraneous material read into the
Congressional Record.
On March 17, 1998,(62) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. 144 Cong. Rec. 3799, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS FULLY
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(63) Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Hayworth) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. David Hobson (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] HAYWORTH [of Arizona]. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues,
and those citizens who join us here in this chamber, and those
citizens, Mr. Speaker, who join us electronically from coast to
coast and beyond, I would commend to everyone's attention today the
lead editorial in the Washington Post entitled, Ms. Willey's Story.
Mr. Speaker, because this editorial is so important, I would like
to read into the Record portions of the editorial, because I
believe they make for compelling reading and offer a serious case
to the American people.
When Newsweek magazine first reported allegations that
President Clinton had groped Kathleen Willey in the White House,
the President's lawyer, Robert Bennett, said his client had ``no
specific recollection of meeting Willey in the Oval Office.''
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman will
suspend. The Chair would remind the gentleman that he should not
refer to personal accusations against the President.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry. Is
it then against the rules to also read verbatim from an editorial
in a widely circulated newspaper?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the precedents, the fact that it
may be in the public domain elsewhere does not mitigate the
statement.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, I thank the Chair for the information, and
I find it somewhat illuminating.
Be that as it may, that is an interesting point. For I am not
here to call into question or impugn anyone's integrity, Mr.
Speaker. However, there are compelling questions that confront the
American people, and if duly constitutional elected Members of
Congress, then, are asked to abridge or silence what is part of the
public record, I would suggest perhaps that we need to review those
rules even as I respect and adhere to the rules of the House.
Let me then simply read the conclusion of the editorial, which
I hope will be found in concurrence with the rules of the House. I
would commend to other sources the videotape that appeared on CBS
on 60 Minutes, and I would commend to everyone in this Nation, Mr.
Speaker, the words in this morning's Washington Post editorial. For
the Post, which agrees with President Clinton on many policy
decisions, today makes a very forthright point in concluding its
editorial, and I will quote from the conclusion.
Ms. Willey's story adds to the critical mass of allegations the
President now faces. They need to be answered not by drips and
drabs of ``recovered memory'' or fancy legal wordplay or a public
presentation of all Ms. Willey's failings. They just need to be
answered.''
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again remind the
gentleman that those discussions are not appropriate at this time
on the floor, pursuant to the rules of the House.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
rule of the Chair, but I believe it is important, Mr. Speaker, that
the American people take a look at the serious situation
confronting the executive branch and confronting us all. In that
spirit, Mr. Speaker, I would simply refer to some comments made in
history by a distinguished member of the other party and its one-
time Presidential nominee, Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota,
who nearly a quarter of a century ago on the NBC telecast Meet The
Press, when discussing another President confronting another
difficult time, offered the advice that the President should answer
the questions fully and completely, because the American people are
forgiving people. It is in that spirit that I offer the same advice
today, not for purposes of partisan tomfoolery, but because these
questions cut to the very core of our constitutional Republic.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to rule or exercise moral
leadership when there appears to be little moral authority.
So I offer these observations not to stand and offer
contentions for the rules of the House, not to be provocative, but
because the questions need answers. Mr. Speaker, in that vein, for
the public good, not for partisan political points, I would simply
ask this President, Mr. Speaker, to follow the advice that Hubert
Humphrey offered nearly a quarter century ago. Because these issues
transcend partisan politics, these issues need to be answered.
Mr. Speaker, I gladly yield my remaining time to my colleague
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
Interruptions
Sec. 22.24 The Chair will take the initiative in preserving order when
a Member declining to yield in debate continues to be interrupted
by another Member, and may order that the interrupting Member's
remarks not appear in the Congressional Record.
On July 26, 1984,(64) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. 130 Cong. Rec. 21247, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. MILLER of California proceeded to read.)
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore.(65) The gentleman will
suspend. The gentleman from California will suspend. The gentleman
is out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. Abraham Kazen (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George] MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to raise the point----
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is out of order.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [Pennsylvania]. Mr. Chairman, I have not
yielded to the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has not yielded.
The gentleman's words when he spoke in the well without getting
the permission of the Member who had the floor will not appear in
the Record.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania may proceed. . . .
Mr. WALKER. I will yield to the gentleman in just a moment.
I must say that the gentleman reading from the Holy Bible in
the course of the discussion here I think is somewhat
inappropriate. It was far more appropriate in the course of
political debate; it was far more appropriate than the so-called
prayer uttered earlier by the gentleman from New York.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. WALKER. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MILLER of California. I think the point is this: That
suggesting that this is an absolute right and that in fact to try
to prescribe it, whether It is audible, whether it is oral, whether
it is loud, whether it is soft, whether It is silent, is a point of
real contention, because it is not an absolute right, as the
gentleman suggests.
We Just saw the rules of the House work against that right. The
gentleman raised the point earlier about a teacher----
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania has expired.
Sec. 22.25 Where a Member interrupts debate without being yielded to by
the Member under recognition and without rising to a point of
order, such interrupting remarks do not appear in the Congressional
Record (though the Member's name may appear at the point of
interruption).
On July 21, 1993,(66) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. 139 Cong. Rec. 16541-43, 16545, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE POST OFFICE SCANDAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(67) Under the previous
order of the House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is
recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. Eric Fingerhut (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nomination of dr. joycelyn elders for secretary of health and
human services
Mr. [Danny] BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we have a number of
Members that want to speak tonight on the problems we have with the
House Post Office. But before we get into that, I thought it would
be very enlightening for my colleagues and for anybody else who is
paying attention to find out what the nominee for Secretary of
Health and Human Services has to say about a lot of issues. I hope
everybody in America has an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to find out
her views on a number of these issues. . . .
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I just
wanted to say to the gentleman that the Members of this body would
not be nearly as concerned had this not been swept under the rug 1
year ago, and time goes on and on. It is the same, and it is very
analogous to the check scandal which they tried to sweep under the
rug, and we go back to our districts, and we listen to our
constituents. They say, ``What in the world is going on? Is there
anybody up there that is honest?''
And so I think we have an obligation.
Mr. [David] OBEY [of Wisconsin].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I did not yield; I did not yield. I do
not yield.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fingerhut). The gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton] has the floor.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Nobody that I have heard tonight has
assassinated anybody's character. They said there were some alleged
things that went on, and they have been alleged for over a year
now. All I say to my colleagues is: Let us make a clean breast of
it. Let us bring the facts before the House and not impede justice.
Help the district attorney or the U.S. district attorney that is
involved in this case get all the facts he can so he can expedite
this case as quickly as possible. . . .
Mr. [John] DOOLITTLE [of California]. If the gentleman will
yield, there is a specific point I want to respond to.
The firing of those U.S. attorneys was not routine. It had
never been done before in such a fashion. And to stand here on the
floor and to represent that was routine is a misstatement. It was
completely out of the ordinary.
Mr. OBEY.
Mr. [Randall (Duke)] CUNNINGHAM [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I
ask for regular order or to have the gentleman removed.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This gentleman keeps interfering. I
yielded to him once. I have control of the time, as I understand
it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton] has control of the time. . . .
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman asked the U.S.
attorney?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have the time. I am not
yielding to the gentleman.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. I think there are
questions about whether or not this letter is an attempt to prevent
an investigation.
Mr. OBEY.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fingerhut). The gentleman from
Indiana has the time.
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman knows the rules of the House.
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do.
Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman from Indiana will yield to the
gentleman, the gentleman is not obeying the rules of the House.
Mr. OBEY.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana controls
the time and has yielded to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry? We
have been interrupted several times. This is taking away from our
time. I hope that the Chair will be fair in allocating the time,
because we have had to endure this now for about the last 10
minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will endeavor to be fair.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
So what we know is that we have a Democratic administration
which is evidently attempting to cooperate with the Democrats in
the House to attempt to see to it that Members do not receive this
information.
Mr. OBEY.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana has yielded
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who controls the floor.
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] of course
does not want to listen to the points being made here because the
gentleman from Wisconsin was one of those who voted last year to
table the resolution attempting to make----
Mr. OBEY.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fingerhut). The gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has not been yielded time, has not been
recognized.
Sec. 22.26 The Chair reminded Members that: (1) it is not in order for
a Member not under recognition to interrupt a Member who is under
recognition by interjecting remarks in debate; (2) the Official
Reporters of Debate are unable to transcribe two Members speaking
simultaneously; and (3) remarks uttered while not under recognition
are not transcribed for the Congressional Record.
On May 10, 2006,(68) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. 152 Cong. Rec. 7816, 7821, 109th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(69) Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
minority leader. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. Robert Inglis (SC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bill] DELAHUNT [of Massachusetts]. I think just to
underscore, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here tonight is
the overall Republican economic policy that favors the top 1
percent of the American people.
Mr. [Timothy] RYAN of Ohio. It doesn't work.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I think we have made our case. Can I just give
you one more statistic?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You can do whatever you want.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Back in 1991.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. 1991?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Give me just a minute. Back in 1991, the top 1
percent of the American people, the population, top 1 percent,
owned 38 percent of the corporate wealth in this country. One
percent in 1991 owned 38 percent of the corporate wealth in this
country. . . . -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has shown lenience toward
the rather informal pattern by which Members have been claiming and
yielding and reclaiming the time controlled by the gentleman from
Florida. But Members should bear in mind that the Official Reports
of Debate cannot be expected to transcribe two Members
simultaneously.
Members should not participate in debate by interjection and
should not expect to have the reporter transcribe remarks that are
uttered when not properly under recognition.
Sec. 23. Availability; Notice
Various procedures in the House are conditioned on the prior
availability of certain material in the Congressional Record. For the
most part, these rules are designed to give Members proper notice that
certain matters will be taken up by the House, or to expedite
consideration by dispensing with lengthy readings on the floor (where
the same material would be available for inspection by Members in the
Record).
In the Committee of the Whole, the reading of any amendment may be
dispensed with by motion if the amendment has been printed in the
Congressional Record prior to debate.(1) When the Committee
of the Whole closes or limits debate pursuant to clause 8(a) of rule
XVIII,(2) amendments that have been printed in the Record
may be debated for ten minutes notwithstanding the prior
limitation.(3) Requirements as to the form of such
amendments are contained in clause 8(c) of rule XVIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule XVIII, clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 986 (2019). Such
motion is not debatable.
2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 987 (2019).
3. Rule XVIII, clause 8(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 987 (2019).
See also Sec. 24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under clause 8(a) of rule XXII, conference reports may not be
considered by the House until they have been available to Members in
the Congressional Record for at least three calendar days (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, unless the House is in session
on those days).(4) In the 113th Congress, this availability
requirement was expanded to include electronic availability pursuant to
clause 3 of rule XXIX.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1082 (2019).
5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1105b (2019). See also H. Res. 5, sec.
2(f), 159 Cong. Rec. 26, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under a prior form of rule IX,(6) a Member seeking to
offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House was
required to read the full text of the resolution into the Record when
giving notice of intent to offer the resolution.(7) An
exception existed for resolutions that had be previously introduced and
printed in the Record.(8) Under the current form of the rule
(originally adopted in the 106th Congress),(9) the full
reading of the resolution by the Member may be dispensed with by
unanimous consent (regardless of whether it has been previously printed
in the Record).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2019).
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 661a (1997).
8. See, e.g., 140 Cong. Rec. 2209, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (Feb. 11,
1994).
9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 699 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 24. Special Orders of Business
Resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules to structure
debate in the House are known as special orders of business or special
rules.(1) These special orders of business frequently
structure the amendment process in the House by requiring that
amendments be pre-printed in the Congressional Record.(2)
Such pre-printing requirements may specify particular deadlines for
submitting amendments, or may simply require that amendments be printed
any time prior to consideration.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For special orders generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 21 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 21.
2. For amendment procedures generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
27 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 27.
3. See Sec. Sec. 24.2, 24.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments subject to a pre-printing requirement must be offered in
the precise form printed in the Congressional Record.(4)
Amendments that have not been printed may be offered only by unanimous
consent,(5) and unanimous consent is required to consider a
modified version of an amendment that has been printed.(6)
Under current practice, special orders with pre-printing requirements
typically only require submission of the amendment for printing, thus
allowing Members to offer amendments even if there have been delays in
printing the Record.(7) Government Publishing Office
printing errors in amendments will not prevent such amendments from
being offered in the form originally submitted for
printing.(8) Where the special order does not specify who
may offer, any Member may offer any pre-printed
amendment.(9) Unless the special order restricts the
offering of second-degree amendments, amendments to pre-printed
amendments need not be printed.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 24.9, infra.
5. See Sec. 24.10, infra.
6. See Sec. 24.4, infra.
7. Parliamentarian's Note: Under earlier practice, special orders
required actual printing in the Record prior to consideration,
thus disadvantaging Members in cases where amendments were
properly submitted for printing but not actually printed in
time to be considered. For a unanimous-consent request to
modify an order of the House to allow consideration of an
amendment submitted for printing (but not actually printed),
see 161 Cong. Rec. 9366, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (June 11, 2015).
8. See Sec. 24.7, infra.
9. See Sec. 24.3, infra.
10. See Sec. 24.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special orders of business may provide for other kinds of printing
requirements as well. For example, a special order may simply provide
for priority in recognition for Members who have had their amendments
pre-printed in the Congressional Record prior to
consideration.(11) A special order may provide for automatic
consideration of an amendment caused to be printed by a specified
Member,(12) or for consideration of a series of pre-printed
amendments in a specified order.(13) Where a special order
allows for en bloc consideration of multiple pre-printed amendments,
unanimous consent is required to add another amendment to the set of
amendments to be considered en bloc.(14) In prior years,
special orders would sometimes provide authority for the manager of the
measure to group pre-printed amendments together for en bloc
consideration, with further authority for the original proponents of
individual amendments to submit statements to the Record explaining
their amendments (in lieu of obtaining debate time on the
floor).(15) In recent years, this additional authority has
not been granted(16) as it is considered duplicative of
broader ``general leave'' authority.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 24.12, infra.
12. See Sec. 24.6, infra.
13. See Sec. 24.8, infra.
14. See Sec. 24.11, infra.
15. See 132 Cong. Rec. 20633, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. (Aug. 11, 1986).
16. See, e.g., H. Res. 590, 160 Cong. Rec. 8827, 113th Cong. 2d Sess.
(May 21, 2014).
17. See Sec. 20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under clause 8 of rule XVIII,(18) the Committee of the
Whole may limit or close debate on amendments to a measure by, for
example, imposing an overall time limit on consideration. Clause 8(b)
allows amendments printed in the Congressional Record to be debated for
ten minutes (five minutes in support, five minutes in opposition),
notwithstanding the prior limitation.(19) In the 93d
Congress, this rule was amended to specify the designated portion of
the Record where amendments must be printed, and the Speaker announced
certain protocols for submitting amendments under the
rule.(20) Formerly, the rule applied only to reported bills,
and unanimous consent was required to print amendments to unreported
bills in that portion of the Record.(21) This restriction
was eliminated in the 105th Congress,(22) and the House has
even allowed amendments to unnumbered bills to be printed under this
rule.(23) Amendments printed under this rule must be offered
in the exact form printed, and must specify the precise point in the
bill or resolution where the amendment is intended to be
offered.(24) Where a special order of business precludes
amendments (or permits only specified amendments), a Member may not
invoke this rule to have a printed amendment which is not contemplated
by the special order considered.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 987 (2019).
19. See, e.g., 121 Cong. Rec. 20956-57, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. (June 26,
1975) and 122 Cong. Rec. 4994-95, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 2,
1976).
20. See Sec. 24.15, infra. For a prior instance of printing amendments
as extensions of remarks, see Sec. 24.14, infra.
21. See Sec. 24.18, infra.
22. See H. Res. 5, 143 Cong. Rec. 120-22, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan.
7, 1997).
23. See Sec. 24.19, infra.
24. See, e.g., 122 Cong. Rec. 33081-82, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 28,
1976).
25. See Sec. 24.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Printing Requirements
Sec. 24.1 Where a special order of business permits the offering of an
amendment pre-printed in the Congressional Record, the amendment
must be offered in the precise form printed, and will be subject to
a point of order if not offered in that form.
On February 6, 1974,(26) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. 120 Cong. Rec. 2368-69, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sam] STEIGER of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
Mr. [William] HUNGATE [of Missouri]. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN.(27) The gentleman from Missouri
reserves a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Thomas Steed (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Page 73, immediately after
line 2, insert the following:
Rule 107. Elimination of and Alternative to Exclusionary Rule
(a) Exclusion.--Evidence, otherwise admissible in a Federal criminal
proceeding shall not be excluded on the grounds such evidence was obtained
in violation of the fourth article of amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, If there is an adequate legal remedy for any person
aggrieved by reason of such violation.
(b) Adequate legal remedy.--For the purposes of subdivision (a), the
legal remedy provided under subdivision (c) shall be considered an adequate
legal remedy.
(c) Liability of United States.--
(1) The United States shall be liable for any damages caused by a
violation of the fourth article of amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, (A) if such violation was by any officer or employee of the
United States while in the course of the official duty of such officer or
employee to investigate any alleged offense against the United States, or
to apprehend or hold in custody any alleged offender against the United
States, or (B) if such violation was by any person acting under or at the
request of such officer or employee in the course of such duty.
(2) The liability under subdivision (c)(1) shall be to any person
aggrieved by such violation of the fourth article of amendment to the
Constitution of the United States and such person may recover such actual
damages as the jury shall determine, if there is a jury, or as the court
may determine, if there is not a jury, and such punitive damages as may be
awarded under subdivision (c)(3).
(3) Punitive damages may be awarded by the jury, or if there is no jury,
by the court, upon consideration of all of the circumstances of the case,
including--
(A) the extent of deviation from permissible conduct;
(B) the extent to which the violation was willful;
(C) the extent to which privacy was invaded;
(D) the extent of personal injury, both physical and mental;
(E) the extent of property damage; and
(F) the extent to which the award of such damages will tend to prevent
violations of the fourth article of amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
(4) The remedy against the United States provided under this section
shall be the exclusive civil remedy against any person for such violation
of the fourth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.
Page 65, in the table of contents appearing after line 15, insert
immediately after the item relating to Rule 106, the following new item: .
. .
Mr. [William (Don)] EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order on two grounds; the first ground being that the gentleman
from Arizona, in accordance with the rule, printed the amendment on
page E400 of the Congressional Record of February 4, 1974, but it
is in a different form as he offers it today.
Second, I make a point of order on the ground that the
amendment is not germane. It raises completely extraneous and new
matters never considered by either the subcommittee or the full
committee during its long deliberations on this subject.
This amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona is
actually the full text of H.R. 10725, which is a bill introduced by
the gentleman from Arizona last September and which has been
referred to the subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary
which I chair. The bill, according to the way the gentleman put it
in the record, purports to amend title 18 of the United States Code
in a most substantive way. The rules of evidence which we are
considering today do not amend title 18 in any way.
The bill the gentleman from Arizona is offering as an amendment
subjects the U.S. Government to liability, and the rules of
evidence do not address themselves to this issue in any respect.
While this bill, which the gentleman offers in all sincerity, wears
the cloak of an amendment, it simply does not fit. It is a bill
that should be considered by the subcommittee of the Committee on
the Judiciary that I chair, and will receive appropriate attention,
but it really does not have any business in the particular
legislation that we are considering here today.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would be very, very concerned if the Chair were
to rule on the first of the grounds offered by the gentleman from
California. I will tell the Chairman and the House that the
amendment as offered in the record is not changed at all in the
form in which it is before the committee. The only change is at
what point in the bill it appears. I will tell the Chair that both
the spirit and the letter of the rule were conformed to as far as I
am concerned, and I would hope that no Member in the future would
be denied a hearing on an amendment based on what has to be at best
a capricious judgment. . . .
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. [Thomas] Steed [of Oklahoma]). The Chair is
prepared to rule.
The text of the proposed amendment, as printed in the Record,
and the text as offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Steiger)
are at variance. The objection raised by the gentleman from
California concerning the imposition of new liability on the United
States points out that the amendment goes beyond the subject matter
dealt with in the bill.
Since there is a clear indication of the nongermaneness of the
amendment and of failure to strictly comply with the rule, the
Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 24.2 Where the House had adopted a special order of business that
required certain amendments to be pre-printed in the Congressional
Record at least two legislative days before being offered, the
Chair clarified the printing timelines for ensuring compliance with
the rule.
On June 11, 1981,(28) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. 127 Cong. Rec. 12176-77, 12182, 12213, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. For
similar proceedings, see 120 Cong. Rec. 6821-23, 93d Cong. 2d
Sess. (Mar. 14, 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jonas] FROST [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 148 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 148
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3480) to
amend the Legal Services Corporation Act to provide authorization of
appropriations for additional fiscal years, and for other purposes, and the
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed one
hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be read
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule. No amendment to the bill or to
said substitute shall be in order except germane amendments printed in the
Congressional Record at least two legislative days before their
consideration. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment n the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(29) The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Barney Frank (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Frank] SENSENBRENNER [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
303, nays 88, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 72] . . .
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. To the Republican whip or
the majority leader, I would like a clarification on the Legal
Services Corporation legislation.
Do I understand we will be allowed to file amendments with the
desk on Monday and that will constitute 48 hours, being 2 working
days, Monday and Tuesday?
Mr. [Chester (Trent)] LOTT [of Mississippi]. I yield to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) if he would care to respond
to that.
The SPEAKER.(30) The Chair will answer that the bill
will be up on Tuesday for general debate and for amendments. It is
not anticipated, in view of the interest in the bill, that the
House will be able to complete the bill on that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, any amendment that would be offered on Tuesday would have
to be filed today. Any amendment filed on Monday could be offered
on Wednesday if offered to a portion of the bill not yet read.
Sec. 24.3 Where a special order of the House limiting first-degree
amendments in the Committee of the Whole restricts the offering of
amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules to
``designated Members'' but places no comparable restriction on
amendments printed in the Congressional Record, any Member may
offer an amendment of the latter type.
On September 17, 1998,(31) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. 144 Cong. Rec. 20838-39, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. For similar
proceedings, see 120 Cong. Rec. 8229-33, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
(Mar. 26, 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Torres
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Torres:
In title II, in the item relating to ``Other Bilateral Economic
Assistance, economic support fund'', after the first dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(decreased by $14,000,000)''.
In title III, in the item relating to ``Funds Appropriated to
the President, International military education and training'',
after the first dollar amount, insert the following: ``(decreased
by $1,400,000)''.
Mr. [Esteban] TORRES [of California] (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered
as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN.(32) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Mac Thornberry (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Sonny] CALLAHAN [of Alabama]. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order.
Let me just see exactly where we are.
As I understand it, the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres)
has requested as a member of the committee that he bring up an
amendment that is in order by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling). Is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the gentleman that any
Member may call up an amendment which has been printed in the
Record. The gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) as a member of
the committee has called up the amendment which has been read.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Out of deference to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), I would like to ask, is he aware that
the gentleman is bringing his amendment up at this time? Could I
make that inquiry?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not state a parliamentary
inquiry. Does the gentleman wish to reserve a point of order?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. [Joseph] KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if you
could explain to me the parliamentary procedure to offer a
substitute amendment to the Torres amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is not able to
yield to another Member for the purpose of offering an amendment,
but for debate only. When the gentleman from California has
completed his debate, then other Members may be recognized and at
that point an amendment to the amendment may be in order.
The gentleman from California is recognized on his amendment.
Sec. 24.4 Where a special order of business requires amendments to be
pre-printed in the Congressional Record prior to consideration, the
Committee of the Whole may, by unanimous consent, permit an
amendment to be offered in a modified form.
On March 26, 1974,(33) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. 120 Cong. Rec. 8253, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. For similar proceedings,
see 123 Cong. Rec. 26450-51, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. (Aug. 3,
1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Patsy] MINK [of Hawaii]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the committee substitute.
The CHAIRMAN.(34) Is the amendment printed in the
Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Charles Price (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. MINK. It is, Mr. Chairman.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink to the committee substitute: The first
sentence of Section 103(a)(1), beginning on line 13 on page 28, is amended
to read as follows: ``Sec. 103. (a)(1) There is authorized to be
appropriated for each fiscal year for the purpose of this paragraph 1 per
centum of the amount appropriated for such year for payments to States
under section 134(a) (other than payments under such section to
jurisdictions excluded from the term 'State' by this subsection), provided,
however, there shall be authorized such additional sums to assure at least
the same level of funding under this Title as in FY 1973 for Guam, American
Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands.''
Mr. [Edwin] MEEDS [of Washington]. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlewoman yield for the purpose of a unanimous-consent request?
Mrs. MINK. I will yield to the gentleman from Washington for
that purpose.
Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that at the
end of the amendment after the word ``Islands'' the following words
be added: ``and to the Secretary of the Interior for payments
pursuant to (d)(1) and (d)(2).''
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
Mr. [David] DENNIS [of Indiana]. Mr. Chairman, reserving the
right to object, I do not know anything about the subject matter. I
just object to the unanimous-consent request until somebody
explains it so we know what we are considering.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment to the
committee substitute as modified.
The Clerk read as follows:
The first sentence of Section 103(a)(1), beginning on line 13 on page 28,
is amended to read as follows: ``Sec. 103. (a)(1) There is authorized to be
appropriated for each fiscal year for the purpose of this paragraph 1 per
centum of the amount appropriated for such year for payments to States
under section 134(a) (other than payments under such section to
jurisdictions excluded from the term `State' by this subsection), provided,
however, there shall be authorized such additional sums to assure at least
the same level of funding under this Title as in FY 1973 for Guam, American
Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and
to the Secretary of the Interior for payments pursuant to (d)(1) and
(d)(2).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington? . . .
There was no objection.
Sec. 24.5 A provision in a special order of business prohibiting
amendments to a bill except those pre-printed in the Congressional
Record does not apply to second-degree amendments unless so
specified.
On September 7, 1978,(35) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. 124 Cong. Rec. 28419, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry] GONZALEZ [of Texas]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
point of order
Mr. [Morgan] MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore.(36) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. John Murtha (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MURPHY of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not
germane in that it is not timely printed in the Record. The
gentleman came up to us just a few minutes ago and said the
gentleman had printed it in the Record yesterday; but the rule
issued July 12 requires it to be reported legislative days prior to
consideration.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will rule that the rule
applies to amendments to the bill and not to amendments to
amendments. In this case we have an amendment to a substitute
amendment, so the rule does not apply.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Mr. McClory: On page 24, line 24, after ``Sec. 104''
insert ``(a)''.
On page 25, after line 6 insert:
(b) In April of each year, the Attorney General shall transmit to the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts and to Congress a report
setting forth with respect to the preceding calendar year--
(1) the total number of applications made for orders and extensions of
orders approving electronic surveillance under this title; and
(2) the total number of such orders and extensions either granted,
modified, or denied.
(c) And in April of each year the Attorney General shall transmit a
report to the appropriate Member of Congress or Congressional Committee on
any information gathered by virtue of this act regarding any foreign
government's attempt to improperly influence Congress, suborn individual
Members or to threaten a Member.
Sec. 24.6 A special order of business may provide that an amendment
pre-printed in the Congressional Record be considered as pending
following conclusion of general debate in the Committee of the
Whole.
On October 24, 1979,(37) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. 125 Cong. Rec. 29435-36, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CHAIRMAN.(38) In lieu of the amendment
recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries now
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider an amendment
printed in the Congressional Record of September 20, 1979, by
Representative Breaux.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Ronnie Flippo (AL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read the amendment made in order under the rule, as
follows:
Page 3, after line 2 insert the following: . . .
Mr. [John] BREAUX [of Louisiana]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to my amendment made in order under the rule.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Breaux to the amendment made in order under the
rule: Page 7, strike out line 12 and all that follows down through and
including line 24 on page 11, and inserting the following:
``convention implementation . . .
Sec. 24.7 Where a special order of business requires the pre-printing
of amendments in the Congressional Record by a date certain in
order to be offered, the incorrect printing of amendments by the
Government Publishing Office in the Record will not prevent their
consideration in the form submitted for printing.
On October 30, 1979,(39) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. 125 Cong. Rec. 30205, 30207, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar
proceedings, see 140 Cong. Rec. 4405, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar.
10, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIORITY ENERGY PROJECT ACT OF 1979
Mr. [Jonas] FROST [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 467, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 467
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
to move, section 402(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law
93-344) to the contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4985) to establish a coordinated, prompt,
and simplified process for decision making in regard to significant non-
nuclear energy facilities, and for other purposes, and the first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, one hour
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and one hour to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be read
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider,
immediately after the enacting clause of the bill is read, the amendment in
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce now printed in the bill, said amendment shall be
considered as having been read, and all points of order against said
amendment for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI,
are hereby waived. It shall be in order to consider the text of the bill
H.R. 5660 if offered by Representative Udall as a substitute for the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and said substitute if offered shall be
considered as having been read. No amendment to said amendment or to said
substitute shall be in order except pro forma amendments for the purpose of
debate and germane amendments printed in the Congressional Record by
October 29, 1979. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. In the event that the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce has been adopted, any Member may demand a separate
vote in the House (1) on any amendment adopted to said amendment, in the
event that the substitute offered by Representative Udall has been
rejected; or (2) on any amendment adopted to the substitute offered by
Representative Udall, if said substitute has been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit
with or without instructions. After the passage of H.R. 4985, the House
shall proceed, sections 401(a) and 402(a) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) to the contrary notwithstanding, to the
consideration of the bill S. 1308, and it shall then be in order in the
House to move to strike out all after the enacting clause of the said
Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R.
4985 as passed by the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(40) The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. James Howard (NJ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I share the
concern expressed by the distinguished minority whip about the
rights of Members being protected on this legislation, because it
does impose the abnormal requirement of the preprinting of
amendments, and they had to be printed by yesterday.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. Speaker, I wish to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the
Chair. I cannot speak for other Members, but the gentleman from
Maryland noticed that two amendments he had filed were either
misprinted or printed erroneously as being both amendments to the
same bill. The fact of the matter is one amendment was clearly
labeled to the Udall substitute and one to the other substitute. I
am wondering whether or not an amendment will then be in order if,
in fact, it has been printed by the deadline but not printed
correctly?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to advise the
gentleman that the Chair understands that corrected printings of
the amendments will appear in today's Record.
Mr. BAUMAN. And that will not prevent Members from offering
those amendments?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be protected under
the rule.
Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the gentleman. I think this serves as an
example of the problem that occurs when enough time does not elapse
before the deadline with proper notice to Members.
Sec. 24.8 In response to parliamentary inquiries, the Chair confirmed
that, where the special order of business permitted the
consideration of amendments in a designated numerical order (as
printed in the Congressional Record), a Member's offering of a
numbered amendment would preclude the offering of a prior numbered
amendment thereafter.
On May 27, 1982,(41) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. 128 Cong. Rec. 12465, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amendment offered by mr. whitten to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute offered by mr. aspin
Mr. [Jamie] WHITTEN [of Mississippi]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment, which is designated as amendment No. 56, to the Aspin
substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Mr. Aspin: Strike out section 304 relating to
deferred enrollment and renumber the following sections accordingly.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. [Leon] PANETTA [of California]. Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN.(42) The gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Whitten) will have to yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Richard Bolling (MO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As I understand, the gentleman is offering his amendment No. 56
and not No. 55; is that correct?
Mr. WHITTEN. Yes. It deals with section 304 and it bypasses No.
55 for No. 56.
Mr. PANETTA. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. [James] WRIGHT [of Texas]. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. WHITTEN. I yield to the majority leader.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Mississippi
offers amendment No. 56 prior to No. 55, does that foreclose the
possibility of offering amendment No. 55?
Mr. WHITTEN. My understanding is that that eliminates No. 55 as
far as consideration is concerned.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will answer in the affirmative.
Sec. 24.9 Where a special order of business governing consideration of
a bill requires amendments to have been pre-printed in the
Congressional Record prior to their consideration, the Chair
normally relies upon assurances of the proponent of the amendment
that it is in the precise form as printed in the Record, but may
insist (in response to a point of order) that the proponent cite
the page of the Record where the amendment was printed.
On August 3, 1983,(43) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. 129 Cong. Rec. 22653, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ronald] PAUL [of Texas]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN.(44) The Chair will inquire of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) as to whether the amendment has
been printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Donald Pease (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PAUL. Yes, it has been, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Paul: Page 28, after line 8, insert the
following:
congressional authorization of certain actions
Sec. 308. Section 5 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C.
Sec. 286c) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: ``Unless
Congress, in advance and by law, authorizes such action, neither the
President nor any person or agency shall, on behalf of the United States,
make any commitments whatsoever (1) regarding any request for, or the
granting of consent to, any change in the quota of the United States under
Articles III, section 2(a), of the articles of Agreement of the Fund, or
(2) regarding the making of any loan to the Fund or the Bank.''.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in
support of his amendment.
Mr. [Fernand] ST. GERMAIN [of Rhode Island]. Mr Chairman, will
the gentleman yield briefly for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question.
In calling up my amendment a few moments ago, I gave the date
that it was printed in the Record and the page number at which it
appeared.
Would it be possible to require that of other amendments that
are submitted so that we could save a lot of time?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state that it would be highly
desirable if Members offering amendments would be prepared to state
at the time of offering the amendments the page number and date of
the Congressional Record where the amendment is cited. It has not
been treated as an absolute requirement unless a point of order is
raised. The Chair will take on the faith of Members the statement
that it has been printed in the Record, but it certainly would
expedite the consideration of the bill if Members would be prepared
to do that.
Sec. 24.10 The House may, by unanimous consent, permit the offering of
an amendment not pre-printed in the Congressional Record,
notwithstanding the adoption of a special order of business
requiring that specific amendment to be printed prior to
consideration.
On May 30, 1984,(45) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. 130 Cong. Rec. 14409-10, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
5713, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT-INDEPENDENT
AGENCIES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1985
Mr. [John] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 511
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 511
Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 5713) making
appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for
sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985, and for other purposes, all
points of order against the following provisions in said bill for failure
to comply with the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI are hereby waived:
beginning on page 2, line 8 through page 5, line 11; beginning on page 6.
lines 5 through 19; beginning on page 8, line 12 through page 9. line 14;
beginning on page 10, line 20 through page 11, line 2; beginning on page
12, line 20 through page 13, line 16; beginning on page 14, line 19 through
page 15, line 4; beginning on page 15, line 18 through page 16, line 21;
beginning on page 19, line 2 through page 20. line 13; beginning on page
22, line 1 through page 26, line 11; beginning on page 26, line 20 through
page 30. line 2; beginning on page 33, line 24 through page 36, line 7; and
beginning on page 37, line 3 through page 38, line 24; and all points of
order against the following provisions in said bill for failure to comply
with the provisions of clause 6. rule XXI are hereby waived: beginning on
page 2, line 8 through page 3. line 18; beginning on page 6, lines 5
through 19; beginning on page 10, line 20 through page 11, line 2;
beginning on page 22, lines 1 through 25; beginning on page 35, line 14
through page 36, line 7; beginning on page 37, lines 3 through 22; and
beginning on page 38, line 3 through 24. It shall be in order to consider
an amendment to said bill printed in the Congressional Record of May 30,
1984, by, and if offered by, Representative Dingell of Michigan, and all
points of order against said amendment for failure to comply with clause 2
of rule XXI are hereby waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Dale] Kildee [of Michigan]). The
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) is recognized for 1
hour. . . .
The rule waives points of order against certain provisions of
the bill which violate clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits
unauthorized appropriations and legislation in appropriations
bills, and clause 6 of rule XXI, which prohibits reappropriations.
Mr. Speaker, the precise page and line numbers identifying
provisions for which waivers are recommended are fully stated in
the rule. The waivers of clause 2 are necessary because authorizing
legislation for the programs involved are under consideration at
some stage of the legislative process but have not yet been enacted
into law.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, several provisions which violate the
prohibition on legislation in an appropriations bill are similar to
language routinely included in previous appropriation acts.
The waivers of clause 6, rule XXI, are provided for such
programs as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
research and development, and the Veterans' Administration, to
provide for continued availability and use of funds provided in
prior appropriations. This could be considered a reappropriation,
and thus the waiver was needed.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of an
amendment printed in the May 30 Congressional Record Representative
Dingell of Michigan, which relates to the Veterans' Administration
replacement hospital in Allen Park, Mich. A waiver of clause 2 of
rule XXI is provided to permit consideration of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, because today is the 30th of May and the Rules
Committee anticipated that the rule would be considered tomorrow,
following my statement I intend to ask unanimous consent that
Representative Dingell be allowed to offer his amendment today
without it being printed in the Record of the 30th.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5713 appropriates $5.4 billion for HUD and 17
independent agencies for fiscal year 1985. The bill appropriates
$9.8 billion for housing programs, including funds for section 8
existing housing programs that the administration now wants to
eliminate. However, Mr. Speaker, the amounts provided in this bill
are within the targets assumed in the House-passed budget
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of House Resolution 511 so that we
may proceed to consideration of this appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I ask unanimous consent that the
Dingell amendment be in order in accordance with the rule,
notwithstanding that it is not printed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Sec. 24.11 Where a special order of business adopted by the House
permitted the en bloc consideration of amendments printed in the
Congressional Record on a date certain, the House, by unanimous
consent, permitted the inclusion of additional amendments (not
previously printed) as part of the amendments to be considered en
bloc.
On July 22, 1985,(46) the following unanimous-consent
request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. 131 Cong. Rec. 19846, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION FOR REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD TO OFFER ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENTS EN BLOC TO H.R. 8, WATER QUALITY RENEWAL ACT OF 1985
Mr. [Robert] ROE [of New Jersey]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that, during the consideration of H.R. 8 in the Committee
of the Whole, it may be in order for Representative Howard to offer
en bloc additional amendments as part of the amendments
specifically made in order by the rule and printed in the
Congressional Record of July 16, 1985.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(47) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. Gillespie Montgomery (MS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 24.12 The House may adopt a special order of business providing
for priority in recognition for Members who have had their
amendments pre-printed in the Congressional Record prior to
consideration.
On February 24, 1995,(48) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. 141 Cong. Rec. 5881-82, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, the Committee
on Rules is planning to meet early next week on two bills to
improve the federal regulatory process. Next Monday, February 27,
the committee will meet at 5 p.m. to consider a rule for H.R. 926,
the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act, better known as the Reg Flex
Act. Members should be aware that this rule may include a provision
giving priority in recognition to Members who have caused their
amendments to be printed in the amendment section of the
Congressional Record prior to their consideration. In this case,
the preprinting of amendments is optional. . . .
Mr. [Douglas] BEREUTER [of Nebraska]. Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will continue to yield, would my understanding be correct
though, that a Member of the House, not a member of the committee,
who has his amendment printed in the Record would have priority
over a member of the committee?
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman would please restate that.
Mr. BEREUTER. Would a Member, not a member of the committee,
have priority, who has his amendment printed in the Record, have
priority over a member of the committee in offering such an
amendment?
Mr. SOLOMON. Not over the committee chairman, no.
Mr. BEREUTER. Would a Member who has his amendment printed have
priority over a member of the committee whose amendments were not
printed in the Record.
Mr. SOLOMON. That would be subject to the recognition of the
chair, but in most cases, yes.
Mr. BEREUTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the
reason this gentleman was so upset when we took up the crime bill,
block grant, is that the parliamentarian informed the Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole that no matter how long I stood here,
and I waited for nearly 7 hours to offer an amendment, but not
being a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole was informed by the parliamentarian that
the Chairman had no option but to continue to recognize members of
the Committee on the Judiciary for amendments, be they printed or
not printed. And many, many, many were nonprinted, and they
continued to be offered. And Members of the House who were not
members of the Committee on the Judiciary were shut out from
offering amendments.
In fact, I just directed a letter to the chairman of the
Committee on Rules about how this process does not serve Members
well who are not members of the committee debating the bill before
us.
So I would hope that the Committee on Rules might at least give
all Members priority whose amendments are preprinted. I understand
that the members of the committee and certainly the chairman should
have priority for amendments that are printed in the Record, but
you see we can be completely shut off from offering our amendments
if we are not members of the committee. That is exactly what
happened to this gentleman.
So I would like to ask the chairman of the Committee on Rules
if he would give that matter some consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. SOLOMON. We most certainly will. Of course, the recognition
is always subject to the Speaker, to the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole. But certainly, I would just advise the gentleman that
we would try to work with the managers of the bill to make sure
that we are going to get the proper recognition.
Of course, if there are dilatory tactics, stalling tactics,
that sometimes can put the gentleman in that particular position,
in an awkward position. We would hope that that would never happen.
Sec. 24.13 In response to a parliamentary inquiry regarding amendments
to be offered under the terms of an adopted special order of
business requiring that amendments be printed in the Congressional
Record, the Chair advised that printed copies of the Record were
not yet available and any issue with regard to its continued
unavailability would become ripe when the amendment process began
(at which time the Record was available to Members).
On January 26, 2011,(49) the Chair entertained the
following parliamentary inquiries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. 157 Cong. Rec. 906, 917, 112th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Anthony] WEINER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(50) The gentleman may
inquire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. Michael Simpson (ID).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, on the bill we're going to be
considering shortly, the Presidential checkoff bill, there's a
requirement under the rules that the amendments be printed in the
Record. Is that Record available?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the printed
Record is not yet available.
Mr. WEINER. Further inquiry, does the Speaker have any guidance
for the House on when that Record might be available so we can read
what we're going to be considering in a matter of minutes?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not currently have that
information. Under the terms of House Resolution 54, any issue
would become ripe when the amendment process begins.
Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. . . .
The CHAIR.(51) All time for general debate has
expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. Steven LaTourette (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the 5-minute rule for a period not to exceed 5
hours and shall be considered read. . . .
The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of
debate.
The Chair would advise, in light of the gentleman from New
York's parliamentary inquiry earlier, that the printed Record is
available.
Each amendment printed may be offered only by the Member who
caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as
read.
Closed or Limited Debate
Sec. 24.14 Notwithstanding a limitation of debate on a pending title of
a bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain, a Member who
had inserted the text of an amendment in the Congressional Record
is entitled, under clause 6 of rule XXIII (now clause 8 of rule
XVIII),(52) to be recognized for five minutes upon
offering that amendment during the limitation.(53)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. House Rules and Manual Sec. 987 (2019).
53. Parliamentarian's Note: At the time of these proceedings, the rule
did not specify where in the Record pre-printed amendments were
to appear. In this case, the Member had submitted his amendment
as an extension of remarks. In the 93d Congress, the rule was
amended to provide a specific location in the Record where all
amendments under the rule would be printed. See Sec. 24.15,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 1973,(54) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. 119 Cong. Rec. 13253-54, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James] WRIGHT [of Texas]. Mr. Chairman, I am hoping again
we may be able to get some agreement as to fixing a time. We have a
lot of Members catching planes. I would ask unanimous consent that
all debate on title I of the bill and amendments thereto conclude
at 2:30. . . .
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. [Thomas] RAILSBACK [of Illinois]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Railsback: Page 133, line 5, strike out
``route'' and insert ``routes'', and strike out ``for the purpose of
including such highways in the National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways'' on lines 6, 6, and 7.
Page 133, line 8, immediately before ``A'' insert the following: ``(1)''.
Page 133, after line 13, insert the following:
``(2) A route from Kansas City, Missouri, or its vicinity, to Chicago,
Illinois, or its vicinity, so aligned as to cross the Mississippi River at
a point between Nauvoo, Illinois, on the north, and Hannibal, Missouri, on
the south.''. . . .
The CHAIRMAN.(55) The time of the gentleman from
Illinois has expired. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. Morris Udall (AZ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this:
That I had asked the Chairman before I offered my amendment, and I
just tried to bring this matter up just now, and that is that I
printed my amendment in the Congressional Record of April 17 at
page 12843, and I was previously led to believe, in response to the
answer of the Chairman, that I would be given 5 minutes on my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the gentleman is
correct. The Chair was not aware that the gentleman's amendment had
been printed in the Record, and the Chair will state that the
gentleman from Illinois will be recognized for an additional 4
minutes.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Randall yielded his time to Mr.
Railsback.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois
for 4\3/4\ minutes.
Sec. 24.15 In the 93d Congress, the House amended clause 6 of rule
XXIII (now clause 8 of rule XVIII),(56) to provide for a
specific location in the Congressional Record where pre-printed
amendments must appear to qualify under the rule, and the Speaker
announced certain policies with respect to submitting such
amendments to the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. House Rules and Manual Sec. 987 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 25, 1974,(57) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. 120 Cong. Rec. 37270, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.; House Rules and Manual
Sec. 987 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDING RULE XXIII, CLAUSE 6, OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. [John] YOUNG of Texas. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1387 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1387
Resolved, That rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended by adding at the end of clause 6 the following new sentence:
``Material placed in the Record pursuant to this provision shall indicate
the full text of the proposed amendment, the name of the proponent Member,
the number of the bill to which it will be offered and the point in the
bill or amendment thereto where the amendment is intended to be offered,
and shall appear in a portion of the Record designated for that purpose.''.
The SPEAKER.(58) The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Young) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER: PROCEDURE FOR PRINTING OF
AMENDMENTS UNDER RULE 23, CLAUSE 6
The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to make a statement concerning
the submission of proposed amendments for printing in a designated
portion of the Congressional Record, pursuant to the provisions of
Rule 23, clause 6, as recently amended by the House.
In order that such amendments to be inserted in the Record not
be commingled with bills and reports submitted to the clerk through
the hopper, the clerk shall make available a box to be placed at
the desk in front of the Chair, solely for the submission of
proposed amendments to be printed in the Record. Each such
amendment must bear the written signature of the Member causing it
to be inserted and must be submitted either while the House is in
session or, if the House is not in session, under the same
regulations promulgated by the Joint Committee on Printing for the
submission of extensions of remarks after the adjournment of the
House. A member's debate time will be protected under the rule only
if his amendment is properly submitted for printing in the
designated portion of the Record.
The Chair will further state that only such amendments as have
been dropped in the proper box will be printed in the designated
portion of the Record. Proposed amendments which are inserted in 1-
minute speeches or in other remarks on the floor, or inserted in
Extensions of Remarks, will not appear in the designated portion of
the Record unless such amendments are also dropped in the proper
box. The Chair suggests, in order to avoid printing duplication and
excessive cost in preparing the Congressional Record, that Members
refrain from reading or inserting their proposed amendments while
discussing them on the floor or in Extensions of Remarks, since
they will be printed in the section of the Record set aside for
that purpose.
An amendment placed in the box must conform with the provisions
of the rule to be printed in the designated portion of the Record,
and remarks accompanying the amendment should be limited to
identification by bill number of the bill sought to be amended, and
identification of the portion of the bill, or of the amendment
thereto, where the designated amendment will be offered.
Sec. 24.16 Under a time limitation imposed by the Committee of the
Whole pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII (now clause 8 of rule
XVIII),(59) the Chair has discretion to recognize for
amendments, and may defer the consideration of pre-printed
amendments, in order to allow amendments whose consideration might
be precluded by the time limitation to be offered first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. House Rules and Manual Sec. 987 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 4, 1975,(60) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 16901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Donlon (Don)] EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto terminate at
6:45 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN.(61) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. Richard Bolling (MO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The CHAIRMAN. With the permission of the committee, the Chair
will briefly state the situation.
There are a number of Members who do not have amendments that
were placed in the record, and the Chair feels that he must try to
protect them somewhat, so he proposes to go to a number of Members
on the list so they will at least get some time. The time allotted
will be less than a minute.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de le
Garza).
Sec. 24.17 When the Committee of the Whole is operating under a special
order of business limiting consideration of all amendments to a
number of hours of consideration, clause 6 of rule XXIII (now
clause 8 of rule XVIII),(62) does not apply and
amendments pre-printed in the Congressional Record are not
guaranteed debate time under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. House Rules and Manual Sec. 987 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 9, 1986,(63) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. 132 Cong. Rec. 6896-97, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] HUGHES [of New Jersey]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hughes to the amendment, as amended, offered by
Mr. Volkmer as a substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended: Page 7. line 10, strike out ``shall not
apply'' and all that follows through ``firearms)'' in line 2 on page 8, and
insert in lieu thereof the following: ``shall not apply to the sale or
delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a
State in which the licensee's place of business is located if the
transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer,
and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions
of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or
dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws
and published ordinances of both States)''.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN.(64) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New Jersey?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. Charles Rangel (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, and
move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time
and moves that the Committee rise.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Harold] VOLKMER [of Missouri]. Mr. Chairman, during all
that, do we have an amendment pending?
The CHAIRMAN. The Hughes amendment is pending.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I did not even hear it read during
all of that.
I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The reading of the Hughes amendment was dispensed
with by unanimous consent.
The gentleman, then, instead of speaking to the amendment, has
yielded back the balance of his time and moved that the Committee
rise.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Hughes] that the Committee do now rise.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. [Charles (Buddy)] ROEMER [of Louisiana]. Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ROEMER. Is it the position of the House, Mr. Chairman, that
when we rise and meet tomorrow, the Hughes amendment pending now
would begin the debate?
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana is exactly correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. When we come in tomorrow and the Committee begins
to act on the bill, we will have only the time left under the 5
hours for amendments, is that not correct?
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. Which right now is approximately 1 hour?
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. And then the rest of the amendments, are they cut
off? Or do we go ahead for those that are in the Record and vote on
them after 5 minutes each?
Mr. CHAIRMAN. There will not be any amendments that would be in
order after the conclusion of the 5-hour consideration.
Mr. VOLKMER. In other words, really we could finish this up
tonight in 1 hour and we would be out of here. So tomorrow morning
we are going to come in for 1 hour and then we are going to vote?
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The Committee of the Whole could conclude the
work but there could be votes, in both the Committee and in the
House which could certainly go beyond the 1 hour.
Sec. 24.18 Under a prior version of clause 6 of rule XXIII (now clause
8 of rule XVIII),(65) amendments pre-printed in the
Congressional Record could only be offered to measures reported by
committees, and unanimous consent was required to allow Members to
pre-print amendments intended to be offered to unreported
measures.(66)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. House Rules and Manual Sec. 987 (2019).
66. Parliamentarian's Note: The rule was amended in the 105th Congress
to allow amendments to unreported measures to be pre-printed in
the Record (unanimous consent not required). See H. Res. 5, 143
Cong. Rec. 120-22, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 7, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 1, 1983,(67) the following unanimous-consent
request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. 129 Cong. Rec. 30319, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZING PRINTING OF AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 4196 IN
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Mr. [Anthony] BEILENSON [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that amendments to H.R. 4196 may be printed in
that portion of the Record entitled ``amendments submitted under
clause 6 of rule XXIII.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Charles] Hayes [of Illinois]). Is
there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Sec. 24.19 Amendments pre-printed in the Congressional Record pursuant
to clause 8 of rule XVIII(68) may be offered to
unnumbered measures, in which case the measure is identified by
title only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. House Rules and Manual Sec. 987 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 17, 2002,(69) the following was printed in the
Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. 148 Cong. Rec. 13383, 107th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDMENTS
Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were
submitted as follows:
Agriculture Appropriations Bill Offered By: Mr. Royce
Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert
the following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to pay
the salaries and expenses of personnel of the Department of Agriculture to
carry out a market promotion/market access program pursuant to the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978.
PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE
Ch. 5
INDEX-THE HOUSE RULES, JOURNAL, AND RECORD
Adjournment
concurrent resolution of adjournment postponing question on
approval of Journal, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.10
Congressional Record, depiction of events occurring following
adjournment sine die, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.12, 18.29
Congressional Record, requests to revise and extend remarks on
events occurring during adjournment, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.2, 20.13
constitutional requirements regarding, Sec. 1
Journal, approval, concurrent resolution on adjournment postponing
question on, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.10
Journal, approval, effect of adjourning prior to, Sec. Sec. 12,
12.2, 12.7, 12.15, 12.16
Journal, approval, precedence as to, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.4, 11.5
Journal, hour of adjournment included in, Sec. 10
precedence, approval of Journal, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 11,
11.4, 11.5
sine die adjournment, depiction of events in Congressional Record
following, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.12, 18.29
Amendments
Code of Official Conduct, amendments thereto not considered
privileged, Sec. 6
Committee of the Whole, limiting debate, status of pre-printed
amendments, Sec. 24
Committee of the Whole, proposals to amend rules of the House
considered in, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.5
committee rules, amendments to, Sec. 18.15
Congressional Record, depiction in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.2
Congressional Record, former rule requiring unanimous consent to
print amendments to unreported measures, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.18
Congressional Record, Government Publishing Office printing errors,
Sec. 24
Congressional Record, status of amendments pre-printed in,
Sec. Sec. 18, 23, 24, 24.1-24.19
en bloc consideration of pre-printed amendments pursuant to special
order of business, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.11
House as in Committee of the Whole, proposals to amend rules of the
House considered in, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.6
incorporation by reference of statutory provisions, Sec. 6
Journal, approval takes precedence over motion to amend,
Sec. Sec. 13, 14
Journal, reading takes precedence over motion to amend, Sec. 14
Journal amended to vacate receipt of executive communication,
Sec. Sec. 14, 14.1
motion to amend available prior to adoption of rules, Sec. 5
motion to waive reading of, Sec. Sec. 18, 23
question of consideration applied to proposals to amend rules of
the House, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.11
reading of, motion to waive, Sec. Sec. 18, 23
restrictions on offering pursuant to statutory rulemaking, Sec. 7
rules of the House, Chair does not interpret, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.4, 6
rules of the House, consideration by discharge, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.9
rules of the House, consideration by privileged resolution,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.1, 6.13
rules of the House, consideration by special order of business,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.2-6.6, 6.10
rules of the House, consideration by suspension, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.8
rules of the House, consideration by unanimous consent,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.7
rules of the House, contingent adoption, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.16
rules of the House, germaneness, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.20-6.22
rules of the House, jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
rules of the House, motion to amend available prior to adoption of,
Sec. 5
rules of the House, procedure generally, Sec. 6
rules of the House, proposal to amend subject to the question of
consideration, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.11
rules of the House, vacating, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.18, 6.19
special orders of business pre-printing requirements, Sec. Sec. 24,
24.1-24.13
special orders of business structuring consideration of,
Sec. Sec. 4, 24, 24.17
statutory rulemaking, restrictions on offering under, Sec. 7
waivers of points of order against, Sec. 4
Amendments Between the Houses
Congressional Record, depiction in, Sec. 18
Appeals
Precedents of the House, relationship to, Sec. 1
Appropriations
legislating on appropriations measures, application to proposals to
amend rules of the House, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.23, 6.24
Approval of Journal
see Journal
Audio-Visual Broadcasting
Congressional Record, relationship to, Sec. 19
privileged question, consideration of resolution to provide for
considered as, Sec. 6
Speaker's authority over, Sec. 8
Bill Numbers
see Sponsorship
Boards and Commissions
separate orders, reauthorization by, Sec. 8
Budget Process
allocations printed in Congressional Record corrected by unanimous
consent, Sec. Sec. 19, 19.5
budget resolution, jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.15
extraneous material inserted into Congressional Record, certain
budget matters exempt from cost estimate requirement,
Sec. Sec. 21, 21.9, 21.10
jurisdiction over budget resolution, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.15
separate orders, effect on, Sec. 8
statutory rulemaking regarding, Sec. 2
tax complexity analysis printed in Congressional Record, Sec. 18
Censure
see Ethics
Chadha Decision
see Statutory Rulemaking
Clerk of the House
decorum rules enforced by prior to adoption of rules, Sec. 5
Journal, designation of Clerk pro tempore included in, Sec. 10
Journal, distribution to Members by, Sec. 10
Journal, questions of order included in by, Sec. 10
Journal Clerk, see Journal Clerk
Official Reporters of Debate, appointment authority, Sec. Sec. 16,
16.3
Reading Clerks, see Reading Clerk
Code of Official Conduct
amendments thereto not considered privileged, Sec. 6
jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
parliamentary inquiries regarding, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.3
see also Ethics
Colloquies
see Congressional Record
Committee Jurisdiction
Code of Official Conduct, jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
Congressional Record, Committee on House Administration,
jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 16, 17, 17.9
Ethics, Committee on, jurisdiction over Code of Official Conduct,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
joint rules of the House and Senate, jurisdiction over, Sec. 7
Rules, Committee on, jurisdiction over rules of the House,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
rules of the House, jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
Speaker's announced policies regarding, Sec. 9
Committee of the Whole
amendments pre-printed in Congressional Record, consideration of,
Sec. Sec. 18, 23, 24, 24.3, 24.4, 24.6, 24.14-24.19
Congressional Record, depiction of ''notice'' quorum call in,
Sec. 18
Congressional Record, depiction of vacated votes in, Sec. Sec. 18,
18.7
Congressional Record, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.6, 18, 20,
22.11, 23, 24, 24.3, 24.4, 24.6
Congressional Record, status of amendments pre-printed in,
Sec. Sec. 18, 23, 24, 24.3, 24.4, 24.6, 24.14-24.19
House as in, proposals to amend rules of the House considered in,
Sec. 6
Journal, votes taken in entered into, Sec. 10
rules of the House, applicability to proceedings in, Sec. 3
rules of the House, proposals to amend considered in, Sec. Sec. 6,
6.5
rules of the House, proposals to amend considered in House as in,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.6
votes taken in entered into Journal, Sec. 10
votes vacated, depiction in Congressional Record, Sec. Sec. 18,
18.7
Committee on Ethics
Code of Official Conduct, jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
Congressional Record, jurisdiction over improper alteration of
remarks, Sec. 19
jurisdiction over Code of Official Conduct, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
Committee on House Administration
Congressional Record, jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 16, 17, 17.9, 19
Committee on Rules
amendments to rules of the House, jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 6,
6.12
committee reporting requirements regarding Ramseyers for amendments
to rules of the House, Sec. 6
committee reporting requirements regarding waivers of points of
order, Sec. 4
joint rules of the House and Senate, jurisdiction over, Sec. 7
jurisdiction generally, Sec. 6
jurisdiction over budget resolution containing amendments to rules
of the House, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.15
jurisdiction over joint rules, Sec. 7
Ramseyer requirement for amendments to rules of the House, Sec. 6
rules of the House, jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
waivers, committee reporting requirement regarding, Sec. 4
Committee on the Budget
jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.15
Committee on Ways and Means
tax complexity analysis requirement, Sec. 18
Committee Reports
Congressional Record, depiction in, Sec. Sec. 14.5, 18, 18.4
Journal, correcting depiction of filing by unanimous consent,
Sec. 14.5
Journal, titles and subjects of entered into, Sec. 10
Ramseyer requirement for amendments to rules of the House, Sec. 6
Rules, Committee on, Ramseyer requirement for amendments to rules
of the House, Sec. 6
Rules, Committee on, waiver identification requirements, Sec. 4
separate orders, requirements created by, Sec. 8
special orders of business, waiver identification requirements,
Sec. 4
waivers of points of order required to be identified in, Sec. 4
Committees
committee report requirements created by separate order, Sec. 8
committee rules, amendments to, Sec. 18.15
committee rules printed in Congressional Record, Sec. Sec. 18,
18.13-18.15
Congressional Record, committee rules printed in, Sec. Sec. 18,
18.13-18.15
Congressional Record, executive session material not printed in,
Sec. Sec. 18, 18.30
Congressional Record, summaries of committee work inserted into,
Sec. Sec. 20, 20.14
deposition authority created by separate order, Sec. 8
discharge procedures under statutory rulemaking, Sec. 7
discharging proposals to amend rules of the House, Sec. 7
executive session material not printed in Congressional Record,
Sec. Sec. 18, 18.30
joint committees, descriptions of published in House Rules and
Manual, Sec. 2
Journal, referrals of measures entered into, Sec. 10
jurisdiction, see Committee Jurisdiction
membership rules waived by separate order, Sec. 8
referral of measures to committee, see Referrals
Rules, Committee on, committee reporting requirements regarding
waivers of points of order, Sec. 4
rules of the House, relationship to, Sec. 3
select committee composed of floor leaders, referral of resolution
adopting rules to, Sec. 5
select committee jurisdiction over proposals to amend rules of the
House, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.14
select committees, creation by separate order, Sec. 8
select committees, descriptions of published in House Rules and
Manual, Sec. 2
separate orders, effect on, Sec. 8
subcommittee limitations waived by separate order, Sec. 8
subcommittee rules, Sec. 3
waivers, committee reporting requirement regarding, Sec. 4
Conferences
conferee appointments, Speaker's announced policies regarding,
Sec. 9
conference reports, availability in Congressional Record,
Sec. Sec. 18, 23
conference reports, correction by unanimous consent not permitted,
Sec. Sec. 19, 19.7
conference reports, depiction in Congressional Record,
Sec. Sec. 17.4, 17.5, 19, 19.6
conference reports may not be field during reading of Journal,
Sec. 13
Journal, reading of, conference reports may not be field during,
Sec. 13
Speaker's announced policies regarding appointment of conferees,
Sec. 9
Congressional Record
adjournment sine die, depicting of events occurring following,
Sec. Sec. 18, 18.12, 18.29
amendments, depiction in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.2
amendments, en bloc consideration, submission of statement to the
Congressional Record in lieu of debate, Sec. 24
amendments, former rule requiring unanimous consent to print
amendments to unreported measures, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.18
amendments, Government Publishing Office printing errors,
Sec. Sec. 24, 24.7
amendments, pre-printing requirements under special orders of
business, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.1-24.13
amendments pre-printed in, motion to waive reading, Sec. Sec. 18,
23
amendments pre-printed in, status in Committee of the Whole,
Sec. Sec. 18, 23, 24, 24.3, 24.4, 24.6, 24.14-24.19
Annals of Congress, relationship to, Sec. 15
appendix, former use of, Sec. 17
audio-visual broadcasting, relationship to, Sec. 19
bills and resolutions, depiction in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.1, 18.3, 19.1
budget allocations corrected by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 19,
19.5
colloquies, unanimous-consent requests to insert not entertained,
Sec. Sec. 20, 20.19-20.21
colloquies generally, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.22-20.25
Committee of the Whole, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.6, 18,
23, 24, 24.3, 24.4, 24.6, 24.14-24.19
committee report, depiction of filing corrected by unanimous
consent, Sec. Sec. 14.5, 18.4, 19
committee reports, depiction in, Sec. 18
committee rules printed in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.13-18.15
committee work summaries inserted into, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.14
conference reports, availability via publication in, Sec. Sec. 18,
23
conference reports, correction by unanimous consent not permitted,
Sec. Sec. 19, 19.7
conference reports, depiction in, Sec. Sec. 17.4, 17.5, 18
Congressional Globe, relationship to, Sec. 15
Congressional Review Act requirements, Sec. 18.23
constitutional authority statements printed in, Sec. 18
correcting errors generally, Sec. 19
Daily Digest, Sec. 17
discharge petitions, signatories to printed in, Sec. 18
disciplinary measures, protocols regarding revising and extending
remarks on, Sec. 20
earmark statements printed in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.26-18.28
electoral vote totals corrected in, Sec. 19.2
executive communications printed in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.8
executive session material of committees not printed in,
Sec. Sec. 18, 18.30
extension of remarks generally, Sec. Sec. 17, 17.1
extraneous material, cost estimates regarding printing of,
Sec. Sec. 21, 21.5-21.10
extraneous material, deduction of time for unanimous-consent
request to insert, Sec. Sec. 21, 21.13
extraneous material, insertion by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 21,
21.1, 21.3, 21.4, 21.14, 22, 22.16-22.23
extraneous material, role of Official Reporters of Debate
regarding, Sec. 21.2
extraneous material, subject to decorum standards, Sec. Sec. 21,
22, 22.16-22.23
foreign languages, depiction in, Sec. Sec. 17, 17.12-17.14
format generally, Sec. 17
gallery occupants, unanimous-consent request to insert names,
Sec. 22
Government Publishing Office, publication by, Sec. Sec. 15, 16.4,
19
House Administration, Committee on, jurisdiction over, Sec. 16
impeachment proceedings printed in, Sec. 18
interruptions and interjected remarks not transcribed,
Sec. Sec. 22, 22.24-22.26
Joint Committee on Printing, jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.2,
17, 22.17
Journal, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 10, 15
``Laws and Rules for Publication of the Congressional Record'',
publication of, Sec. 16.1
messages printed in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.8
motion to revise and extend remarks not admitted, Sec. Sec. 20,
20.3
motion to strike unparliamentary remarks, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.1, 22.13
notice quorum call in the Committee of the Whole, depiction in,
Sec. 18
oath of office printed in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.9
oaths of secrecy printed in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.25
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (formerly Office of
Compliance) regulations printed in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.24
Official Reporters of Debate, role in publication, Sec. Sec. 15,
16, 16.3, 19
Parliamentarian, authority to correct parliamentary rulings,
Sec. Sec. 19, 19.13-19.15
Parliamentarian, role in reviewing material for inclusion,
Sec. Sec. 22, 22.22
Parliamentarian, role in reviewing parliamentary rulings,
Sec. Sec. 19, 19.13-19.15
parliamentary inquiries regarding, Sec. 16
parliamentary rulings, depiction in, Sec. Sec. 19, 19.13-19.15
Presidential messages printed in, Sec. 18
question of personal privilege, insertion of extraneous material
regarding, Sec. Sec. 21, 21.11, 21.12
question of privilege, improper depiction of proceedings
constitutes, Sec. Sec. 19, 19.16-19.23, 20, 20.25
question of privilege, proposal to delete unparliamentary remarks
does not constitute, Sec. 19
questions of privilege, prior rule regarding availability, Sec. 23
quorum calls, depiction in, Sec. 18
recognition, remarks made while not under, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.9,
22.25, 22.26
recommit, depiction of motion in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.5, 18.6
referral of legislation, publication in, Sec. 18
register of debates, relationship to, Sec. 15
resignation letters printed in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.10-18.12, 19.3
revising and extending remarks, deduction of time for unanimous-
consent request, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.27-20.31
revising and extending remarks by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 20,
20.1, 20.2, 20.5-20.8, 20.10-20.13, 20.32, 20.33
revising and extending remarks on disciplinary measures,
Sec. Sec. 20, 20.15
revising and extending remarks on non-legislative debate,
Sec. Sec. 20, 20.4, 20.9
revising and extending remarks on points of order, Sec. Sec. 20,
20.16-20.18
secret session proceedings not carried in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.31
Senate control over, Sec. 16
Senate messages printed in, Sec. 18
Speaker of the House, authority regarding, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.3
Speaker's announced policies published in, Sec. 1
special orders of business, depiction of legislative actions
mandated by, Sec. 18
special orders of business, pre-printing requirements pursuant to,
Sec. Sec. 24, 24.1-24.13
sponsors and cosponsors of measures printed in, Sec. Sec. 18,
18.17-18.21
statutory rules regarding, Sec. 16
subpoenas printed in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.16
tax complexity analysis printed in, Sec. 18
time stamps, Sec. Sec. 17, 17.2
typeface used, Sec. Sec. 17, 17.4, 17.9-17.11
unanimous-consent request to correct depiction of vote not
entertained, Sec. Sec. 19, 19.8-19.12
unanimous-consent request to deliver speech ''off the record'' not
entertained, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.5
unanimous-consent requests to correct, Sec. Sec. 14.5, 18.4, 19,
22.14
unparliamentarily remarks may be stricken from, Sec. Sec. 19, 22,
22.1-22.3, 22.5, 22.6, 22.10, 22.13, 22.16, 22.18, 22.19
unparliamentary remarks may be stricken by motion, Sec. Sec. 22,
22.1, 22.13
unparliamentary remarks may not be deleted by question of
privilege, Sec. 19
unparliamentary remarks regarding the President, Sec. Sec. 22,
22.4, 22.5
unparliamentary remarks regarding the Senate or Senators,
Sec. Sec. 22, 22.3
unparliamentary remarks withdrawn by unanimous consent,
Sec. Sec. 22, 22.7, 22.8, 22.11, 22.12, 22.15
votes, depiction of, Sec. Sec. 17.6, 17.7, 18, 18.7, 19.8-19.12
withdrawal of unparliamentary remarks, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.7, 22.8,
22.11, 22.12, 22.15
words taken down procedures, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.1, 22.2, 22.6-22.8,
22.10-22.13, 22.15
Congressional Review Act
Congressional Record printing requirements under, Sec. 18.23
see also President
Constitution
House Rules and Manual, publication in, Sec. 2
Journal, constitutional requirements regarding, Sec. 10
quorums, constitutional requirement to do business, Sec. 5
rules of the House, source of authority for, Sec. 1
separate order providing for reading of, Sec. 8
voting by yeas and nays, constitutional authority, Sec. 5
yeas and nays, constitutional authority to demand vote by, Sec. 5
yeas and nays, constitutional requirement to enter into Journal,
Sec. Sec. 10, 10.3
Debatability
motion to delete unparliamentary remarks from the Congressional
Record not debatable, Sec. 22
Decorum
Congressional Record, insertion of extraneous material subject to
decorum standards, Sec. Sec. 21, 22, 22.16-22.23
gallery occupants, unanimous-consent request to insert names,
Sec. 22
general parliamentary law, enforcement under, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.6
interruptions and interjected remarks not transcribed for the
Congressional Record, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.24-22.26
mace, use of prior to adoption of rules, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.6
motion to delete unparliamentary remarks from the Congressional
Record, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.1, 22.13
President, unparliamentary remarks regarding, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.4,
22.5
question of privilege may not be raised to delete unparliamentary
remarks, Sec. 19
Senate, unparliamentary remarks regarding, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.3,
22.16
Sergeant-at-Arms, duties regarding, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.6
Speaker's announced policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 1, 9
unparliamentary remarks may be stricken from the Congressional
Record, Sec. Sec. 19, 22, 22.1-22.3, 22.5, 22.6, 22.10, 22.13,
22.16
unparliamentary remarks may not be deleted by question of
privilege, Sec. 19
unparliamentary remarks may not be inserted into the Congressional
Record, Sec. Sec. 21, 22, 22.16-22.23
withdrawal of unparliamentary remarks, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.7, 22.8,
22.11, 22.12, 22.15
words taken down procedures, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.1, 22.2, 22.6-22.8,
22.10-22.13, 22.15
Discharging Matters From Committee
Congressional Record, signatories to discharge petitions printed
in, Sec. 18
Congressional Record, unanimous-consent request to list print
discharged committees, Sec. 18.22
discharge petitions, signatories to printed in, Sec. 18
discharge petitions retained by Journal Clerk, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.5
Journal, discharge motions considered in the order entered in,
Sec. 10
Journal, discharge motions entered into, Sec. 10
Journal Clerk, responsibilities regarding discharge procedures,
Sec. Sec. 10, 10.5
motions to discharge pursuant to statute retained by Journal Clerk,
Sec. 10
rules of the House, proposals to amend considered by, Sec. Sec. 6,
6.9
statutory rulemaking, procedures under, Sec. 7
Division of the Question For Voting
rules of the House, applicability, Sec. 5
see also Voting
Earmarks
Congressional Record, requirement to publish earmark statement in,
Sec. Sec. 18, 18.26-18.28
points of order regarding decided by question of consideration,
Sec. 4
question of consideration, application thereto, Sec. 4
separate order regarding, Sec. 8
Electoral College
Congressional Record, correction to electoral vote totals,
Sec. 19.2
Journal, electoral vote totals entered in, Sec. 10
Emergency Recess
see Recess
En Bloc Amendments
see Amendments
Ethics
censure, amending the Journal to expunge, Sec. 14
Code of Official Conduct, jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
Code of Official Conduct, parliamentary inquiries regarding
waivers, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.3
Committee on, see Committee on Ethics
Congressional Record, improper alteration of remarks, Sec. 19
Congressional Record, insertion of matter relating to ethics case,
Sec. 22.2
Congressional Record, protocols on revising and extending remarks
on disciplinary measure, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.15
Ethics in Government Act, incorporation by reference into rules of
the House, Sec. 6
Journal, amending to expunge censure, Sec. 14
parliamentary inquiries regarding waiver of ethics rules,
Sec. Sec. 4, 4.3
violations, Chair does not issue rulings regarding, Sec. Sec. 3,
3.3
waiver of ethics rules, parliamentary inquiries regarding,
Sec. Sec. 4, 4.3
Executive Communications
see President
Expulsion
constitutional provision regarding, Sec. 1
see also Ethics
Extraneous Material
see Congressional Record
Floor Leaders
see Majority Leader; see Minority Leader
Floor Privileges
see House Floor
Galleries
Congressional Record, unanimous-consent request to insert names of
gallery occupants, Sec. 22
introduction or reference of guests therein prohibited, Sec. 4
Speaker regulates conduct of guests in prior to adoption of rules,
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.7
unanimous consent to waive rule regarding references to guests not
entertained, Sec. 4
General Parliamentary Law
amend, motion to recognized under, Sec. 5
applicability prior to adoption of rules, Sec. Sec. 1, 5
commit, motion recognized under, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4, 5.5
decorum rules enforced under, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.6
galleries, regulation of under, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.7
Jefferson's Manual, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 2, 5
postpone, motion to recognized under, Sec. 5
previous question, motion for recognized under, Sec. Sec. 5.4, 5.5
question of consideration recognized under, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.8
quorum requirements, applicability under, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.3
recommit, motion to recognized under, Sec. 5
refer, motion to recognized under, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.9
rules of the House, relationship to, Sec. 5
table, to lay on the, motion recognized under, Sec. 5.9
voting procedures under, Sec. 5
Germaneness
rules of the House, application to proposals to amend, Sec. Sec. 6,
6.20-6.22
statutory rulemaking, application to, Sec. 7.1
Government Publishing Office
see Congressional Record
Hour Rule
rules of the House, resolution adopting considered under, Sec. 5
House as in Committee of the Whole
see Committee of the Whole
House Chamber
audio-visual broadcasting, Speaker's authority over, Sec. 8
galleries regulated by Speaker prior to adoption of rules,
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.7
Speaker's announced policies regarding use when House not in
session, Sec. 9
House Documents
separate orders, electronic availability authorized by, Sec. 8
House Floor
electronic devices, use of, Speaker's announced policies regarding,
Sec. 9
floor privileges, Speaker's announced policies regarding, Sec. 9
floor privileges, waiver of rule regarding, Sec. 4
handouts, distribution of, Speaker's announced policies regarding,
Sec. 9
suspension of rules, rule regarding floor privileges may not be
waived by, Sec. 4
unanimous consent, rule regarding floor privileges may not be
waived by, Sec. 4
see also House Chamber
House Rules and Manual
Constitution, publication in, Sec. 2
Jefferson's Manual, publication in, Sec. 2
joint committees, descriptions of published in, Sec. 2
Journal Clerk's former role regarding publication, Sec. 2
Parliamentarian's role regarding publication of, Sec. 2
precedents, annotations containing, Sec. 2
publication of, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.1
select committees, descriptions of published in, Sec. 2
statutory rulemaking, publication in, Sec. Sec. 2, 7
Impeachment
Congressional Record, proceedings printed in, Sec. 18
Journal, presentation of articles may interrupt reading of, Sec. 13
reading of Journal, presentation of articles may interrupt, Sec. 13
Introduction
by request, Sec. Sec. 10, 18
constitutional authority statement, requirement to publish in the
Congressional Record, Sec. 18
Journal, titles of measures of entered into, Sec. 10
Speaker's announced policies regarding, Sec. 9
statutory rulemaking, requirements to introduce legislation, Sec. 7
titles of measures entered into the Journal, Sec. 10
titles of measures printed in the Congressional Record, Sec. 18
Investigations and Inquiries
separate orders, continuation provided by, Sec. 8
Jefferson's Manual
general parliamentary law, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 2, 5
House Rules and Manual, publication in, Sec. 2
rules of the House, relationship to, Sec. 2
Senate's relationship to, Sec. 2
Joint Committee on Printing
Congressional Record, authority over, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.2, 17, 17.8,
22.17
Joint Committee on Taxation
tax complexity analysis requirement, Sec. 18
Joint Committees
see Committees
Joint Rules
see Rules of the House
Journal
adjournment, concurrent resolution of postponing approval,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.10
adjournment, hour of included in, Sec. 10
adjournment, precedence as to approval of, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.4, 11.5
adjournment prior to approval of Journal, effect of, Sec. Sec. 12,
12.2, 12.7, 12.15, 12.16
amending not in order until after reading, Sec. 14
amending or correcting generally, Sec. 14
amending to expunge censure, Sec. 14
amending to vacate prior proceedings, Sec. Sec. 14, 14.1
approval, applicability of point of no quorum to vote on,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.15
approval, postponement of vote, Sec. Sec. 11, 12, 12.11, 12.12
approval, precedence as to recess, Sec. Sec. 11.6, 11.7
approval, quorum requirements regarding, Sec. 11
approval, Speaker's role in, Sec. Sec. 11, 12
approval, unanimous-consent requests entertained prior to, Sec. 11
approval, vacating proceedings where the House adjourns prior to,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.2, 12.15
approval, vote on, precedence of motion to adjourn, Sec. Sec. 11,
11.4, 11.5
approval, vote on, timeliness of demand for, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.3,
12.4
approval as unfinished business, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.7, 12.16
approval at pro forma session, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.10, 12.13
approval by special order of business, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.13
approval generally, Sec. 12
approval not required at commencement of second session, Sec. 12
approval not required at session to declare emergency recess,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.17
approval of multiple Journals, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.6
approval postponed by concurrent resolution of adjournment,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.10
approval postponed to conduct non-legislative debate, Sec. 12
approval takes precedence over motion to amend, Sec. Sec. 13, 14
by request, measures introduced entered into, Sec. 10
Clerk pro tempore designation included in, Sec. 10
Committee of the Whole votes entered into Journal, Sec. 10
committee reports, titles and subjects entered into, Sec. 10
conference reports may not be filed during reading of, Sec. 13
Congressional Record, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 10, 15
constitutional requirement relating to, Sec. Sec. 1, 10
content generally, Sec. 10
correcting depiction of filing of committee report by unanimous
consent, Sec. 14.5
correcting depictions of vote tallies by unanimous consent,
Sec. Sec. 14.2, 14.3
discharge motions considered in the order entered into, Sec. 10
discharge motions entered into, Sec. 10
distribution generally, Sec. 10
electoral vote totals entered in pursuant to statute, Sec. 10
evidentiary status of, Sec. 10
executive, copy sent to, Sec. 10
impeachment, presentation of articles may interrupt reading of,
Sec. 13
legislative and calendar days, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.8,
12.9
Library of Congress, copies deposited in, Sec. 10
Members, copies distributed to, Sec. 10
memorials and petitions entered into, Sec. 10
messages received prior to approval of, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.3
motion that the Journal be read, Sec. Sec. 11, 12, 13, 13.1-13.3
motions entered into, Sec. 10
non-legislative debate, relationship to, Sec. 12
oath of office, precedence as to approval of, Sec. 11
oath of office included in, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.6
order of business, place in, Sec. 11
parliamentary inquiries entertained prior to approval of,
Sec. Sec. 11, 11.1, 11.2
parliamentary inquiries may interrupt reading of, Sec. 13
petitions and memorials entered into, Sec. 10
postponement of approval to conduct non-legislative debate, Sec. 12
postponement of vote approving, Sec. Sec. 11, 12, 12.11, 12.12
Presidential messages entered into, Sec. 10
private bills entered into, Sec. 10
pro forma session, approval at, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.10, 12.13
questions of order included in, Sec. 10
questions of privilege may interrupt reading of, Sec. 13
quorum calls entered into, Sec. 10
quorum requirements for approval, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.1
quorum requirements for reading, Sec. 13
reading, debatability of motion to have Journal read, Sec. Sec. 13,
13.1, 13.3
reading, filing of conference report not in order during, Sec. 13
reading, motion that the Journal be read, Sec. Sec. 11, 12, 13,
13.1-13.3
reading, parliamentary inquiries may interrupt, Sec. 13
reading, point of no quorum may not interrupt, Sec. 13
reading, questions of privilege may interrupt, Sec. 13
reading, quorum requirements regarding, Sec. Sec. 11, 13
reading, special order of business may not be filed during, Sec. 13
reading dispensed with by unanimous consent, Sec. 13
reading generally, Sec. 13
reading may be interrupted by presentation of articles of
impeachment, Sec. 13
reading takes precedence over motion to amend, Sec. 14
recess, approval not required following, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.14
recess, emergency, approval not required at session to declare,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.17
recess, precedence as to approval of, Sec. Sec. 11.6, 11.7
referral of measures entered into, Sec. 10
resignation letters entered into, Sec. 10.1
Senate messages entered into, Sec. 10
special order of business may not filed during reading of, Sec. 13
special order of business providing for automatic approval at pro
forma session, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.13
sponsors and cosponsors of measures entered into, Sec. 10
state legislatures, copies distributed to, Sec. 10
titles of measures entered into, Sec. 10
unanimous consent to dispense with reading of, Sec. 13
unanimous-consent requests, objections thereto not entered into,
Sec. 10
unanimous-consent requests in order prior to approval of, Sec. 11
unanimous-consent requests to vacate proceedings on, Sec. Sec. 12,
12.1, 12.5
unfinished business, status of approval at adjournment,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.7, 12.16
vacating proceedings on, unanimous-consent requests, Sec. Sec. 12,
12.1, 12.5
vacating proceedings on, where the House adjourns without a quorum,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.2, 12.15
veto messages included in, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.4
vote on approval, ability to demand, Sec. Sec. 11, 12
vote on approval, applicability of point of no quorum,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.15
vote on approval, Speaker's discretion to postpone, Sec. Sec. 11,
12, 12.11, 12.12
vote on approval, timeliness, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.3, 12.4
vote tallies, unanimous consent to correct depiction of,
Sec. Sec. 14.2, 14.3
votes by yeas and nays entered in pursuant to Constitution,
Sec. Sec. 10, 10.3
votes entered into, Sec. 10
Journal Clerk
discharge motions pursuant to statute, responsibilities regarding,
Sec. 10
discharge petitions, responsibilities regarding, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.5
House Rules and Manual, former role regarding publication of,
Sec. 2
Journal, responsibilities regarding, Sec. 10
Jurisdiction
see Committee Jurisdiction
Legislative Days
Congressional Record, effect of two legislative days on one
calendar day on, Sec. Sec. 17, 17.3
Journal, effect of two legislative days on one calendar day on,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.8, 12.9
two legislative days in one calendar day, effect on Congressional
Record, Sec. Sec. 17, 17.3
two legislative days in one calendar day, effect on Journal,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.8, 12.9
Library of Congress
Journal, copies deposited in, Sec. 10
Mace
rules of the House, use prior to adoption of, Sec. 5.6
Majority Leader
schedule colloquy, request to revise and extend remarks on,
Sec. Sec. 20, 20.26
select committee membership for referral of resolution adopting
rules, Sec. 5
Manual
see House Rules and Manual
Memorials
see Petitions and Memorials
Messages
Congressional Record, depiction in, Sec. 18
Journal, Presidential messages entered into, Sec. 11
Journal, receipt prior to approval of, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.3
Journal, Senate messages entered into, Sec. 11
Presidential messages entered into Journal, Sec. 11
receipt prior to adoption of rules permitted, Sec. 5
Senate messages entered into Journal, Sec. 11
Minority Leader
bill numbers reserved for by separate order, Sec. 8
select committee membership for referral of resolution adopting
rules, Sec. 8
separate orders reserving bill numbers for, Sec. 8
Morning-Hour Debate
see Non-Legislative Debate
Motions
amend, availability prior to adoption of rules, Sec. 5
commit, applicability to resolution adopting rules, Sec. Sec. 5,
5.4, 5.5
commit, availability prior to adoption of rules, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4,
5.5
Journal, motion to amend, Sec. 14
Journal, motion to approve, Sec. 12
Journal, motion to read, Sec. Sec. 13, 13.1-13.3
Journal, publication in, Sec. 10
postpone, availability prior to adoption of rules, Sec. 5
previous question, applicability to motion to commit prior to
adoption of rules, Sec. Sec. 5.4, 5.5
previous question, applicability to resolution adopting rules,
Sec. Sec. 5.4, 5.5
previous question, availability prior to adoption of rules,
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4, 5.5
reading of amendment pre-printed in Congressional Record, motion to
waive, Sec. Sec. 18, 23
recommit, availability prior to adoption of rules, Sec. 5
recommit, depiction in the Congressional Record, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.5
reconsider, restrictions under statutory rulemaking, Sec. 7
refer, availability prior to adoption of rules, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.9
revise and extend remarks in the Congressional Record, motion not
admitted, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.3
statutory rulemaking, restrictions under, Sec. 7
suspend rules, see Suspension of Rules
table, lay on the, availability prior to adoption of rules,
Sec. 5.9
unparliamentary remarks deleted from Congressional Record,
debatability of motion to, Sec. 22
unparliamentary remarks deleted from Congressional Record by,
Sec. Sec. 22, 22.1, 22.13
Non-Legislative Debate
Congressional Record, revising and extending remarks on,
Sec. Sec. 20, 20.4, 20.9
Journal, relationship to, Sec. 12
Speaker's announced policies regarding, Sec. 9
Oaths
Congressional Record, oath of office printed in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.9
Congressional Record, oaths of secrecy published in, Sec. Sec. 18,
18.25
Journal, approval, precedence as to administration of oath of
office, Sec. 11
Journal, oath of office included in, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.6
Officers, Officials, and Employees
Clerk, see Clerk of the House
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (formerly Office of
Compliance) regulations, requirement regarding publication in
Congressional Record, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.24
Parliamentarian, see Parliamentarian
Sergeant-at-Arms, see Sergeant-at-Arms
Speaker, see Speaker of the House
Official Reporters of Debate
Clerk of the House appoints, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.3
Congressional Record, role in publication, Sec. Sec. 15, 16, 16.3,
19, 21.2
Speaker of the House, authority regarding, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.3
One-Minute Speeches
see Non-Legislative Debate
Order of Business
Journal, place in, Sec. 11
parliamentary inquiries regarding, Sec. 11.1
Orders of the House
see Separate Orders
Parliamentarian
Congressional Record, authority over depiction of parliamentary
rulings in, Sec. Sec. 19, 19.13-19.15
Congressional Record, role in reviewing material for inclusion,
Sec. Sec. 22, 22.22
House Rules and Manual, role regarding publication of, Sec. 2
precedents of the House, role regarding publication of, Sec. 1
Parliamentary Inquiries
amendments to rules, inquiries regarding, Sec. Sec. 3.4, 6
Congressional Record, inquiries regarding insertion of extraneous
material, Sec. Sec. 21.2, 21.6, 21.8, 22.16, 22.23
Congressional Record, inquiries regarding publication,
Sec. Sec. 16, 16.4, 17.4
ethics rules violations, inquiries regarding, Sec. 3.3
ethics rules waivers, inquiries regarding, Sec. 4.3
Journal, approval, inquiries regarding timeliness of vote on,
Sec. 12.3
Journal, approval, precedence as to, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.1, 11.2
Journal, reading, inquiries may interrupt, Sec. 13
special orders of business, inquiries regarding interpretation of,
Sec. 3.5
special orders of business, inquiries regarding pre-printing
requirements for amendments, Sec. Sec. 24.8, 24.13
Petitions and Memorials
Congressional Record, publication in, Sec. 18
Journal, publication in, Sec. 10
separate orders, publication of memorials provided by, Sec. 8
Points of Order
committee reporting requirements regarding waivers, Sec. 4
Congressional Record, revising and extending remarks on,
Sec. Sec. 20, 20.16-20.18
creation via separate order, Sec. Sec. 1, 8
earmarks, creation via separate order, Sec. 8
earmarks, requirements for publication of earmark statement in
Congressional Record, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.26-18.28
earmarks, waiver of, Sec. 4
germaneness, applicability to statutory rulemaking, Sec. 7.1
germaneness, application of proposals to amend rules of the House,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.20-6.22
legislating on appropriations measures, application to proposals to
amend rules of the House, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.23, 6.24
precedents, rulings on create, Sec. 1
question of consideration, earmark waivers decided by, Sec. 4
special orders of business waiving, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.2
waiver by separate order, Sec. 8
waiver by special order of business, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.2
Postponement
Journal, question of approval postponed by concurrent resolution of
adjournment, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.10
Journal, question on approval postponed to conduct non-legislative
debate, Sec. 12
Journal, vote to approve, Speaker's discretion to postpone,
Sec. Sec. 11, 12, 12.11, 12.12
motion to postpone available prior to adoption of rules, Sec. 5
Precedents
appeals, relationship to, Sec. 1
House Rules and Manual, annotations containing, Sec. 2
Parliamentarian's role regarding publication of, Sec. 1
rules of the House, relationship to, Sec. 1
Speaker's obligation to follow, Sec. 1
President
Congressional Record, executive communications printed in,
Sec. Sec. 18, 18.8, 19
Congressional Record, messages printed in, Sec. 18
electoral vote totals corrected in the Congressional Record,
Sec. 19.2
electoral vote totals entered into Journal, Sec. 10
executive communications, Journal amended to vacate receipt of,
Sec. Sec. 14, 14.1
executive communications, referral corrected in the Congressional
Record, Sec. 19
executive communications printed in the Congressional Record,
Sec. Sec. 18, 18.8, 19
Journal, copy of provided to, Sec. 10
Journal amended to vacate receipt of executive communication,
Sec. Sec. 14, 14.1
messages from entered into Journal, Sec. 10
messages from received prior to approval of Journal, Sec. 11
messages printed in the Congressional Record, Sec. 18
role in enactment of legislation, Sec. 1
unparliamentary remarks regarding, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.4, 22.5, 22.23
vetoes, see Vetoes
Previous Question
commit, applicability to motion, Sec. 5.4
motion available prior to adoption of rules, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4, 5.5
rules of the House, resolution adopting, applicability to,
Sec. Sec. 5.4, 5.5
Private Bills
Congressional Record, publication in, Sec. 18
Journal, publication in, Sec. 10
Privileged Questions
audio-visual broadcasting, proposal to provide for considered as,
Sec. 6
Code of Official Conduct, amendments thereto not considered as,
Sec. 6
Congressional Record, questions regarding, Sec. 17.9
resolution structuring consideration of resolution adopting rules
considered as, Sec. 5.2
rules of the House, amendments thereto considered as, Sec. Sec. 6,
6.1, 6.13
rules of the House, resolution adopting considered as, Sec. 5
statutory rulemaking, consideration under, Sec. 7
Pro Forma Session
see Sessions
Question of Consideration
earmark rule, applicability, Sec. 4
rules of the House, applicability to proposals to amend,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.11
rules of the House, applicability to resolution adopting,
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.8
rules of the House, availability prior to adoption of, Sec. Sec. 5,
5.8
Questions of Privilege
Congressional Record, deletion of unparliamentary remarks does not
constitute, Sec. 19
Congressional Record, inaccurate depiction of proceedings
constitutes, Sec. Sec. 19, 19.16-19.23, 20, 20.25
Congressional Record, prior rule regarding availability in, Sec. 23
Journal, reading may be interrupted by, Sec. 13
question of personal privilege, extraneous material regarding
inserted into Congressional Record, Sec. Sec. 21, 21.11, 21.12
rules of the House, resolution adopting constitutes, Sec. Sec. 5,
5.1
rules of the House, resolution alleging violations of constitutes,
Sec. 6
rules of the House, resolution effecting change in does not
constitute, Sec. 6
Quorums
Congressional Record, depiction in, Sec. 18
constitutional requirement, Sec. Sec. 1, 5
general parliamentary law, application under, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.3
Journal, approval, automatic vacating of proceeding where the House
adjourns without a quorum, Sec. 12
Journal, approval, requirements regarding, Sec. Sec. 11, 12
Journal, quorum calls entered into, Sec. 10
Journal, reading, requirements regarding, Sec. Sec. 11, 13
Journal, vote on approval, applicability of point of no quorum,
Sec. 12
Ramseyers
committee report requirements, Sec. 6
Rules, Committee on, committee reporting requirement regarding,
Sec. 6
Reading Clerk
unparliamentary remarks reported by under words taken down
procedures, Sec. 22
Reading of Journal
see Journal
Recess
emergency recess, Journal not approved at session to declare,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.17
Journal, approval, precedence as to, Sec. Sec. 11.6, 11.7
Journal, approval not required following, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.14
Journal not approved at session to declare emergency recess,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.17
Recognition
Congressional Record, remarks of Members not under recognition not
transcribed, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.9, 22.25, 22.26
special orders of business providing priority in recognition for
pre-printed amendments, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.12
Recommit
Congressional Record, depiction of motion in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.5,
18.6
motion available prior to adoption of rules, Sec. 5
Reconsideration
motion to reconsider restricted under statutory rulemaking, Sec. 7
statutory rulemaking restrictions on motion to reconsider, Sec. 7
Refer
motion available prior to adoption of rules, Sec. 5.9
table, motion to lay on the, applicability to, Sec. 5.9
Referrals
budget resolutions, requirements under the Budget Act, Sec. Sec. 6,
6.15
Congressional Record, referral of measures printed in, Sec. 18
executive communications, Congressional Record corrected with
regard to referral, Sec. 19
Journal, committees of referral entered into, Sec. 10
jurisdiction over proposals to amend rules of the House,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
rules of the House, proposals to amend, Sec. 6
rules of the House, resolution adopting referred to select
committee composed of floor leaders, Sec. 8
Speaker's announced policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 1, 9
statutory rulemaking, requirements under, Sec. 7
unanimous consent to re-refer proposal to amend rules of the House,
Sec. 6
Resignation
Congressional Record, letter printed in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.10-18.12,
19.3
Journal, letter entered into, Sec. 10.1
Revenue Measures
constitutional requirement that House originate, Sec. 1
Revising and Extending Remarks
see Congressional Record
Rules of the House
adoption of, Sec. Sec. 1, 2, 5
amendments thereto, applicability of the question of consideration,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.11
amendments thereto, Chair does not interpret while pending,
Sec. Sec. 3, 3.4, 6
amendments thereto, consideration by discharge, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.9
amendments thereto, consideration by privileged resolution,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.1, 6.13
amendments thereto, consideration by special order of business,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.2-6.6, 6.10
amendments thereto, consideration by suspension, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.8
amendments thereto, consideration by unanimous consent,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.7
amendments thereto, consideration in Committee of the Whole,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.5
amendments thereto, consideration in House as in Committee of the
Whole, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.6
amendments thereto, contingent adoption, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.16
amendments thereto, generally, Sec. 6
amendments thereto, germaneness, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.20-6.22
amendments thereto, jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12
amendments thereto, legislating on appropriations measures,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.23, 6.24
amendments thereto vacated, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.18, 6.19
commit, motion to, applicability to resolution adopting,
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4
Committee of the Whole, applicability, Sec. 3
committees, applicability, Sec. 3
consideration as privileged question of resolution adopting, Sec. 5
consideration by special order of resolution adopting, Sec. Sec. 5,
5.2
consideration of resolution adopting, in general, Sec. 5
constitutional authority regarding, Sec. Sec. 1, 2
constitutional authority to waive, Sec. 4
constitutionality, Chair does not rule on, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.1
contingent adoption of amendments thereto, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.16
decorum rules enforced prior to adoption of, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.6
division of resolution adopting, Sec. 5
Ethics in Government Act, incorporation by reference into, Sec. 6
galleries, conduct of guests in regulated prior to adoption of,
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.7
general parliamentary law, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 1, 5
hour rule, resolution adopting considered under, Sec. 5
House Rules and Manual, publication in, Sec. 2
incorporation by reference of statutory provisions, Sec. 6
Jefferson's Manual, relationship to, Sec. 5
joint rules of the House and Senate, jurisdiction over, Sec. 7
Journal, requirements regarding content, Sec. 10
judicial review of, Sec. 1
jurisdiction over, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.12, 6.14
messages, receipt of permitted prior to adoption of, Sec. 5
motions available prior to adoption of, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4, 5.5, 5.9
precedents, relationship to, Sec. 1
previous question, motion for, applicability to resolution
adopting, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4
privileged question, amendments thereto considered as, Sec. Sec. 6,
6.1, 6.13
privileged question, resolution adopting considered as,
Sec. Sec. 5, 6
question of consideration, applicability to resolution adopting,
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.8
question of consideration, applicability to resolution amending,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.11
question of consideration available prior to adoption of,
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.8
question of privilege, resolution adopting constitutes,
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.1
quorum requirements prior to adoption of, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.3
recodification, Sec. 6
separate orders, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 1, 8
separate orders contained in resolution adopting, Sec. Sec. 1, 8
sources of authority, Sec. 1
special order of business, resolution adopting considered pursuant
to, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.2
special order of business, resolution amending considered pursuant
to, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.2-6.6, 6.10
special orders of business that waive or alter, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.2,
4.3
statutory rulemaking, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 1, 2, 3, 3.2, 4,
4.1, 4.2, 6.17, 7
subcommittees, applicability, Sec. 3
suspension of rules, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.1
unanimous-consent requests entertained prior to adoption of, Sec. 5
voting procedures prior to adoption of, Sec. 5
waivers generally, Sec. 4
yeas and nays may be demanded prior to adoption of, Sec. 5
Schedule Colloquy
see Majority Leader
Secret Sessions
see Sessions
Select Committees
see Committees
Senate
Congressional Record, control over, Sec. 16
Congressional Record, messages from printed in, Sec. 18
contingent adoption of amendments to rules of the House, role in,
Sec. Sec. 6, 6.16
Jefferson's Manual, relationship to, Sec. 2
joint committees, descriptions of published in House Rules and
Manual, Sec. 2
joint rules of the House and Senate, jurisdiction over, Sec. 7
messages from entered into Journal, Sec. 10
messages from printed in Congressional Record, Sec. 18
messages from received prior to approval of Journal, Sec. Sec. 11,
11.3
unparliamentary remarks regarding, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.3, 22.16
Separate Orders
bill numbers reserved by, Sec. 8
boards and commissions reauthorized by, Sec. 8
budget process, effect on, Sec. 8
codification of, Sec. 8
committee membership rules waived by, Sec. 8
committee report requirements, creation by, Sec. 8
Constitution, reading of authorized by, Sec. 8
deposition authority, creation by, Sec. 8
earmarks, order regarding, Sec. 8
House documents, electronic availability authorized by, Sec. 8
investigations continued by, Sec. 8
memorials, publication of provided by, Sec. 8
points of order, creation by, Sec. 8
points of order, waiver by, Sec. 8
relationship to rules of the House, Sec. Sec. 1, 8
relationship to statutory rulemaking, Sec. Sec. 1, 7, 8
select committees, creation by, Sec. 8
special orders of business contained in, Sec. 8
subcommittee limitations waived by, Sec. 8
suspensions authorized by, Sec. 8
waivers of points of order contained in, Sec. 8
Sergeant-at-Arms
rules of the House, decorum enforced by prior to adoption of,
Sec. 5.6
Service of Process
subpoenas printed in the Congressional Record, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.16
Sessions
Congressional Record, proceedings of secret session not carried in,
Sec. Sec. 18, 18.31
Congressional Record, request to revise and extend made by Chair at
pro forma session, Sec. 20.7
Congressional Record depiction of events of a prior session,
Sec. Sec. 18, 18.12, 18.29
Journal, approval at pro forma session, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.10, 12.13
legislative day, see Legislative Days
pro forma session, approval of Journal deemed agreed to by special
order of business, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.13
pro forma session, approval of Journal postponed at, Sec. Sec. 12,
12.10
pro forma session, printing of referrals in Congressional Record
delayed, Sec. 18
pro forma session, request to revise and extend remarks in
Congressional Record made by Chair at, Sec. 20.7
second session, approval of Journal not required at commencement
of, Sec. 12
secret sessions, proceedings not carried in Congressional Record,
Sec. Sec. 18, 18.31
Sine Die Adjournment
see Adjournment
Speaker of the House
announced policies of, Sec. Sec. 1, 9
audio-visual broadcasting, authority over, Sec. 8
bill numbers reserved for by separate order, Sec. 8
decorum rules enforced by prior to adoption of rules, Sec. Sec. 5,
5.6
galleries, regulation of conduct of guests prior to adoption of
rules, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.7
Journal, approval, discretion to postpone vote on, Sec. Sec. 11,
12, 12.11, 12.12
Journal, approval, role in, Sec. Sec. 11, 12
Official Reporters of Debate, authority over, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.3
Speaker's Announced Policies
committee jurisdiction, policies regarding, Sec. 9
conferee appointments, Speaker's announced policies regarding,
Sec. 9
decorum, policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 1, 9
floor privileges, policies regarding, Sec. 9
House Chamber, use of when House not in session, Sec. 9
introduction of legislation, policies regarding, Sec. 9
non-legislative debate, policies regarding, Sec. 9
referral of measures, policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 1, 9
rules of the House, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 1, 9
unanimous-consent requests, policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 1, 9
voting by electronic device, policies regarding, Sec. 9
Special Orders of Business
amendments, consideration made in order by, Sec. Sec. 4, 24, 24.17
amendments, en bloc consideration, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.11
amendments, pre-printing in Congressional Record required by,
Sec. Sec. 24, 24.1-24.13
amendments to rules of the House considered by, Sec. 6
Congressional Record, depiction of legislative actions pursuant to,
Sec. 18
Congressional Record, requirements that amendments be pre-printed
in, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.1-24.13
ethics rules, waivers of contained in, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.3
interpret, Chair does not, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.5
Journal, approval of provided by, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.13
Journal, reading, filing of may not occur during, Sec. 13
points of order, waivers of contained in, Sec. 4
rules of the House, amendments thereto considered by, Sec. Sec. 6,
6.2-6.6, 6.10
rules of the House, availability prior to adoption of, Sec. Sec. 5,
5.2
rules of the House, resolution adopting considered pursuant to,
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.2
rules of the House, waivers of contained in, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.2
separate orders, creation by, Sec. 8
statutory rulemaking, relationship to, Sec. 3.2
statutory rulemaking, waivers of contained in, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.2
Special-Order Speeches
see Non-Legislative Debate
Sponsorship
bill numbers reserved by separate order, Sec. 8
Congressional Record, sponsors and cosponsors of measures printed
in, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.17-18.21
Journal, sponsors and cosponsors of measures entered into, Sec. 10
separate orders reserving bill numbers, Sec. 8
unanimous-consent request to add new cosponsors not entertained,
Sec. Sec. 10, 10.2
unanimous-consent request to delete sponsor not entertained, Sec. 4
Standing Rules
see Rules of the House
Statutory Rulemaking
amendments restricted under, Sec. 7
budget processes contained in, Sec. 2
Chadha decision, effect on, Sec. 7
congressional vetoes, Sec. 7
discharge procedures under, Sec. 7
germaneness, applicability, Sec. 7.1
House Rules and Manual, publication in, Sec. Sec. 2, 7
introduction of legislation, requirements regarding, Sec. 7
jurisdiction over, Sec. 7
motions restricted under, Sec. 7
motions to discharge pursuant to, Sec. 10
organization, status at, Sec. 7
privilege accorded under, Sec. 7
referral of legislation, requirements regarding, Sec. 7
restrictions on waivers contained in, Sec. 4
rules of the House, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 1, 2, 3, 3.2, 4,
6.17, 7
separate orders, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 1, 7, 8
suspensions of rules, effect on, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.1
waivers of procedures contained in, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.2, 7, 8
War Powers Resolution, Sec. 7
Subcommittees
see Committees
Subpoenas
see Service of Process
Suspension of Rules
amendments to rules of the House considered by, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.8
Congressional Record, depiction of legislative text, Sec. 18
floor privileges, rule may not be waived by, Sec. 4
rules of the House, motions to suspend, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.1
rules of the House, proposals to amend considered by, Sec. Sec. 6,
6.8
separate orders, authorization by, Sec. 8
statutory rulemaking, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.1
Table
motion to lay on the table available prior to adoption of rules,
Sec. 5.9
refer, applicability to, Sec. 5.9
Unanimous-Consent Requests
amendments, former rule regarding requests to print amendments to
unreported measures, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.18
amendments considered en bloc pursuant to special order of
business, requests to modify, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.11
amendments not pre-printed in Congressional Record, request to
allow consideration, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.10
amendments pre-printed in Congressional Record, requests to modify,
Sec. Sec. 24, 24.4
amendments to rules of the House considered by, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.7
conference report, request to correct not entertained,
Sec. Sec. 19, 19.7
Congressional Record, insertion of extraneous material by,
Sec. Sec. 21, 21.1, 21.3, 21.4, 22, 22.16-22.23
Congressional Record, request to deliver speech ''off the record''
not entertained, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.5
Congressional Record, request to enter impeachment proceedings,
Sec. 18
Congressional Record, request to insert colloquy not entertained,
Sec. Sec. 20, 20.19-20.21
Congressional Record, request to withdraw unparliamentary remarks,
Sec. Sec. 22, 22.7, 22.8, 22.11, 22.12, 22.15
Congressional Record, requests to correct, Sec. Sec. 14.5, 18.4,
19, 19.4, 19.5, 22.14
Congressional Record, requests to revise and extend remarks in,
Sec. Sec. 20, 20.1, 20.5-20.8, 20.10-20.12, 20.32, 20.33
Congressional Record, requests to strike unparliamentary remarks,
Sec. Sec. 22, 22.1-22.3, 22.5, 22.6, 22.10, 22.13, 22.16,
22.18, 22.19
Congressional Record, time deducted for requests to insert
extraneous material, Sec. Sec. 21, 21.13
Congressional Record, time deducted for requests to revise and
extend remarks, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.27-20.31
cosponsors, requests to add new not entertained, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.2
floor privileges, rule regarding may not be waived by, Sec. 4
gallery occupant references, rule regarding may not be waived by,
Sec. 4
gallery occupants, requests to insert names of, Sec. 22
impeachment proceedings entered into Congressional Record by,
Sec. 18
Journal, reading, requests to dispense with, Sec. 13
Journal, request to correct depiction of committee report filing,
Sec. 14.5
Journal, request to correct depiction of vote tallies,
Sec. Sec. 14.2, 14.3
Journal, requests entertained prior to approval of, Sec. 11
Journal, requests to vacate proceedings thereon, Sec. Sec. 12,
12.1, 12.5
objections thereto, effect of, Sec. 4
objections thereto not entered into the Journal, Sec. 10
recommit, motion to, request to have read in full, Sec. Sec. 18,
18.6
rules of the House, proposals to amend considered by, Sec. Sec. 6,
6.7
rules of the House, requests entertained prior to adoption of,
Sec. 5
rules of the House, requests that waive, Sec. 4
Speaker's announced policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 1, 9
sponsorship of legislation, rule regarding may not be waived by,
Sec. 4
votes, request to correct in Congressional Record not entertained,
Sec. Sec. 19, 19.8-19.12
waiving rules of the House, Sec. 4
Unfinished Business
Journal, approval, effect of adjournment, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.7,
12.15, 12.16
Unparliamentary Remarks
see Decorum
Vacating Proceedings
amendments to rules of the House vacated, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.18, 6.19
Congressional Record depiction of votes vacated in Committee of the
Whole, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.7
Journal, approval, automatic vacating of proceeding where the House
adjourns without a quorum, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.2, 12.15
Journal, approval, unanimous-consent requests to vacate proceedings
thereon, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.1, 12.5
rules of the House, amendments thereto vacated, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.18,
6.19
votes vacated in Committee of the Whole, depiction in Congressional
Record, Sec. 18
Vetoes
congressional vetoes, Sec. 7
constitutional requirements regarding, Sec. 1
Journal, veto messages included in, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.4
Voting
Committee of the Whole votes entered into Journal, Sec. 10
Congressional Record, depiction of votes in, Sec. Sec. 17.6, 17.7,
18, 18.7, 19, 19.8-19.12
division of the question, applicability to resolution adopting
rules, Sec. 5
electronic voting, Speaker's announced policies regarding,
Sec. Sec. 1, 9
general parliamentary law, procedures under, Sec. 5
Journal, approval, ability to demand vote on, Sec. Sec. 11, 12
Journal, approval, Speaker's discretion to postpone vote on,
Sec. Sec. 11, 12, 12.11, 12.12
Journal, Committee of the Whole votes entered into, Sec. 10
Journal, constitutional requirement to include votes by yeas and
nays, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.3
Journal, unanimous consent to correct depiction of vote tallies,
Sec. Sec. 14.2, 14.3
Journal, vote on approval, applicability of point of no quorum,
Sec. 12
Journal, vote on approval, timeliness of demand for, Sec. Sec. 12,
12.3, 12.4
Journal, vote on approval, vacating proceedings thereon,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.1, 12.5
postponement of vote to approve the Journal, Sec. Sec. 11, 12,
12.11, 12.12
supermajority vote required to suspend rules, Sec. 4
suspension of rules, supermajority vote requirements, Sec. 4
unanimous-consent request to correct depiction of vote in
Congressional Record not entertained, Sec. Sec. 19, 19.8-19.12
yeas and nays, constitutional authority to demand vote by,
Sec. Sec. 1, 5
Waivers
see Rules of the House
War Powers Resolution
see Statutory Rulemaking
Withdrawal
unparliamentary remarks, unanimous-consent request to withdraw,
Sec. Sec. 22, 22.7, 22.8, 22.11, 22.15
Words Taken Down
see Decorum
CHAPTER 6
Officers, Officials, and Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary and editing by Andrew S. Neal, J.D. and Max A. Spitzer,
J.D., LL.M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Speaker
Sec. 1. Definition and Nature of Office
Sec. 2. Authority and Duties
Sec. 3. Power of Appointment
Sec. 4. Restrictions on the Speaker's Authority
Sec. 5. The Speaker as a Member
Sec. 6. Preserving Order
Sec. 7. Ethics Investigations of the Speaker
B. The Speaker Pro Tempore
Sec. 8. Definition and Nature of Office; Authorities
Sec. 9. Oath of Office
Sec. 10. Term of Office
Sec. 11. Designation of a Speaker Pro Tempore
Sec. 12. Election of a Speaker Pro Tempore;
Authorities
C. Elected House Officers
Sec. 13. In General
Sec. 14. The Clerk
Sec. 15. The Sergeant-at-Arms
Sec. 16. The Chaplain
Sec. 17. The Chief Administrative Officer
D. Other House Officials and Capitol Employees
Sec. 18. The Parliamentarian
Sec. 19. General Counsel; Bipartisan Legal Advisory
Group
Sec. 20. Inspector General
Sec. 21. Legislative Counsel
Sec. 22. Law Revision Counsel
Sec. 23. House Historian
Sec. 24. House Pages
Sec. 25. Other Congressional Officials and Employees
E. House Employees As Party Defendant or Witness
Sec. 26. Current Procedures for Responding to
Subpoenas
Sec. 27. History of Former Procedures for Responding
to Subpoenas
F. House Employment and Administration
Sec. 28. Employment Practices
Sec. 29. Salaries and Benefits of House Officers,
Officials, and Employees
Sec. 30. Creating and Eliminating Offices;
Reorganizations
Sec. 31. Minority Party Employees
Officers, Officials, and Employees
A. The Speaker
Sec. 1. Definition and Nature of Office
The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is a
unique figure in American government. The speakership is a position
rife with contradictions and dual roles. On the one hand, the Speaker
is an institutional representative, elected by a vote of the entire
membership as the principal officer of the House.(1) On the
other hand, the Speaker is a party official_the leader of a political
group with a particular policy agenda.(2) Like the Speaker
of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, the Speaker of the U.S.
House has traditionally been a member of the same body over which he or
she presides. Unlike the British Speaker, however, the U.S. Speaker
does not renounce partisan affiliation, and continues to represent his
or her district as a member of a particular political party. The
Speaker in some ways stands aside from the legislative process, serving
neither as chair nor even as a member of any standing committee and
traditionally refraining from regular legislative activities (such as
sponsoring legislation, engaging in debate, or voting).(3)
But in another sense, the Speaker is central to the legislative process
in the House, presiding over the entire House and exercising
considerable influence over the activities of the majority party to
which he or she belongs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ``The Speaker is said to represent all of the Members of the
House...'' Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 2.1.
2. For more information on the role of party organizations in the
House, see Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3.
3. See Sec. 5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of these contradictory roles and responsibilities, each
speakership is unique. The specific authorities vested in the Speaker
of the House have varied considerably over time, from eras of
relatively diffuse decision-making in the House to eras of tight
centralization. The powers bestowed upon the Speaker by the membership,
how the individual serving as Speaker exercises those powers, and the
environment in which such individual operates, must all be taken in
account when assessing what it means to be the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
This division describes the nature of the Office of Speaker,
outlines the Speaker's jurisdiction and duties,(4) and
illustrates limitations on the Speaker's power.(5) For more
information on the role of the Speaker during the assembly of
Congress,(6) the role of the Speaker in administering the
oath to Members-elect,(7) the duties of the Speaker with
respect to House and Capitol facilities,(8) and the role of
the Speaker in recognizing Members and enforcing appropriate standards
of decorum,(9) the reader is encouraged to consult
additional chapters in this series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. Sec. 2, 3, infra.
5. See Sec. 4, infra.
6. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1.
7. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2.
8. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4.
9. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Overview
Even a modest summary of the history of the speakership would
exceed the scope of this publication, and the reader is encouraged to
consult additional sources on individual Speakers or the speakership
generally.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. For a bibliography of works relating to the speakership, see Donald
R. Kennon, ed. The Speakers of the U.S. House of
Representatives: A Bibliography, 1789-1984 (Baltimore Johns
Hopkins University Press 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purpose of documenting the Speaker's relationship to the
legislative procedure of the House, it is sufficient to note that this
relationship has evolved substantially since the House first began its
proceedings in 1789. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Speaker
was not seen as a particularly influential or important
figure.(11) By the end of the century, however, the
speakership had accumulated a variety of prerogatives, culminating in
an era of powerful Speakers.(12) With the ``revolt'' against
Speaker Joseph Cannon of Illinois in 1910, however, many institutional
privileges of the speakership were either eliminated or transferred to
other entities.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The first Speaker of the House, Frederick Muhlenberg of
Pennsylvania, did not exercise much control over the
proceedings, beyond serving as a neutral presiding officer
consistent with British tradition. Speaker Henry Clay of
Kentucky, first elected in the 12th Congress in 1811, is
sometimes credited with dramatically increasing the power of
the speakership. ``Clay used both institutional and personal
power to transform the office in several important ways.''
History of the House of Representatives, 1789-1994, H. Doc.
103-324, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (1994), p. 100.
12. By the end of the 19th century, the Speaker chaired the Committee
on Rules, assigned all Members to the standing committees of
the House, and used the power of recognition to manage debate
in the House. Speakers Thomas B. Reed of Maine and Joseph
Cannon of Illinois were sometimes derided by opponents as
``tsar'' or ``tyrant'' for the perceived arbitrary exercise of
these authorities. See Ronald M. Peters, Jr., The American
Speakership: The Office in Historical Perspective (Johns
Hopkins University Press 1990), pp. 62-87.
13. As a result of the changes to the standing rules put in place by
the opponents of Speaker Cannon, the Speaker was removed from
the Committee on Rules, and the Speaker's authority to assign
Members to committees was transferred to the party caucuses.
With much of the Speaker's former power exercised by the
majority party caucus, the period following Speaker Cannon is
sometimes referred to as the era of ``King Caucus.'' A History
of the Committee on Rules, Committee Print, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
(1983), p. 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preeminence of the committee system throughout the middle
decades of the 20th century was bolstered by both seniority rules and
the relatively stable political coalitions that existed following the
New Deal era.(14) The institutional reforms of the 1970s
returned some measure of power back to the speakership as the committee
system was substantially restructured and the Committee on Rules began
to assert more control over the legislative process.(15) By
the beginning of the 21st century, the authority of the Committee on
Rules to provide for highly-structured consideration of legislation was
widely acknowledged, and the Speaker's influence over the committee
represents the primary avenue by which the Speaker affects the agenda
of House business.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Democratic party was the majority party in the House of
Representatives for all but two Congresses between the 73d
Congress (1933-1935) and the 103d Congress (1993-1994).
15. For more on these reforms, see Sec. 30, infra.
16. See, e.g., Rules Committee Print 115-37, Democratic Caucus, 115th
Cong., Rule 19(A)(1) and Republican Conference, 115th Cong.,
Rule 12(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election of the Speaker
No matter the historical era or relative power of the speakership,
the choice of Speaker has always been an important one for the House of
Representatives. Article I, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution
provides that the ``House of Representatives shall chuse their
Speaker,''(17) but gives no further indication as to how the
election of such individual should take place. This lacuna has been
filled by customs and traditions, House rules and precedents, and
certain statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 26 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On opening day of a new Congress, the Speaker has not yet been
elected, and thus cannot preside over the membership at
organization.(18) Instead, by long-standing custom
(fortified by standing rules and certain statutory authorities), the
Clerk of the House for the preceding Congress convenes the House and
establishes that a quorum of Members-elect have assembled to begin the
legislative session.(19) Once this initial quorum is
established, the Clerk then presides over the election of
Speaker.(20) The election of Speaker is of the highest
privilege and takes precedence over virtually any other
business.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For more on the status of the House at organization generally, see
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1.
19. For more on the Clerk as a presiding officer, see Sec. 14, infra.
See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 3.
20. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 4. See also Sec. 1.1, infra.
21. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditionally, each party caucus nominates an individual as that
party's candidate for Speaker.(22) Although there is no
requirement that the Speaker be a Member of the House, all Speakers
have been chosen from the sitting membership. A Speaker must be elected
by a majority of those voting,(23) and successive ballots
are taken if no candidate receives a majority on the first
ballot.(24) Following the election, the Speaker-elect is
escorted into the Chamber by a committee of Members-elect, he or she is
presented with the Chair's gavel, and the oath of office is
administered(25) by the Dean of the House (traditionally,
the Member with the longest continuous service).(26)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Parliamentarian's Note: Although representatives of each party
caucus typically nominate one individual as candidate for
Speaker, any Member-elect may nominate any individual for the
office. See, e.g., Sec. 1.1, infra and Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 3 Sec. 3.3. Additionally, Members-elect are not required to
vote for nominated candidates only, and may vote for any
individual. Delegates and the Resident Commissioner cannot vote
in the election of the Speaker. See 145 Cong. Rec. 41-45, 106th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6, 1999). See also Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 1 Sec. 4.2.
23. Parliamentarian's Note: In two instances the House chose a Speaker
by a plurality of votes but confirmed the choice by majority
vote. In 1849, the House had been in session 19 days without
being able to elect a Speaker (no candidate having received a
majority of the votes cast). Finally, after the 59th ballot,
the House adopted a resolution declaring that a Speaker could
be elected by a plurality. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 221. In
1856, the House again struggled over the election of a Speaker.
Ballots numbering 129 had been taken without any candidate
receiving a majority of the votes cast. The House then adopted
a resolution permitting the election to be decided by a
plurality. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 222. On both of these
occasions, the House subsequently ratified the plurality
election by a majority vote.
24. Parliamentarian's Note: The last time the election of Speaker
required multiple ballots to determine a victor was in the 68th
Congress in 1923. However, the majority Republicans eventually
succeeded in uniting behind Rep. Frederick Gillett of
Massachusetts, who was duly elected Speaker on the ninth
ballot. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 24.
25. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 2 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2.
26. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 131-133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resignation, Death or Removal of Speaker
The Speaker's term of office begins when the oath of office is
taken and normally expires at the end of the Congress to which the
Member was elected Speaker.(27) However, during a Congress,
the Office of Speaker may become vacant due to the death of the
Speaker,(28) the resignation of the Speaker,(29)
or the removal of the Speaker by the House.(30)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Parliamentarian's Note: In the 104th Congress, the standing rules
were amended to provide that no one ``may serve as Speaker for
more than four consecutive Congresses.'' Former rule I, clause
7(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 633a (1995). However, this
limitation was removed at the outset of the 108th Congress in
2003.
28. Five Speakers have died while in office: Michael C. Kerr of
Indiana, Henry T. Rainey of Illinois, Joseph W. Byrns of
Tennessee, William B. Bankhead of Alabama, and Samuel Rayburn
of Texas. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 38 Sec. Sec. 2.2-2.4,
3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.4, 5.5, 6.10-6.12, 8.9, 9.4, and 10.6-10.8.
29. Parliamentarian's Note: Since 1869, only two individuals have
resigned from the Office of Speaker: Speaker James Wright of
Texas (Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 4.6) and Speaker John
Boehner of Ohio (Sec. 1.2, infra). In each case, the resigning
Speaker presided over the election of his successor, with the
resignation becoming effective upon election of a new Speaker.
30. Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice states that ``A
Speaker may be removed at the will of the House.'' House Rules
and Manual Sec. 315 (2019). However, the House has never
removed a Speaker before the expiration of his or her term. In
the 116th Congress, the rule regarding questions of privilege
was amended to provide that a resolution causing a vacancy in
the Office of Speaker would only qualify if offered at the
direction of a party caucus or conference. H. Res. 6, 165 Cong.
Rec. H17-H24 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Office of Speaker becomes vacant due to the death of the
incumbent (or, by the incumbent's physical inability to discharge the
duties of the office), a Speaker pro tempore assumes the duties of the
office pursuant to clause 8(b) of rule I.(31) This facet of
the standing rules was added in the 108th Congress in 2003, and
requires the Speaker to provide a list of Members to act as Speaker pro
tempore in the case of vacancy.(32)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
32. Parliamentarian's Note: Since the advent of this rule, no vacancy
triggering the rule has arisen, and thus these procedures have
not yet been utilized by the House. See Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 38 Sec. 2.2. After the death of any Member (including the
Speaker), clause 2(i)(1) of rule II provides that the Clerk
administer the Member's office until a successor is elected.
See House Rules and Manual Sec. 653 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the adoption of this rule, were a Speaker to die in
office, the House would be called to order on the next scheduled
legislative day by the Clerk of the House. The House would then proceed
to the election of a new Speaker.(33) The current rule thus
maintains continuity of operations by providing that a pre-selected
Member of the House (rather than the Clerk) would be elevated (at least
temporarily) to the position of Speaker upon the death of the incumbent
Speaker. Such a Member would act as Speaker, and exercise all
``necessary and appropriate'' authorities until the House elects a new
Speaker or Speaker pro tempore.(34)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 6.7 and Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 38 Sec. 2.4.
34. Rule I, clause 8(b)(3)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker may resign from the office at any time, and such
resignation is not formally accepted by the House.(35) In
the last two instances where a Speaker resigned during a Congress, such
resignation was effective upon the election of a
successor.(36) In both cases, the outgoing Speaker presided
over the election of his successor, thus securing a seamless
transition. Were the Speaker to resign without taking such steps, a
pre-selected Speaker pro tempore would assume the duties of the office
pursuant to the provisions of clause 8 of rule I described
above.(37)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 225, 232. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 37 Sec. 9.
36. See Sec. Sec. 1.2, 7.4, infra.
37. Parliamentarian's Note: In the 19th century, the following Speakers
of the House resigned from the office: Henry Clay in 1814 (to
serve on the commission to negotiate an end to the War of
1812); Henry Clay in 1820 (to resume private law practice);
Henry Clay in 1825 (to become Secretary of State under
President John Quincy Adams); Andrew Stevenson in 1834 (to
become U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom); and Schuyler
Colfax in 1869 (resigned on the last day of the Congress in
order to be inaugurated as Vice President). Since the
resignation of Speaker Colfax only two individuals have
resigned the speakership: James Wright in 1989 and John Boehner
in 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House retains the power to remove its Speaker at any time. A
resolution declaring the Office of Speaker vacant may be offered as a
question of the privileges of the House,(38) though it has
only been used (unsuccessfully) on one occasion.(39) At the
time of this writing, the House has never chosen to remove a Speaker
via a resolution declaring the Office of Speaker vacant.(40)
In the 116th Congress, rule IX was amended to provide that a resolution
``causing a vacancy in the Office of Speaker'' shall only be considered
privileged if offered at the direction of a party caucus or
conference.(41)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 35.
39. Parliamentarian's Note: In 1910, when Speaker Joseph Cannon's
rulings regarding the priority of business were overturned by
the House, and amendments to the standing rules adopted over
his objections, Cannon announced that it was evident that he no
longer enjoyed the support of a majority of the House. Rather
than resign the speakership (which, in his words, would
constitute ``a confession of weakness or mistake''), Cannon
instead invited the membership to offer a resolution to declare
the Office of Speaker vacant so that the House could choose a
new Speaker if it so desired. Cannon's effort was unprecedented
in one sense: such a motion to declare the Office of Speaker
vacant had never before been offered in the House. However,
Cannon most likely based his action on prior precedents
relating to the other elected officers of the House. For
example, the House had in one instance taken up a resolution
declaring the Office of the Doorkeeper vacant. 1 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 290. In another instance, the position of
Postmaster of the House was declared vacant by resolution. 1
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 292. Thus, by Cannon's time, it was well
established that the House could remove any elected officer of
the House via a resolution declaring that the office be deemed
vacant, and either implicitly or explicitly calling for a new
election to fill the vacancy. Furthermore, the issue of whether
such a resolution constituted a valid question of the
privileges of the House had also been settled by prior
precedents: propositions to elect or remove officers of the
House may be presented as questions of privilege. 1 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 284. In response to Speaker Cannon's
invitation, Rep. Albert Burleson of Texas (a Democratic Member)
offered the following resolution: ``Resolved, That the office
of Speaker of the House of Representatives is hereby declared
to be vacant, and the House of Representatives shall at once
proceed to the election of a Speaker.'' Speaker Cannon ruled
that the resolution was a matter of ``high constitutional
privilege'' but that it did yield to a motion to adjourn (which
was offered by Rep. George Norris of Nebraska and rejected by
the House). Subsequently, the immediate crisis regarding the
rules of the House having been resolved, the Republican
``insurgents'' joined their fellow party members in rejecting
the resolution, and Speaker Cannon retained his speakership.
40. Parliamentarian's Note: In the 114th Congress, a resolution
declaring the Office of Speaker vacant was introduced and
referred to the Committee on Rules. H. Res. 385, 161 Cong. Rec.
13076, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (July 28, 2015). However, the
resolution was never considered by the House.
41. H. Res. 6, 165 Cong. Rec. H17-H24 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 3, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation and Benefits
Pursuant to law, the Speaker's compensation and benefits are fixed
at a higher rate as compared to other Members.(42) Statutes
provide the Speaker with an expense allowance,(43)
additional compensation for personal services in the Speaker's
Office,(44) and a ``lump sum'' allowance for the
Speaker.(45) Statutory provisions also provide the Speaker
with pension benefits keyed to the rate of compensation as Speaker
(rather than as Member).(46)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Salaries for Members of the House (including the Speaker) are tied
to the General Schedule. Schedule 6 addresses compensation for
Senators and Members of Congress. Pursuant to this schedule,
the Speaker of the House receives additional salary. See, e.g.,
Executive Order 13866. See also 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4501. For
Members' salary and benefits generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 7 Sec. Sec. 4-8 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 7.
For an example of the House passing, under suspension of the
rules, an increase in the base for computation of annuities of
the Speaker, see Sec. 29.2, infra. For an example of the House
agreeing to a resolution authorizing additional funding for the
Office of Speaker, see Sec. 29.4, infra.
43. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5121.
44. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5122.
45. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5124.
46. See P.L. 93-260, 88 Stat. 76. See also Sec. 29.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to former Speakers of the House, it was previously the
case that former Speakers were authorized by law to retain an office to
``facilitate the administration, settlement and conclusion'' of matters
related to the speakership, as well as an allowance to maintain said
office and staff support.(47) The franking privilege,
enjoyed by Members of Congress, was also extended to former Speakers.
These benefits could be exercised by former Speakers up to five years
after they left office. However, in the 115th Congress in 2018, these
provisions of law were repealed and made inapplicable to Speakers
serving in the 115th Congress or succeeding Congresses.(48)
Under clause 2(i)(2) of rule II,(49) it was formerly the
case that the Clerk would be authorized to maintain on the House
payroll staff of a former Speaker for 60 days following the death of
said former Speaker. However, in the 115th Congress, the statutory
provisions supporting this authorization were repealed.(50)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 5125-5129 (now repealed). Prior to the advent of
these statutory provisions, the House would sometimes provide,
via ad hoc resolutions, certain benefits for former Speakers.
See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 2.2-2.5.
48. See P.L. 115-244, 132 Stat. 2897.
49. House Rules and Manual Sec. 653 (2019).
50. See P.L. 115-244, 132 Stat. 2897.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election of the Speaker
Sec. 1.1 After establishing a quorum at the organizational session of a
new Congress, the Clerk: (1) recognizes for nominations for the
Office of Speaker (typically offered by the chairs of the major
party caucuses);(51) (2) appoints tellers for the
election of Speaker; (3) calls the roll of Members-elect (in which
they indicate their choices for Speaker by surname); (4) announces
the result of the vote; and (5) appoints a committee to escort the
Speaker-elect to the chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. Parliamentarian's Note: While the chairs of the respective major
party caucuses typically nominate individuals for the Office of
Speaker, other Members are not prohibited from placing
additional names in nomination, as evidenced by the three
additional nominations offered in these proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings of January 6, 2015,(52) typify the
procedure by which the House exercises its constitutional duty to elect
a Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. 161 Cong. Rec. 29, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 4.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION OF SPEAKER
The CLERK.(53) Pursuant to law and precedent, the
next order of business is the election of the Speaker of the House
of Representatives for the 114th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. Karen Haas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominations are now in order.
The Clerk recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers).
Mrs. [Cathy] McMORRIS RODGERS [of Washington]. Madam Clerk, it
is an honor to address the House at the start of the 114th
Congress. If there is one thing I have learned as a legislator, it
is that we cannot achieve great things alone. It takes a
willingness to come together, find common ground, and advance
solutions that make people's lives better. In that spirit, I
welcome America's new Congress, one that will chart the path
towards a government that is more open, transparent, and
trustworthy.
To lead us on this path, the Republican Conference has
nominated a man of great character and conviction. The second
oldest of 12 children, he grew up mopping floors and waiting tables
at his family's tavern. He ran a successful small business. He was
elected to the Ohio State House and then this House, where he
served as committee chairman, Republican Conference chairman,
minority leader, majority leader, and Speaker. He is a reformer who
works every day to make government more accountable to the people.
For all of this, he calls himself a regular guy with a big job; and
that job, he says, is to listen, because if we listen to the
people, listen to one another, there is no telling what we can
accomplish together for the future of this great country.
Madam Clerk, as chair of the Republican Conference and by
unanimous vote of that conference, I present for election to the
Office of Speaker of the House of Representatives for the 114th
Congress the name of the Honorable John A. Boehner, our dear friend
and colleague, a Representative-elect from the State of Ohio.
The CLERK. The Clerk now recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. [Xavier] BECERRA [of California]. Madam Clerk, first I
would like to recognize each and every Member who has taken to this
floor to represent the people of the United States and say
congratulations to them and to all of their loved ones who are here
witnessing this solemn event where we will have an opportunity to
lead our country. We say congratulations to them as well.
Madam Clerk, I have the distinct pleasure of nominating someone
who is a proven leader, someone who already will go down in history
as one of the most effective Speakers the House of Representatives
has ever seen, someone who has shown that it doesn't take a man to
get the job done, that it can be done by an American who is devoted
to this country, someone who knows her heritage, someone who has
worked tirelessly for the American people, but someone who
understands first and foremost that the job of this House is to get
things done.
I have been empowered, Madam Clerk, to nominate on behalf of
all working Americans, those Americans who still believe in the
American Dream, to put the name of the gentlewoman from San
Francisco who will serve again in the House of Representatives, put
her name forward for the Office of Speaker of the House of
Representatives for the 114th Congress. I, therefore, at this point
put before you the name of Nancy Pelosi to serve as the Speaker of
the House of Representatives.
The CLERK. The names of the Honorable John A. Boehner, a
Representative-elect from the State of Ohio, and the Honorable
Nancy Pelosi, a Representative-elect from the State of California,
have been placed in nomination.
Are there further nominations?
Mr. [Thomas] MASSIE [of Kentucky]. Madam Clerk, I present for
election to the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives
for the 114th Congress the name of the Honorable Ted Yoho, a great
defender of the Constitution and Representative-elect from the
great State of Florida.
The CLERK. Are there further nominations?
Mr. [Jim] BRIDENSTINE [of Oklahoma]. Madam Clerk, I present for
the election of the office of Speaker of the House of
Representatives for the 114th Congress the name of Judge Louie
Gohmert, a Representative-elect from the great State of Texas.
Madam Clerk, Judge Gohmert proudly serves the First District of
Texas. He is serving his fifth term in the House of
Representatives. Prior to being elected to serve in Congress, he
was elected to three terms as district judge in Smith County and
was appointed by Governor Rick Perry to be the chief justice of the
12th Court of Appeals.
Madam Clerk, this is not about Judge Gohmert; it is about
establishing a strong check on the executive branch. I think a
quote applies to my friend Louie Gohmert. It is from Mark Twain. He
said:
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and
he is brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the
timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
My constituents from the First District of Oklahoma are looking
for this kind of patriot.
The CLERK. Are there further nominations?
Mr. [Steve] KING of Iowa. Madam Clerk, I rise to place in a
nomination for election to the constitutional office of Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives a man who has served as
speaker of the statehouse, a man who respects this institution, a
man who understands that power and principle cannot coexist without
recognizing the sanctity of each Member's vote in this House of
Representatives, a man who will restore this institution of the
House of Representatives. I place in nomination the name of Daniel
Webster, a Representative-elect from the great State of Florida.
The CLERK. Are there further nominations?
The names of the Honorable John A. Boehner, a Representative-
elect from the State of Ohio; the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, a
Representative-elect from the State of California; the Honorable
Ted Yoho, a Representative-elect from the State of Florida; the
Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative-elect from the State of
Texas; and the Honorable Daniel Webster, a Representative-elect
from the State of Florida, have been placed in nomination.
Are there further nominations?
There being no further nominations, the Clerk appoints the
following tellers:
The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller);
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady);
The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur); and
The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
The tellers will come forward and take their seats at the desk
in front of the Speaker's rostrum.
The roll will now be called, and those responding to their
names will indicate by surname the nominee of their choosing.
The Reading Clerk will now call the roll.
The tellers having taken their places, the House proceeded to
vote for the Speaker.
The following is the result of the vote:
[Roll No. 2] . . .
The CLERK. The tellers agree in their tallies that the total
number of votes cast is 408, of which the Honorable John A. Boehner
of the State of Ohio has received 216, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi
of the State of California has received 164, the Honorable Daniel
Webster of the State of Florida has received 12, the Honorable
Louie Gohmert of the State of Texas has received 3, the Honorable
Ted S. Yoho of the State of Florida has received 2, the Honorable
Jim Jordan of the State of Ohio has received 2, the Honorable Jim
Cooper of the State of Tennessee has received 1, the Honorable
Peter A. DeFazio of the State of Oregon has received 1, the
Honorable Jeff Duncan of the State of South Carolina has received
1, the Honorable Trey Gowdy of the State of South Carolina has
received 1, the Honorable John Lewis of the State of Georgia has
received 1, the Honorable Kevin McCarthy of the State of California
has received 1, the Honorable Rand Paul of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky has received 1, the Honorable Jeff Sessions of the State
of Alabama has received 1, and the Honorable Colin Powell has
received 1, with 1 recorded as ``present.''
Therefore, the Honorable John A. Boehner of the State of Ohio,
having received a majority of the votes cast, is duly elected
Speaker of the House of Representatives for the 114th Congress.
The Clerk appoints the following committee to escort the
Speaker-elect to the chair:
The gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy)
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise)
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
The gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers)
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn)
The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden)
The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra)
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer)
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel)
The gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins)
The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro)
The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx)
The gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards)
The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters)
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen)
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions)
The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan)
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry)
The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams)
And the Members of the Ohio delegation:
Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Chabot
Mr. Tiberi
Mr. Ryan
Mr. Turner
Mr. Jordan
Mr. Latta
Ms. Fudge
Mr. Gibbs
Mr. Johnson
Mr. Renacci
Mr. Stivers
Mrs. Beatty
Mr. Joyce, and
Mr. Wenstrup
The committee will retire from the Chamber to escort the
Speaker-elect to the chair.
The Sergeant at Arms announced the Speaker-elect of the House
of Representatives of the 114th Congress, who was escorted to the
chair by the Committee of Escort.
Ms. [Nancy] PELOSI [of California]. My colleagues of the United
States House of Representatives, it is a high honor to welcome you
and your families to the 114th Congress. . . .
God bless you, Mr. Speaker, and God bless America.
Mr. [John] BOEHNER [of Ohio]. Thank you.
Friends, colleagues, countrymen, and especially the people of
Ohio's Eighth Congressional District, thank you for sending me
here. Let us today welcome all of the new Members and all of their
families to what we all know to be a truly historic day. . . .
Thank you all, and God bless the United States of America.
I am now ready to take the oath of office.
I ask the Dean of the House of Representatives, the Honorable
John Conyers of Michigan, to administer the oath of office.
Mr. Conyers then administered the oath of office to Mr. Boehner
of Ohio, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.
(Applause, the Members rising.)
Mr. [John] CONYERS [of Michigan]. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.
Resignation of the Speaker
Sec. 1.2 The Speaker of the House may resign from the Office of Speaker
effective upon the election of a successor.(54)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. Parliamentarian's Note: Speaker Boehner was the first Speaker to
resign during a Congress since Speaker James Wright of Texas in
1989. For proceedings relating to Speaker Wright's resignation,
see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37 Sec. 9.1 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 4.6. The resignation of the Speaker is not
subject to acceptance by the House. See Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 37 Sec. 9.1. The Speaker may resign effective upon the
election of a successor. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1
Sec. 4.6. The Speaker may preside, or appoint a Speaker pro
tempore to preside, over the election of a successor. 1 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 225. The resignation of the Speaker creates a
vacancy in the Office of Speaker under the terms of clause
8(b)(3) of rule I. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 29, 2015,(55) John Boehner of Ohio resigned
as Speaker of the House effective upon the election of his successor.
Prior to his resignation becoming effective, the Speaker: (1)
recognized the chairs of the Republican Conference and the Democratic
Caucus for nominations for Speaker; (2) appointed tellers for an
alphabetical roll call vote for Speaker; (3) announced the vote (at
which point his resignation became effective); and (4) appointed a
committee to escort the Speaker-elect (Paul Ryan of Wisconsin) to the
Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. 161 Cong. Rec. H7335-H7337 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAREWELL ADDRESS
(Mr. BOEHNER asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. [John] BOEHNER [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
inform you that I will resign as Speaker of the House effective
upon the election of my successor. I will also resign as
Representative from Ohio's Eighth District at the end of this
month.
I leave with no regrets, no burdens. If anything, I leave the
way I started--just a regular guy, humbled by the chance to do a
big job. That is what I am most proud of. I am still just me, the
same guy who came here 25 years ago as a small-business man and
spent all these 25 years trying to just be me.
Now, sometimes my staff thought I was too much like me, but it
really is the thing I am most proud of. I am the same regular guy
who came here to try to do a good job for my district and my
country.
Before I go, I want to express what an honor it has been to
serve with all of you. The people's House is, in my view, the great
embodiment of the American Dream. Everybody here comes from
somewhere, and everybody here is on some mission.
I come from a part of the world where we are used to working.
As far back as I can remember, I was working. My staff was asking
me the other day: Well, you know, on November 1st, you're not going
to have a job. When was the last time you didn't have a job?
I thought about it and thought about it and thought about it. I
thought, well, I had to be 8 or 9 years old because I was throwing
newspapers back then and working in my dad's bar. As a matter of
fact, I used to work from 5 a.m. on Saturday morning until 2 p.m.
for $2. Not $2 an hour. $2.
I never thought about growing up as the easy way or the hard
way. It was just the Cincinnati way. Our city takes its name from
the great Roman general Cincinnatus, a farmer who answered the call
of his nation to lead and then surrendered his power to go back to
his plow.
For me, it wasn't a farm. It was a small business. And it
wasn't so much a calling as it was a mission--a mission to strive
for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable Federal Government
here in Washington.
How did we do? Here are some facts. For the first time in
nearly 20 years, we have made some real entitlement reforms, saving
trillions of dollars over the long term.
We have protected 99 percent of the American people from an
increase in their taxes. We are on track to save taxpayers $2.1
trillion over the next 10 years, the most significant spending
reductions in modern times. We have banned earmarks altogether.
Sorry.
We have protected this institution. We have made it more open
to the people. Every day in this capital city there are hundreds of
kids from the toughest neighborhoods who are finally getting a
chance at a decent education.
I am proud of these things, but the mission is not complete.
And the truth is it may never be. One thing I came to realize over
the years that I have been here is that this battle over the size
and scope and cost of our government in Washington has been going
on for more than 200 years, and the forces of the status quo go to
an awful lot of trouble to prevent change from happening.
Real change takes time. Yes, freedom makes all things possible,
but patience is what makes all things real. So believe in the long,
slow struggle. Believe in this country's ability to meet her
challenges and to lead the world. And, remember, you can't do a big
job alone, especially this one.
So I am grateful to my family, Deb and my two girls. My two
girls were 3 and 1 when I first ran for office. Now they are a lot
older. So they have been through a lot. You all know what your
families go through. It is one thing for us to take the bricks and
the boards and everything that gets thrown at us, but it is another
thing for our families. Their skin isn't as thick as ours.
I am also grateful to all of my colleagues: my fellow leaders,
Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Scalise, Ms. McMorris Rodgers; and many on my
side of the aisle, our committee chairs, people I have worked with
for a long time.
But I am just as grateful to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, Mr.
Clyburn, and Mr. Becerra and others for all of the work that we
have done together. Over these last 5 years, we have done an awful
lot of work together. There was probably more work done across the
aisle over the last 5 years than in the 25 years that I have served
in this institution.
Now, as much as I enjoy working with all of you, some of you
still could learn to dress better. You know who you are. I saw one
of the culprits, one of the usual suspects who shows up here once
in a while without a tie. This morning he didn't look dressed very
well, but he did have a tie on.
I am grateful to the people who work in this institution every
day, whether it is the Reading Clerks or--you know, there are a lot
of people, thousands of people, who allow us to do our jobs and to
help make this institution what it is. Whether it is the people you
see here today or the people in the CAO's office or the Capitol
Police or legislative counsel, there really are thousands of people
who really do allow us to do our job.
I am grateful to my staff. Now, you all know I am a big
believer in staff. None of us can be what we are without a good
staff, and I certainly would never have gotten to this job without
having built a great team. So I really am grateful to my staff. As
they like to say to each other, once you are part of Boehnerland,
you are always a part of Boehnerland, and that certainly goes for
me as well.
I am especially grateful to all my constituents and the
volunteers over the years. That includes a student at Miami
University in Oxford, Ohio, in 1990, who was putting up campaign
signs for me. His name was Paul Ryan. I don't think he could
pronounce my name back in 1990 when he was putting up yard signs
for me.
But, as Cincinnatus understood, there is a difference between
being asked to do something and being called to do something. Paul
is being called. I know he will serve with grace and with energy,
and I want to wish him and his family all the best.
My colleagues, I have described my life as a chase for the
American Dream. That chase began at the bottom of the hill, just
off the main drag in Reading, Ohio, right outside of Cincinnati. At
the top of the hill was a small house with a big family, a shining
city in its own right.
The hill had twists. The hill had turns, and even a few tears.
Nothing wrong with that. But let me tell you, it was just perfect.
Never forget, we are the luckiest people on the Earth. In
America, you can do anything that you are willing to work for,
willing to work hard at, and anything can happen if you are willing
to make the necessary sacrifices in life.
If you falter--and you will--you can just pick yourself up,
dust yourself off, and go do it again, because hope always springs
eternal. And if you just do the right things for the right reasons,
good things will happen.
And this, too, can really happen to you.
God bless you, and God bless our great
country. -------------------
ELECTION OF SPEAKER
The SPEAKER.(56) Pursuant to the Speaker's
announcement of October 29, 2015, the Chair will receive
nominations for the Office of Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. John Boehner (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers).
Mrs. [Cathy] McMORRIS RODGERS [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker,
today, in the people's House, it gives me great honor to nominate
the people's Speaker. . . .
As chair of the House Republican Conference, I am directed by
the vote of that Conference to present for election to the Office
of Speaker of the House of Representatives for the 114th Congress
the Representative from the State of Wisconsin, the man from
Janesville, the Honorable Paul D. Ryan.
The SPEAKER. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. [Xavier] BECERRA [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I offer my
congratulations to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan), on his nomination by his colleagues.
At this time, as chairman of the Democratic Caucus of this
House, I wish to place in nomination the name of a proven leader
for the Office of Speaker of the House of Representatives: . . .
Mr. Speaker, that is leadership, and that is what Americans
expect from those they elect. That is why it is my privilege, as
chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and as directed by the
colleagues of the Democratic Caucus, to nominate for election to
the Office of Speaker of the House of Representatives, from the
12th District of the great State of California, the Honorable Nancy
Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi.
The SPEAKER. The names of the Honorable Paul D. Ryan, a
Representative from the State of Wisconsin, and the Honorable Nancy
Pelosi, a Representative from the State of California, have been
placed in nomination.
Are there further nominations?
There being no further nominations, the Chair appoints the
following tellers:
The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller);
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady);
The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur); and
The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
The tellers will come forward and take their seats at the desk
in front of the Speaker's rostrum.
The roll will now be called, and those responding to their
names will indicate by surname the nominee of their choosing.
The Reading Clerk will now call the roll.
The tellers having taken their places, the House proceeded to
vote for the Speaker.
The following is the result of the vote:
[Roll No. 581] . . .
The SPEAKER. The tellers agree in their tallies that the total
number of votes cast is 432, of which the Honorable Paul D. Ryan of
the State of Wisconsin has received 236, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi
of the State of California has received 184, the Honorable Daniel
Webster of the State of Florida has received 9, the Honorable Jim
Cooper of the State of Tennessee has received 1, the Honorable John
Lewis of the State of Georgia has received 1, and the Honorable
Colin Powell has received 1.
Therefore, the Honorable Paul D. Ryan of the State of
Wisconsin, having received a majority of the votes cast, is duly
elected Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The Chair appoints the following committee to escort the
Speaker-elect to the chair:
The gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy)
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise)
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
The gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers)
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn)
The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden)
The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra)
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer)
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley)
The gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins)
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel)
The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx)
The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan)
The gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner)
The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro)
The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters)
The gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards)
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions)
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen)
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry)
And the Members of the Wisconsin delegation:
Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. Kind
Ms. Moore
Mr. Duffy
Mr. Ribble
Mr. Pocan
Mr. Grothman
The committee will retire from the Chamber to escort the
Speaker-elect to the chair.
The Sergeant at Arms announced the Speaker-elect of the House
of Representatives of the 114th Congress, who was escorted to the
chair by the Committee of Escort.
Ms. [Nancy] PELOSI [of California]. My dear colleagues of the
114th Congress of the United States, today, as every day, we come
to this floor strengthened and inspired by the support of our
colleagues, the trust of our constituents, and the love of our
families.
My special thanks to my husband, Paul; our five children; our
nine grandchildren; and the entire Pelosi and D'Alesandro families
for their support.
My deep gratitude to the people of San Francisco for the
continued honor they give me to represent them here.
My heartfelt thanks to my Democratic colleagues for extending
me the honor of being nominated to be Speaker of the House. Thank
you, my colleagues.
Today, we bid farewell to a Speaker who has served his
constituents and this Congress with honor for 25 years, Speaker
John Boehner.
In his story, we are reminded of the enduring, exceptional
promise of America--this hardworking son of an Ohio bartender and
owner who grew up to be the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. John Boehner talked about the American Dream. John
Boehner, you are the personification of the American Dream.
As you all know, Speaker Boehner was a formidable spokesman for
the Republican agenda. My Republican colleagues, I am sure you
know--and I can attest--to the fact that he was always true and
loyal to the members of his Conference in any negotiations we ever
had.
Although we had our differences and often, I always respected
his dedication to this House and his commitment to his values.
Thank you, John, for your leadership and courage as Speaker.
Your graciousness as Speaker extended and was reflected in your
staff under the leadership of Mike Sommers, whom we all respect.
Thank you to John Boehner's staff.
I know I speak for everyone here, Democrats and Republicans,
when I thank you for making the visit of His Holiness Pope Francis
such a beautiful and meaningful experience for all of us.
Today, we extend our thanks and congratulations to Debbie; your
daughters, Lindsay and Tricia; and the entire Boehner family, now
including grandson, Allister.
Let's hear it for the family of John Boehner.
On behalf of House Democrats and personally, I wish you and
your family all of God's blessings in the glorious years ahead.
Last month, we witnessed something truly special when Pope
Francis made history addressing a joint session of Congress.
Standing right here, Pope Francis called on us to seek hope, peace,
and dialogue for all people and reminded us of our duty to find a
way forward for everyone. ``A good political leader,'' His Holiness
said, ``is one who, with the interest of all in mind, seizes the
moment in a spirit of openness and pragmatism.''
Pope Francis echoed the principles of our Founders that placed
at the heart of our democracy the saying, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' from
many, one. The Founders could never have imagined how vast our
country would become, how diverse and many we would be--ethnically,
gender identities, beliefs, and priorities--but they knew we had to
be one.
Every day in this House and across the country we pledge
allegiance to one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
This is the beauty of America, that for all of our honest
differences, perspectives, and priorities aired and argued so
passionately on this floor, we are committed to being one nation.
Despite our differences--in fact, respecting them--I look forward
to a clear debate in this marketplace of ideas, the people's House
of Representatives.
So, my fellow colleagues, we have a responsibility to act upon
our shared faith in the greatness of our country. We have a
responsibility to be worthy of the sacrifices of our troops, our
veterans, and our military families. We have a responsibility to
make real the promise of the American Dream for all.
There is important work before the Congress. We must do more to
promote growth, decrease the deficit, create good-paying jobs, and
increase the paychecks of America's working families.
Today, in this House, a page is turned. A new chapter has
begun. Today, the gavel passes to a proud son of Wisconsin, the
first Speaker from Wisconsin.
Paul Ryan has had the full breadth of experience on Capitol
Hill, from a young staffer to a Tortilla Coast waiter--shall I say
that again?--Tortilla Coast waiter--to a Congressman, to being a
sincere and proud advocate for his point of view as chairman of the
Budget Committee, as a respected leader and chairman of the Ways
and Means Committee, and in a minute, he will be the Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of House Democrats, I extend the
hand of friendship to you.
Congratulations to you, Paul, and to Janna; your children,
Liza, Charlie, and Sam; your mother, who is here--how proud she
must be--and the entire Ryan family, whom we all know mean so much
to you.
Mr. Speaker, God bless you and your family. And God bless the
United States of America.
This is the people's House. This is the people's gavel. In the
people's name, it is my privilege to hand this gavel to the
Speaker-elect of the House, Congressman and Honorable Paul D. Ryan.
Mr. [Paul] RYAN of Wisconsin. Thank you, Madam Leader.
Before I begin, I would like to thank all of my family and
friends who flew in from Wisconsin and from all over for being here
today. . . .
My friends, you have done me a great honor. The people of this
country, they have done all of us a great honor. Now let's prove
ourselves worthy of it. Let's seize the moment. Let's rise to the
occasion. And when we are done, let us say that we left the
people--all the people--more united, happy, and free.
Thank you.
I am now ready to take the oath of office.
I ask the Dean of the House of Representatives, the Honorable
John Conyers, Jr., of Michigan, to administer the oath of office.
Mr. [John] CONYERS [of Michigan] then administered the oath of
office to Mr. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.
(Applause, the Members rising.)
Mr. CONYERS. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.
Sec. 1.3 Retiring Speakers have often been given tributes by House
leaders on the floor.(57)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. Tributes of this sort have taken different forms over the years.
See, e.g., 122 Cong. Rec. 35185-88, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct.
1, 1976) (resolution thanking Speaker); 120 Cong. Rec. 51862-
63, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. (Dec. 20, 1974) (resolution thanking
Speaker); 136 Cong. Rec. 36906, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 27,
1990) (resolution thanking Speaker); 122 Cong. Rec. 16766-68,
94th Cong. 2d Sess. (June 7, 1976) (remarks by Majority Leader
honoring retiring Speaker); 153 Cong. Rec. 31741-43, 110th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov. 15, 2007) (current Speaker honoring
retiring former Speaker); 158 Cong. Rec. 8648-49, 112th Cong.
2d Sess. (June 7, 2012) (Minority Whip congratulating former
Speaker).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2015,(58) the following tribute was
delivered by the Minority Whip:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. 161 Cong. Rec. H7257 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN A. BOEHNER, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(59) The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. Steven Palazzo (MS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Steny] HOYER [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay
tribute to the Speaker of the House, John Boehner.
Speaker Boehner and I, as some would note, do not always agree.
We have been on opposite sides of this floor and on opposite sides
of debate many times. However, that is behind us for John Boehner.
In all of the years I have served with him, Speaker Boehner has
shown me the same kindness, grace, and friendship that he has shown
so many of his House colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
John Boehner is a gentleman in the truest sense of the word and
is a leader who, even in the act of stepping back from his position
in the leadership, has always put the best interests of our country
first. . . .
John Boehner served his country and this House of
Representatives with fidelity and responsibility, and we should all
thank him for that.
We wish the Speaker and his wife, Debbie, well as they embark
on a new phase of their lives. He has served his country well. I am
confident that he will continue to do so.
Sec. 2. Authority and Duties
As noted in the historical overview above,(1) the
authorities vested in the Office of Speaker have not remained static
over time. The House has chosen, in different eras, to imbue the
speakership with different prerogatives and privileges, depending on
the political and procedural environment of the time. The focus of this
section will be on the modern speakership and the powers and
responsibilities currently exercised by the Speaker under the rules and
precedents of the House. However, this section will necessarily delve
into historical practices when describing the origin and evolution of
certain authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker's institutional responsibilities touch on virtually
every area of House practice_from the highly visible regulation of
deliberation and conduct on the floor of the House to behind-the-scenes
administrative duties more tangential to the legislative process. These
authorities derive primarily from the standing rules of the House, as
well as House precedents (including customs and traditions), and
certain statutory and constitutional provisions.
Convening, Reconvening, and Recess
The Speaker's duties begin at the very start of the legislative day
when the Speaker first brings the House into session.(2) At
the precise time previously appointed by the House, the Sergeant-at-
Arms, carrying the mace, proceeds into the House Chamber followed by
the Speaker. The Speaker ascends the rostrum, assumes the chair, and
gavels the House into session with the customary declaration: ``The
House will be in order.'' The House is then ready to begin legislative
business with its Speaker as presiding officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Clause 1 of rule I provides that the ``Speaker shall take the Chair
on every legislative day precisely at the hour to which the
House last adjourned and immediately call the House to order.''
House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the House completes its legislative business for the day, it
formally adjourns to meet again at a subsequent time. The House
typically adjourns via a motion to adjourn offered by a Member on the
floor. If the motion is adopted, the Speaker gavels the House out of
session and declares that the House will stand adjourned until the date
and time previously appointed for the next meeting.
While the Speaker may personally preside over the House during a
legislative day, the Speaker may also appoint another Member to serve
as a temporary presiding officer--the Speaker pro tempore. Pursuant to
clause 8 of rule I,(3) the Speaker is authorized to appoint
a Speaker pro tempore for a period not to exceed three legislative
days. In case of illness, a Speaker pro tempore may be appointed for up
to ten days, with the approval of the House. If the Speaker is simply
absent, and has failed to appoint a Speaker pro tempore, the House
elects a Speaker pro tempore to preside during the absence of the
Speaker.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
4. For more on the Speaker pro tempore, see Division B, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Office of Speaker becomes vacant, the authorities of the
office devolve to a previously designated Speaker pro tempore. At the
beginning of each Congress, the Speaker delivers to the Clerk a list of
Members who would exercise the authorities of the office should the
Office of Speaker become vacant. The rule requiring such a list was put
in place at the beginning of the 108th Congress as a part of a package
of reforms to ensure the continuity of operations in emergency
circumstances.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other continuity of Congress provisions permit the Speaker to
exercise certain emergency convening authorities should circumstances
warrant. Since the 103rd Congress in 1993, the Speaker has had broad
authority to recess the House ``for a short time''(6) when
no question is pending.(7) Since the 108th Congress in 2003,
the Speaker (and the chair of the Committee of the Whole) has had
similar authority to declare the House in emergency recess when
informed of an imminent threat to the safety of the
House.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Rule I, clause 12(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 638 (2019).
7. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's authority to declare the
House in recess (but not adjourned) has gradually expanded in
recent decades. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Speaker
may declare the House in recess ``for a short time when no
question is pending before the House.'' House Rules and Manual
Sec. 638 (2019). Pursuant to clause 4(c) of rule XVI, the
Speaker has discretion to recognize a Member at any time to
offer a motion authorizing the Speaker to declare a recess, or
a motion that when the House adjourn, it stand adjourned to a
day and time certain. House Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2019).
Pursuant to clause 11(g)(2)(F) of rule X, if the House adopts a
motion to resolve into a closed session to debate the
disclosure of classified information in possession of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Speaker is
authorized to declare a recess to facilitate resolving into the
closed session. House Rules and Manual Sec. 785 (2019).
8. Rule I, clause 12(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 639 (2019). For
an older precedent articulating the Speaker's inherent power to
declare recesses in emergency circumstances, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 3.44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the House stands in a period of adjournment of not more than
three days, and the Speaker is informed by the Sergeant-at-Arms of ``an
imminent impairment of the place of reconvening at the time previously
appointed,''(9) the Speaker may either postpone such
reconvening or reconvene earlier than the appointed time (within the
limits imposed by the Constitution)(10) in order to avoid
the impairment. In the 114th Congress in 2015, clause 12(e) was added
to rule I,(11) allowing the Speaker, during an adjournment
of not more than three days, to reconvene the House (within the
constitutional limits) ``at a time other than that previously
appointed,'' should the public interest so warrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Rule I, clause 12(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 639 (2019).
10. Parliamentarian's Note: The Constitution mandates that adjournments
longer than three days must be agreed to by both the House and
the Senate. Thus, any unilateral adjournment of the House alone
may not extend beyond the third calendar day (Sundays
excepted).
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 639 (2019). Rule I, clause 12(d),
permits the Speaker to convene the House at a place within the
seat of government other than the Hall of the House if
circumstances warrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to emergency convening authorities provided by the
standing rules, which address adjournments of three days or less,
concurrent resolutions of adjournment may also provide the Speaker with
authorization to respond to exigent circumstances during longer periods
of adjournment. For example, such concurrent resolutions of adjournment
typically provide that the Speaker (or designee) may, after
consultation with the Minority Leader, reassemble or recall the House
from that adjournment should circumstances warrant.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The date, time, and place of reconvening is usually left to the
discretion of the Speaker. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1
Sec. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to appointing Speakers pro tempore to preside over the
House, the Speaker also appoints other Members to preside as the chair
of the Committee of the Whole when the House considers legislation in
that forum.(13) The Speaker presides over joint meetings and
joint sessions, but the President of the Senate is the presiding
officer at the joint session to count the electoral votes for the
President. The Speaker joins the President of the Senate at the rostrum
to oversee the counting.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Rule XVIII, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 970 (2019).
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may also be appointed
to chair the Committee of the Whole.
14. See 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Power of Recognition
In any legislative assembly, orderly deliberation cannot take place
without a presiding officer to manage debate. One of the most
fundamental powers of the Speaker of the House is the power to confer
recognition on Members of the body.(15) Members may not
engage in debate, make motions, or bring any matters to the attention
of the House without first being recognized by the
Chair.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XVII, clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 945 (2019).
16. ``No Member has the floor until the Chair has recognized him for
the purpose of proceeding.'' Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29
Sec. 8.1. Members remarks while not under recognition are not
transcribed for the Congressional Record. See Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The power of recognition has been a potent tool by which Speakers
manage the business of the House. When the very first rules of the
House were adopted in 1789, they provided that ``[w]hen two or more
members happen to rise at once, the Speaker shall name the member who
is first to speak.''(17) The form of this rule has remained
practically unchanged since that time, and is currently found in clause
2 of rule XVII.(18) As stated, the rule provides the Speaker
with considerable discretion to influence deliberations. With a large
assembly of Members, many of whom may be seeking recognition
simultaneously to put some preferred matter before the House, the
Speaker's choice of whom to recognize may have significant
consequences.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 1 Annals of Cong. 103, 1st Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 7, 1789).
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 949 (2019).
19. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's power to structure the order
of business is restricted by the daily order of business laid
out in clause 1 of rule XIV and the operation of privileged
questions that may interrupt the daily order of business. See
House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 869-872 (2019). See also
Sec. 4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout the 19th century, the House would often debate the
extent to which the Speaker's power of recognition should be limited--
the fear being that the Speaker would abuse that discretion and give
preference to friends and allies within the membership. The earliest
Speakers, who saw their role as more of a facilitator than leader,
usually professed a desire to exercise the power of recognition fairly
and equitably.(20) However, with the rise of more active
Speakers seeking to advance a particular agenda, such assertions became
somewhat less credible. By the mid-point of the century, the practice
of composing ``Speaker's lists'' arose, whereby Members would confer
with the Speaker prior to the legislative session and request that they
be put on a list of Members to be recognized for a particular matter or
question.(21) However, Speakers were never bound (by rule or
otherwise) to follow such lists. In 1881, Speaker Samuel Randall held
that power of recognition was ``absolute'' and not subject to
appeal.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Following the example of the first Speaker, Frederick Muhlenberg of
Pennsylvania, early Speakers often gave inaugural speeches
containing ``pledges of impartiality, integrity, and
assiduity.'' The Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Follet (1896), page 284.
21. See Id. at pages 251-253.
22. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1425-1428 and 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. Sec. 2429, 2646, and 2762. See also House Rules
and Manual Sec. 356 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite this broad grant of authority, the Speaker is not a
complete free agent with respect to recognizing Members on the
floor.(23) The rules and precedents of the House contain
many restrictions regarding who may be recognized at any given time to
present certain matters to the body. Thus, the Speaker prefaces the
conferral of recognition with the traditional query: ``For what purpose
does the gentle___ seek recognition?''(24) By inquiring of
the Member seeking recognition what matter the Member wishes to raise,
the Speaker may determine whether that matter is in order and whether
that matter has precedence or priority over other
matters.(25) If two Members seek recognition simultaneously,
and the Speaker's inquiry reveals that one Member's business has
priority over the other, the Speaker is constrained to recognize the
Member whose business is more highly privileged. When the matters are
of equal privilege, the Speaker retains discretion to recognize either
Member.(26)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. See Sec. 4, infra.
24. Parliamentarian's Note: In prior years, Members were required to
rise from their seats in order to obtain recognition, and the
Chair would inquire of any such Member ``For what purpose does
the gentle___ rise?'' In the 115th Congress, the House
acknowledged that Members with mobility issues may not be able
to physically rise and remain standing for this purpose, and
the rules were revised to eliminate references to ``rising,''
``standing,'' etc. The current form of clause 1 of rule XVII
requires only that Members ``respectfully address the Speaker''
in order to signal a desire to be recognized. House Rules and
Manual Sec. 945 (2019).
25. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 3.18.
26. Parliamentarian's Note: This principle is articulated at Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 21 Sec. 31.1. Other precedents and protocols
give priority in recognition to particular individuals (e.g.,
committee members, or minority party Members), or suggest that
the Chair should endeavor to alternate recognition (between
opponents and proponents, or majority and minority Members).
For more details on these matters of recognition and the
Speaker's discretionary authorities, see Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 8-15 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once a Member has been recognized, that Member holds the floor and
in most cases cannot be interrupted or forced to relinquish the floor
by other Members.(27) However, in certain circumstances,
recognition may be withdrawn by the Speaker. When a Member is
recognized to consume a certain number of minutes, the Speaker will
announce when that Member's time has expired and, thus, that the Member
is no longer recognized to speak. It is a breach of decorum to continue
speaking beyond one's allotted time (i.e., while no longer under
recognition).(28) Under the Speaker's announced policies
regarding special-order speeches, the Speaker may withdraw recognition
at any point should circumstances warrant.(29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 32, 33.
28. See Sec. 6, infra.
29. The Speaker's announced policy regarding special-order speeches in
the 112th Congress (reiterated in subsequent Congresses)
contained this statement: ``The continuation of this format for
recognition by the Speaker is without prejudice to the
Speaker's ultimate power of recognition under clause 2 of rule
XVII and includes the ability to withdraw recognition for
longer special-order speeches should circumstances warrant.''
157 Cong. Rec. 104-106, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1 of rule XVI,(30) the Speaker may
not entertain motions deemed to be purely dilatory in nature. Several
other standing rules of the House permit the Speaker to entertain one
motion to adjourn during the pendency of some matter (such action being
specifically authorized, and therefore not considered dilatory) but no
other dilatory motions.(31)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (2019).
31. Under clause 6(b) of rule XIII, the Speaker may entertain one
motion to adjourn during consideration of a special order of
business resolution reported by the Committee on Rules. House
Rules and Manual Sec. 857 (2019). Clauses 2(d) and 2(e) of rule
XV provide similar authority when a measure or special order of
business is discharged pursuant to discharge petition
procedures. House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2019). Under
clause 1 of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain one motion to
adjourn during consideration of a measure under suspension of
the rules procedures. House Rules and Manual Sec. 890 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putting Questions and Voting; Counting a Quorum
One of the most fundamental duties of a presiding officer of a
legislative body is the duty to formally put questions before the
membership for disposition. The Speaker thus becomes a conduit through
which Members engage with one another (by making requests, offering
motions, raising points of order, etc.).(32) When a Member
on the floor attempts to place some matter before the House, it is the
duty of the Speaker (if the matter is in order) to state the
question(33) so that the membership is aware of what
precisely is before the House at any given point in the
proceedings.(34) It is the form of the motion as stated by
the Speaker that is voted upon, and not the form as stated by the
Member offering the motion.(35) Similarly, it is the
Speaker's statement of a unanimous-consent request, not the Member's,
that is controlling.(36) Clause 6 of rule I depicts the form
that the Speaker uses when putting questions before the House for a
voice vote.(37)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Parliamentarian's Note: Even during debate, Members act through the
presiding officer by addressing all remarks to the Chair rather
than to others in the second person. See Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 29 Sec. 42.1.
33. Rule XVI, clause 2, requires the Speaker to state all motions.
House Rules and Manual Sec. 904 (2015).
34. Parliamentarian's Note: The form of the question is sometimes
stated explicitly in the standing rules. For example, clause
8(c) of rule XVI states the form of the question on engrossment
and third reading (House Rules and Manual Sec. 941 (2019)),
while clause 2(a) of rule XVIII states the form of the question
for resolving into the Committee of the Whole (House Rules and
Manual Sec. 972 (2019)).
35. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 3.15 and 6 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 247. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule XVI, any Member may
demand that a motion be reduced to writing. House Rules and
Manual Sec. 902 (2019).
36. Deschler's Precedents Ch. 23 Sec. 43.1.
37. House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (2019). Decorum rules prohibit
crossing the well or exiting the Chamber when the Speaker is
putting a question or addressing the House. Rule XVII, clause
5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 962 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most questions put by the Speaker to the House are initially
decided by a voice vote.(38) The Speaker first asks those on
the affirmative side to express their choice, followed by those in the
negative, after which the Speaker announces the result of the voice
vote.(39) The Constitution provides that any Member may
demand ``the yeas and nays'' (i.e., have each Member publicly recorded
as to his or her vote) if supported by one-fifth of those
present.(40)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Rule I, clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (2019). On a
specified subset of questions, the yeas and nays are, by rule,
considered as ordered when the Speaker puts the question. Rule
XX, clause 10, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1033 (2019).
39. Rule XX, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1012 (2019). This
clause provides that if the Speaker is in doubt with respect to
the result of the voice vote, the House shall divide: those in
favor of the proposition indicate their choice (by rising from
their seats or otherwise) and are counted by the Speaker,
followed by those opposed. However, in modern practice, votes
by division are rarely used. Instead, if Members desire a more
formal vote following the voice vote, they will make a request
for a recorded vote (or a demand for the yeas and nays) and the
electronic voting system will be used.
40. U.S. Const. art I, Sec. 5, cl. 3. In the Committee of the Whole, 25
Members must support a request for a recorded vote. Rule XVIII,
clause 6(e), House Rules and Manual Sec. 983a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further voting procedures are outlined in rule XX, which provides a
variety of discretionary authorities to the Speaker in conducting votes
in the House.(41) The default method for conducting votes in
the House is by use of the electronic voting system pursuant to clause
2(a) of rule XX.(42) However, the Speaker has authority to
conduct votes by different methods, such as a roll call
vote(43) or a vote by tellers.(44) Under clause 9
of rule XX,(45) the Speaker may reduce the minimum time for
voting in certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, when the
Speaker puts the question on certain matters (such as general
appropriation bills and budget resolutions), the yeas and nays
are considered as ordered. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1033
(2019).
42. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1014 (2019).
43. Rule XX, clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1015 (2019).
44. Rule XX, clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 1019 (2019).
45. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1032 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker's authority to postpone and cluster votes has gradually
expanded over the course of the last few decades. Clauses 8(a) and 8(b)
of rule XX(46) give the Speaker considerable flexibility in
postponing questions and resuming them at a later time (within two
legislative days). Clause 1(c) of rule XIX(47) allows the
Speaker to postpone the consideration of measures even while the
previous question is operating pursuant to a special order of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1030 (2019). A similar rule applies to
postponing votes in the Committee of the Whole. Rule XVIII,
clause 6(g), House Rules and Manual Sec. 984 (2019).
47. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1000a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution also requires that a quorum of the House be
present to conduct business.(48) It further authorizes
Members of the House to compel the attendance of absent Members so that
a quorum to conduct business may be obtained.(49) Under
clause 5(a) of rule XX,(50) in the absence of a quorum ``a
majority comprising at least 15 Members'' may compel the attendance of
absent Members, and the Speaker may be included in such count. Clause 6
of rule XX describes the Speaker's duties when a quorum fails to vote
on a question and a call of the House is ordered.(51)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Parliamentarian's Note: Throughout most of the 19th century, it was
well established that the presence or absence of a quorum could
be determined only on the basis of those responding to a vote
(or quorum call). If the vote totals revealed less than a
quorum voting, a point of no quorum could be raised, a quorum
call conducted, and the vote recapitulated. This method of
proceeding gave rise to the dilatory tactic known as the
``disappearing quorum.'' See 4 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 2898-2903. If Members of the House wished to break a
quorum (and those in favor of the proposition could not muster
a quorum alone), they needed only to avoid responding to the
roll call to deny the majority a quorum. The sequence described
above could thus play out indefinitely, as quorum calls, votes,
and points of no quorum proceeded in an endless cycle. Speaker
Thomas Bracket Reed, a former proponent of this tactic while
his party was in the minority, chose to eliminate it when he
was first elected Speaker. During a dramatic confrontation on
the floor, Speaker Reed instructed the Clerk to record the
names of those Members present in the Chamber but refusing to
vote. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2895, and House Rules and
Manual Sec. 54 (2019). By including the Members who were
``present but not voting'' Speaker Reed was able to establish
that a quorum was in fact present, despite the fact that the
vote total showed less than a quorum voting. Speaker Reed's
principle regarding counting a quorum was later codified in the
standing rules of the House (Rule XX, clause 4(b), House Rules
and Manual Sec. 1020 (2019)), and even affirmed as legitimate
by the Supreme Court. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2904; U.S.
v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892).
49. U.S. Const. art I, Sec. 5, cl. 1.
50. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1021 (2019).
51. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1025 (2019). The Speaker must declare a
quorum present when the attendance of a majority of the House
has been secured. A motion to adjourn during a quorum call is
in order pursuant to clause 6(c) of rule XX (House Rules and
Manual Sec. 1025 (2019)) but must be seconded by a majority of
those present (as determined via a count by the Speaker).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under modern practice, quorum calls are relatively rare events. In
the 93rd Congress in 1974, the quorum rules were amended to provide
that the Speaker may not entertain a point of no quorum ``unless a
question has been put to a vote.''(52) Thus, merely debating
a matter or having a matter under consideration is not sufficient to
authorize the Speaker to recognize for a point of no quorum. However,
the Speaker retains discretion to recognize for a call of the House at
any time, pursuant to clause 7(b) of rule XX.(53)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. Rule XX, clause 7(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 1027 (2019).
53. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1028 (2019). Pursuant to clause 7(c) of
rule XX, a call of the House is not in order after the previous
question has been ordered, unless the Speaker determines by
actual count that a quorum is not present. House Rules and
Manual Sec. 1029 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standing rules of the House provide additional continuity of
operations provisions related to quorum requirements. In the event that
a catastrophic event results in the death or incapacitation of Members,
or otherwise prevents the House from establishing a quorum, clause 5(c)
of rule XX lays out procedures by which a ``provisional'' quorum may be
established.(54) The Speaker is charged with receiving a
``catastrophic quorum failure report'' from the Sergeant-at-Arms and
relaying the contents of such report to the House.(55)
Whenever a Member dies, resigns, is expelled, or is removed, or when a
new Member is sworn in, the Speaker announces to the House the current
``whole number of the House.''(56)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1024a (2019).
55. Id.
56. Parliamentarian's Note: The ``whole number of the House'' is
defined by clause 5(c)(7)(B) of rule XX as ``the number of
Representatives chosen, sworn, and living whose membership in
the House has not been terminated by resignation or by the
action of the House.'' The whole number of the House thus
represents the denominator in calculations regarding proper
quorum or voting requirements. House Rules and Manual
Sec. 1024a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Points of Order and Parliamentary Inquiries
The Speaker's prerogative to ``decide questions of order'' is one
of the oldest rules of the House(57) and is now carried as
clause 5 of rule I of the standing rules.(58) The rules of
the House contain many restrictions on what matters may be brought
before the House, and the question of whether a particular matter is in
order will depend on the nature of the matter at issue, the time at
which it is offered or raised, and, in some cases, the individual
bringing the matter before the House. The Speaker, guided by the
precedents of the House and the advice of the Parliamentarian, is
charged with analyzing each matter as it comes before the House and
determining whether that matter is in order under the rules and
precedents.(59) In most cases, the Speaker's determination
on such matters is subject to appeal to the full House.(60)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. The origin of the rule dates back to the very first set of rules
adopted by the House on April 7, 1789. 1 Annals of Cong. 103,
1st Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 7, 1789). The chair of the Committee
of the Whole rules on points of order raised in that forum.
House Rules and Manual Sec. 971 (2019). The Clerk of the House
decides questions of order when presiding over the House prior
to the election of Speaker. Rule II, clause 2(a), House Rules
and Manual Sec. 641 (2019).
58. House Rules and Manual Sec. 627 (2019). See Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 3.33-3.38. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch.
31 Sec. Sec. 1-13 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 31.
59. The Speaker also takes ``authoritative'' guidance from the
Committee on the Budget (or its chair) with respect to certain
budgetary levels. Rule XXIX, clause 4, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 1105b (2019).
60. For more on appeals generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31
Sec. 13 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker's role regarding points of order may be of two
varieties. Some points of order are not ``self-enforcing'' in that they
require a Member of the House to seek recognition and formally object
to the proceedings by raising a specific point of order and requiring
the Chair to make a determination as to its validity.(61)
For example, whether an amendment is germane to a bill is a question
that is decided only when a timely point of order is raised against the
amendment. If no point of order is raised, the question does not come
before the House and the Speaker does not issue a
ruling.(62)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. Parliamentarian's Note: Not all Member-initiated points of order
require a ruling by the Chair. Under certain House rules, some
points of order are decided by the Chair putting the question
of consideration. The outcome of the point of order is thus
decided by the House itself in adopting (or not) the question
of consideration. See, e.g., Rule XXI, clause 9(c), House Rules
and Manual Sec. 1068d (2019). See also 2 U.S.C. Sec. 658e and 2
U.S.C. Sec. 933.
62. The Chair only rules on points of order when required to do so. See
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. 1.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other rules or points of order are enforced through proactive
engagement in the proceedings by the Chair. For example, a Member who
transgresses the rule of comity between the Houses by engaging in
personalities with respect to Senators is called to order by the
Chair's own initiative.(63)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 371-374 (2019). A similar rule
applies to references to the President. House Rules and Manual
Sec. 370 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker will often respond to inquiries from the membership
regarding the parliamentary situation in which the House is
operating.(64) However, the Speaker has complete discretion
to recognize Members to propound such parliamentary inquiries or not,
and such a decision is not subject to appeal.(65) The
Speaker endeavors to limit responses to parliamentary inquiries to
pending matters that are currently before the House. The Speaker will
not respond to hypothetical questions, requests to place the
proceedings in historical context, or political commentary in the guise
of a parliamentary inquiry.(66)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. Sec. 14, 15.
65. For more on what constitutes a proper parliamentary inquiry, see
House Rules and Manual Sec. 628a (2019).
66. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Chamber, Capitol, and House Office Buildings
The Speaker possesses extensive authority over the House Chamber,
the House side of the Capitol building, and the House office buildings.
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule I,(67) the Speaker maintains
``general control'' of the House Chamber and areas of the Capitol
assigned to the use of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. House Rules and Manual Sec. 623 (2019). See Sec. 6, infra. See also
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inside the House Chamber, the Speaker regulates the conduct and
comportment of Members pursuant to the applicable standards of
decorum.(68) The Speaker traditionally publishes in the
Congressional Record certain policy statements regarding the Speaker's
discretionary authority over the Chamber.(69) Such policy
statements typically reference: the exercise of floor privileges; the
use of electronic devices on the floor of the House; the conduct of
votes using the Chamber's electronic voting system; the distribution of
handouts on the House floor; and the status of the Chamber when the
House is not in session.(70)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. Rule I, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (2019). See also
Sec. 6, infra. For decorum issues generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 29 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 29.
69. See, e.g., 165 Cong. Rec. H198-H201 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 3, 2019). See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5
Sec. 9.
70. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to floor privileges, clause 2(b) of rule
IV(71) prohibits the Speaker from entertaining unanimous-
consent requests or motions to suspend clauses 1 through 5 of rule IV
(granting and limiting access to the floor).(72) The Speaker
typically announces at the beginning of each Congress that the rule on
floor privileges will be strictly enforced.(73) Under clause
2(a) of rule IV,(74) staff of the respective party
leaderships are afforded the privileges of the floor, but only with the
approval of the Speaker. Pursuant to clause 4(b) of rule
IV,(75) the Speaker may promulgate regulations regarding
access to the House floor by lobbyists, and exempt educational or
ceremonial functions from otherwise applicable restrictions. While
Members' personal staff may be granted floor access, such staff may not
influence Members regarding pending legislation, and the Speaker is
authorized to exclude individuals who violate this prohibition from the
Chamber.(76)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. House Rules and Manual Sec. 678 (2019). See also Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 5.
72. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 5.3 and Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 4 Sec. 4.2. The House may, by resolution, authorize
individuals without floor privileges to be admitted to the
House floor. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 5.1.
73. See, e.g., 163 Cong. Rec. H34 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 3, 2017).
74. House Rules and Manual Sec. 678 (2019).
75. House Rules and Manual Sec. 680 (2019).
76. Rule IV, clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 681 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker also regulates protocols for admission to the galleries
of the House Chamber.(77) Under clause 6 of rule
IV,(78) the Speaker is directed to set aside portions of the
galleries for various dignitaries and for families and guests of
Members. The Speaker also regulates the admission of news media
representatives to the galleries under clauses 2 and 3 of rule
VI.(79) Pursuant to clause 2 of rule I,(80) the
Speaker is charged with preserving order in the House galleries, and
may cause the galleries to be cleared in the case of a disturbance or
other disorderly conduct.(81) The Chair may remind gallery
occupants of the prohibition on expressing approval or disapproval of
House proceedings.(82)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 4. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 4 Sec. Sec. 5.1, 5.2.
78. House Rules and Manual Sec. 682 (2019).
79. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 693, 694 (2019).
80. House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (2019).
81. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 4.1.
82. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. Sec. 4.2, 4.4. This authority
of the Speaker has been interpreted as part of general
parliamentary law, such that it can be exercised prior to the
adoption of rules. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 4.7 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 6.6. See also 40 U.S.C.
Sec. 5104(e)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audio-visual broadcasting from the House Chamber is also controlled
by the Speaker under rule V.(83) Pursuant to this rule, the
Speaker shall ``administer, direct, and control'' both in-house
(closed-circuit) viewing of House proceedings and full public audio and
visual broadcasting via the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-
SPAN).(84) Members are not permitted to engage in still
photography or audio-visual broadcasting by electronic device on the
floor of the House, and the Sergeant-at-Arms may impose fines on
Members who engage in such disorderly behavior. Under clause 3(g) of
rule II,(85) the Speaker is informed by the Sergeant-at-Arms
if any such fine is imposed. If the imposition of any fine is appealed
to the Committee on Ethics, the Speaker is required to promptly notify
the House as to any determination made with respect to said
appeal.(86)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. House Rules and Manual Sec. 684 (2019).
84. For more on audio-visual broadcasting from the Chamber (including
Internet streaming of House proceedings), see Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 3.
85. House Rules and Manual Sec. 660a (2019).
86. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration of the Oath of Office
Pursuant to statute, the oath of office is administered to Members-
elect by the Speaker of the House.(87) Most Members-elect
are sworn in by the Speaker en masse on opening day of a new
Congress.(88) If a Member-elect is unable to travel to
Washington, D.C., (due to illness, for example), the House may
authorize the Speaker to appoint a deputy (often a Federal judge or
similar official) to administer the oath to the absent
Member.(89) The Speaker lays before the House communications
from such deputy confirming that the oath has been properly
administered.(90)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
87. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 25. The form of the oath is also prescribed by
statute. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331. The administration of the oath of
office to the Speaker is traditionally performed by the Dean of
the House. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 4.5. For more
information on oaths generally, see Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2.
88. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2 Sec. 3.1.
89. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2 Sec. 3.13.
90. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2 Sec. 3.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When individuals are elected during a Congress via special election
to fill vacancies, the Speaker administers the oath of office when they
appear to claim their seats.(91) Although the Speaker
normally performs this function, the duty may be performed by an
elected Speaker pro tempore,(92) or a designated Speaker pro
tempore authorized with the approval of the House.(93)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2 Sec. Sec. 3.5, 3.6. The House may
also direct the Speaker to administer the oath of office to a
Member-elect by the adoption of a privileged resolution. See,
e.g., H. Res. 1161, 164 Cong. Rec. H9700 [Daily Ed.], 115th
Cong. 2d Sess. (Nov. 29, 2018).
92. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2 Sec. 3.12.
93. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 2 Sec. 5.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An appointed Speaker pro tempore does not take the oath of office
upon his or her appointment, the position being a temporary one and the
authorities conferred limited. An elected Speaker pro tempore, however,
exercises virtually all of the authorities of the Speaker, and as such
does take the oath of office upon election.(94) If the
Speaker is present, the oath of office is administered by the Speaker
to the elected Speaker pro tempore.(95)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
94. See Division B, infra.
95. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Journal and the Congressional Record
Pursuant to clause 1 of rule I,(96) the Speaker examines
and approves the Journal of the House(97) and announces to
the House such approval. The Speaker's approval of the Journal is
deemed agreed to unless a vote is demanded thereon.(98)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
96. For more on the Journal generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 5
Sec. Sec. 8-14 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 10-14.
97. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (2019).
98. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1 of rule VI,(99) the Clerk of the
House appoints the Official Reporters of Debate (the stenographers
tasked with transcribing the proceedings of the House for the
Congressional Record),(100) subject to ``the direction and
control of the Speaker.''(101) The Speaker, however, has no
unilateral authority over the content of the Congressional Record and
may not delete or insert material without the consent of the
House.(102)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
99. House Rules and Manual Sec. 685 (2019).
100. For more on the Congressional Record generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 15-20 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5
Sec. Sec. 15-24.
101. Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to 1978, the Official Reporters of
Debate were under the jurisdiction of the Speaker alone. See
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. 16.3.
102. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. 19. For earlier authorities
exercised by the Speaker regarding the Congressional Record,
see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 3.12, 3.13, and 4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative Process
The Speaker retains a variety of authorities_some substantive,
others more administrative_regarding the process by which legislative
measures move through the House. At the front end of the process, the
Speaker is responsible for referring all bills and resolutions to the
appropriate committee or committees of jurisdiction.(103)
The Speaker may refer measures to multiple committees, refer portions
of the same bill to different committees, and put time limitations on
committee consideration of measures.(104) With the approval
of the House, the Speaker may refer matters to special, ad hoc
committees appointed by the Speaker.(105)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
103. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's authority with regard to
referrals is extensive but not absolute. For example, certain
statutes provide that particular measures (often resolutions of
disapproval of executive actions) must be referred to
particular committees. See, e.g., 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1545.
Additionally, the House has the ability to ``correct'' the
reference of public bill under clause 1 of rule XIV (House
Rules and Manual Sec. 869 (2019)), although this procedure has
not been used in many decades. See 4 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 4377, 4378 and 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2117-
2128.
104. Rule XII, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 816 (2019). The
Speaker's referral authority with respect to the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence is contained in clause
11(b)(2) of rule X. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 785 (2019).
105. Rule XII, clause 2(c)(4), House Rules and Manual Sec. 816 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the other end of the process, the Speaker is charged with
certain responsibilities regarding the enrollment of legislative
measures.(106) Pursuant to clause 4 of rule I, the ``Speaker
shall sign all acts and joint resolutions passed by the two
Houses.''(107) Thus, before being presented to the President
for signature (or veto), all bills and resolutions passed by the two
Houses must first be signed by the Speaker. When the House acts last to
override a veto of the President, the Speaker is responsible, pursuant
to statute,(108) for the transmittal of the legislation to
the Archivist of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
106. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 4.36-4.40.
107. House Rules and Manual Sec. 624 (2019). Pursuant to this rule, the
Speaker may sign enrollments regardless of whether the House is
in session. Formerly, the Speaker would need explicit
permission from the House to do so. See Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 6 Sec. 4.38.
108. 1 U.S.C. Sec. 106a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between these two endpoints, the Speaker may engage with the
legislative process in a number of ways. The House employs a
``calendar'' system for scheduling different kinds of measures or
matters, and it is the duty of the Speaker to refer measures or matters
reported by committees of the House to the appropriate
calendars.(109) Further, rules may require the Speaker to
initiate proceedings under said calendars at the appropriate time. For
example, clause 5 of rule XV requires the Speaker to call the Private
Calendar on certain Tuesdays.(110) Similarly, the morning
hour call of committees (a procedure no longer used in the modern
House) requires the Speaker to call each standing and select committee
for consideration of nonprivileged matters on the House
Calendar.(111) In the 116th Congress, the House created a
``Consensus Calendar'' for measures that had garnered at least 290
cosponsors.(112) Under Consensus Calendar procedures
contained in clause 7 of rule XV,(113) the Speaker is
required to designate qualifying measures for consideration on a weekly
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
109. Rule XIII, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 831 (2019). For
more on the Calendar system generally, see Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 22 and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 22.
110. House Rules and Manual Sec. 895 (2019). It was formerly the case
that the Speaker had the discretion to call the Private
Calendar on the third Tuesday of a month, where preference
would be given to omnibus private bills. See Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 22 Sec. 11.4. In the 116th Congress, this
discretionary authority was expanded to include any day of the
month, subject to certain notice requirements. H. Res. 6, 165
Cong. Rec. H17-H24 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3,
2019).
111. Rule XIV, clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 880 (2019).
112. Rule XIII, clause 1(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 830a (2019).
113. House Rules and Manual Sec. 901a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other standing rules provide the Speaker with discretion regarding
scheduling matters for disposition by the House. The Speaker has the
discretion, on certain days of the week, to recognize Members to offer
motions to suspend the rules.(114) When a special order of
business vests the Speaker with authority to resolve the House into the
Committee of the Whole, clause 2(b) of rule XVIII(115)
provides that such authority may be exercised at any time (when no
question is pending before the House). The scheduling of resolutions
raised as questions of privilege under rule IX(116) (when
offered by someone other than the floor leaders) is at the discretion
of the Speaker (within two legislative days of the offeror giving
proper notice). When a Member gives notice of an intent to offer a
motion to instruct conferees under clause 7(c) of rule
XXII,(117) the Speaker has discretion to schedule
consideration of that motion at any time during that legislative day.
As noted above, the Speaker has considerable flexibility in postponing
and clustering votes for the convenience of Members, pursuant to
clauses 8(a) and 8(b) of rule XX.(118) Finally, unanimous-
consent requests are frequently used to structure the House's
legislative schedule, and the Speaker has wide (though not unlimited)
discretion to recognize Members for such requests.(119)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
114. Rule XV, clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 885-889a
(2019). Although there is no ``suspension calendar'' under
House rules, the Majority Leader typically works with
committees to formulate a list of bills and resolutions to be
considered under suspension procedures each week.
115. House Rules and Manual Sec. 972 (2019).
116. House Rules and Manual Sec. 699 (2019).
117. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker may (but is not required to)
announce the time designated for offering the resolution. See,
e.g., 163 Cong. Rec. H7935 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Oct. 11, 2017). House Rules and Manual Sec. 1079 (2019).
118. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1030 (2019).
119. See, e.g., 165 Cong. Rec. H198-H201 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 3, 2019). See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 23
Sec. Sec. 42-48. For limitations on the Speaker's authority
generally, see Sec. 4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker is responsible for the disposition of business on ``the
Speaker's table.'' Certain Senate and presidential communications, when
received by the House, are placed on the Speaker's table, and
(depending on the matter at issue) the Speaker has authority to refer
those messages to the appropriate committees of
jurisdiction.(120) Under modern practice, Senate amendments
to House measures that lie on the Speaker's table are typically taken
from the table by unanimous consent, suspension of the rules, or a
special order of business resolution from the Committee on Rules.
Pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII,(121) certain motions to
dispose of Senate amendments are privileged for consideration at the
discretion of the Speaker and if offered by direction of the committees
of jurisdiction. The Speaker has traditionally announced policies
regarding the referral of nongermane Senate amendments to committees
and entertaining unanimous-consent requests to dispose of Senate
amendments at the Speaker's table.(122)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
120. Rule XIV, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 873-875
(2019).
121. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1069 (2019).
122. See, e.g., 165 Cong. Rec. H198-H201 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 3, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the House and Senate agree to form a conference committee to
resolves differences over a legislative measure, it is the Speaker who
has authority to appoint conferees for the House.(123) When
the conferees file their conference report in the House, the Speaker
makes an initial determination as to the validity of the report (i.e.,
whether or not conferees have exceeded their
authority).(124)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
123. Rule I, clause 11, House Rules and Manual Sec. 637 (2019). See
also Sec. Sec. 3, 4, infra.
124. House Rules and Manual Sec. 628 (2019). See also 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 6409, 6410, and 6414-6416 and 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. Sec. 3256, 3264. For more on conferences
generally, see Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 33 and Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions of Privilege
When a resolution is raised as a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX, the Speaker must determine whether the resolution
qualifies as a valid question of privilege under the rules and
precedents of the House.(125) The Speaker's determination
that a resolution does not qualify as a question of privilege prevents
that resolution from coming immediately before the House. Such a
determination, however, may be appealed to the full
House.(126)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
125. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 698, 699 (2019). Under rule IX,
the Speaker has authority to set the time for consideration of
a resolution raised as a question of the privileges of the
House when offered by a Member other than the Majority Leader
or Minority Leader (within two legislative days of formal
notice being given that the Member intends to raise the
question).
126. For more on questions of privilege generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 11 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibilities Regarding Service of Process and Litigation
When Members or officers of the House become involved in judicial
inquiries (for example, when a subpoena is issued to a Member or
officer), rule VIII(127) provides procedures for determining
whether the judicial request is consistent with the rights and
privileges of the House and its Members.(128) The Speaker's
role in these procedures is basically ministerial. The Speaker receives
notification that the Member or officer has been properly served with a
subpoena. The Speaker is then required to ``promptly'' lay before the
House such notification.(129)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
127. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019). Under clause 3(b) of rule
VIII, the Speaker is permitted to take appropriate actions in
response to subpoenas when the House is not in session, but
must notify the House of such actions upon reconvening.
128. See Sec. Sec. 26, 27, infra. For service of process on Members,
see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 7 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 7.
129. See Sec. 26.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under clause 4 of rule I,(130) the Speaker signs all
``writs, warrants, and subpoenas'' issued by order of the House.
Pursuant to clause 8(b) of rule II,(131) the Speaker is a
member of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which articulates
the House's institutional position in all legal matters. In the 115th
Congress, clause 8(c) was added to rule II,(132) authorizing
the Speaker (as well as the House itself, committees thereof, or
committee chairs) to act as a ``successor in interest'' in any
litigation commenced in a prior Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
130. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 624, 626 (2015).
131. House Rules and Manual Sec. 670a (2019). See also Sec. 19, infra.
132. House Rules and Manual Sec. 670b (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contempt of Congress
Individuals who fail to comply with subpoenas properly issued by
the House of Representatives may be cited for contempt of
Congress.(133) Although the Supreme Court has affirmed the
inherent power of Congress to punish witnesses for
contempt,(134) Congress has enacted statutory contempt
procedures to supplement this inherent authority.(135) Under
those procedures, ``it shall be the duty of the . . . Speaker of the
House . . . to certify''(136) the statement of facts to the
appropriate United States Attorney so that the recalcitrant witness may
be prosecuted by the judicial branch. The Speaker then notifies the
House that such certification has taken place.(137)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
133. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 15 Sec. Sec. 17-22 and Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 3.40-3.43.
134. See Anderson v. Dunn 19 U.S. 204 (1821) and Marshall v. Gordon,
243 U.S. 521 (1917).
135. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192.
136. Id.
137. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty to Pronounce Censure
The House, and not the Speaker, has the authority to discipline its
Members.(138) Methods of discipline are varied, running the
gamut from mere reprimands to full expulsion from the
House.(139) Under the precedents, when the House formally
censures a Member, it is the Speaker's duty to personally pronounce
censure.(140) The offending Member is brought to the bar of
the House and the Speaker reads the pronouncement of censure, which is
entered into the Journal.(141)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
138. For disciplinary actions generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
12 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 12. For ethics investigations
of the Speaker, see Sec. 7, infra.
139. Each House may ``punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and,
with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.'' U.S.
Const. art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2.
140. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1251, 1259 and 6 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 236.
141. See Sec. 2.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messages and Communications; Announcements
The Speaker often acts as the institutional representative of the
House for the purposes of receiving a variety of messages and
communications from the executive branch, the judicial branch, the
Senate,(142) or the public generally. Executive and
presidential communications are typically addressed to the Speaker,
even if it is the Clerk of the House who receives the communication in
his or her administrative capacity. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XII,
``estimates of appropriations and all other communications from the
executive departments''(143) must be addressed to the
Speaker for proper referral to committee. Petitions and memorials are
likewise referred under clause 3 of rule XII,(144) and the
Speaker has authority to exclude any such communications judged to be
``obscene or insulting.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
142. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 32 Sec. Sec. 1, 2.
143. House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (2019).
144. House Rules and Manual Sec. 818 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker has an implicit obligation to keep Members informed as
to relevant events regarding the legislative process and House
operations generally.(145) Thus, the Speaker often makes
announcements to the body from the chair informing Members of such
things as the receipt of messages from other bodies, the Speaker's
signing of enrolled bills, notification that Members or officers had
been served with subpoenas,(146) the Speaker's certification
of contempt,(147) etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
145. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 3.8-3.10.
146. See Sec. 26, infra.
147. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 5(d) of rule XX (first adopted in the 108th
Congress in 2003),(148) the Speaker is required announce to
the body any adjustment to the ``whole number'' of the House (i.e., the
number of current Members who have been sworn). The Speaker makes such
announcements upon the swearing-in of a new Member-elect, or when a
Member ceases to be a Member of the House (through death, resignation,
or expulsion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
148. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1024b (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Authorities
Administrative duties of the Speaker include designating Members,
officers, or employees of the House to travel on official House
business.(149) Pursuant to clause 9 of rule
I,(150) the Speaker (in consultation with the Minority
Leader) shall develop a drug testing system in the House (comparable to
similar programs within the executive branch). The drug testing system
may apply to Members, officers, or employees of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
149. Rule I, clause 10, House Rules and Manual Sec. 636 (2019).
150. House Rules and Manual Sec. 635 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certifying Contempt
Sec. 2.1 Pursuant to law,(151) the Speaker informs the House
whenever a contempt case has been certified to a United States
Attorney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
151. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 8, 2014,(152) pursuant to law and House
resolution, the Speaker announced to the House certification of a
contempt case as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
152. 160 Cong. Rec. 7624, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. See also H. Res. 574,
160 Cong. Rec. 7490, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 7, 2014). For
prior similar announcement, see 158 Cong. Rec. 10769, 112th
Cong. 2d Sess. (June 29, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(153) The Chair would inform
the House that, pursuant to House Resolution 574, the Speaker has
certified to the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia the refusal of Lois G. Lerner to provide testimony before
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
153. Mark Meadows (NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pronouncing Censure
Sec. 2.2 When directed by the House pursuant to a resolution of censure
the Member appears in the well of the House, and the Speaker makes
the pronouncement of censure from the Chair.
On December 2, 2010,(154) the House adopted a resolution
that Rep. Charles Rangel of New York be censured:(155)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
154. 156 Cong. Rec. 18721, 18728-30, 111th Cong. 2d Sess.
155. Parliamentarian's Note: The House, and not the Speaker, determines
whether a Member is to be censured. If the House by resolution
so determines, it is the Speaker who pronounces censure. See
also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 3.1; Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 23.50, 30.12; 129 Cong. Rec. 20030, 20035-37,
98th Cong. 1st Sess. (July 20, 1983); and 2 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 1275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES B. RANGEL OF NEW YORK
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I call up
privileged resolution, H. Res. 1737, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1737
Resolved, That (1) Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York be
censured; (2) Representative Charles B. Rangel forthwith present himself in
the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure; (3) Representative
Charles B. Rangel be censured with the public reading of this resolution by
the Speaker; and (4) Representative Rangel pay restitution to the
appropriate taxing authorities or the U.S. Treasury for any unpaid
estimated taxes outlined in Exhibit 066 on income received from his
property in the Dominican Republic and provide proof of payment to the
Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(156) The gentlewoman from
California is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
156. John Salazar (CO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for purposes of debate
only, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control
those 30 minutes.
Of my remaining 30 minutes, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama, the ranking member on the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, Mr. Bonner, for purposes of debate only, and I
ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control those 15
minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. [Josiah] BONNER [of Alabama]. Mr. Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
333, noes 79, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 607] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER.(157) Will the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) kindly appear in the well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
157. Nancy Pelosi (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By its adoption of House Resolution 1737, the House has
resolved--that Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York be
censured; that Representative Charles B. Rangel forthwith present
himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure;
that Representative Charles B. Rangel be censured with the public
reading of this resolution by the Speaker; and that Representative
Rangel pay restitution to the appropriate taxing authorities or the
U.S. Treasury for any unpaid estimated taxes outlined in Exhibit
066 on income received from his property in the Dominican Republic
and provide proof of payment to the Committee.
Administrative Duties
Sec. 2.3 The Speaker may answer queries from Members regarding the
policy for distribution of certain House documents.
On October 6, 1977,(158) in response to a parliamentary
inquiry regarding the Clerk's report on House expenditures, the Speaker
stated that the policy was to postpone distribution of House documents
until printed copies were available to all Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
158. 123 Cong. Rec. 32614, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
(Mr. BAUMAN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER.(159) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
159. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I propound this parliamentary inquiry
to the Chair. The gentleman from Maryland for the last 4 days has
been seeking permission from the Clerk of the House to examine the
report of the Clerk of the House covering January through June 1977
which was submitted to the Speaker 2 months ago. The report
includes official expenditures of all Members, committees, and
others.
It is my understanding that this report was to have been
printed within 60 days of its submission and is in galley form and
could be made available for my inspection. On at least four
occasions I have been told by the Clerk of the House or his staff
that I would be able to examine the report, most recently that it
would be available this afternoon.
I have just been informed that it is still not available. I ask
the Chair what right a Member of the House has to an official
report, and whether or not the Chair might consider interceding on
behalf of all Members to allow them to examine a copy of this
report prior to consideration of the Obey Commission proposals next
week.
The SPEAKER. The Chair would like to inform the gentleman of
this point: That it is his understanding that it is presently in
galley form. There are approximately 600 different pages which are
looseleaf, some of which would have to be cut and folded. It will
be available to all Members on Tuesday next.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Government Printing Office
Assistant Printer, Mr. Boyle, informed me yesterday that copies now
are available for my inspection and would be sent to my office. The
Clerk subsequently vetoed that and told me that there would be a
copy in his office available this afternoon. I have again been
refused access to this, and have further been told that bound
copies will not be available to Members or the public until next
Thursday, after consideration of the Obey Commission resolution.
The SPEAKER. While there has been some confusion, it is the
policy that a document should not be available to just one Member
of Congress alone, but it should be available to all Members at the
same time. For that reason, while it would have been available to
the gentleman, it would not have been available to all Members.
The Chair would say that the Clerk has acted within his rights.
He has not tried to refrain from giving the gentleman a copy, but
is working in the interests of the House and doing what he thinks
best for the House and all of its Members.
Having been aware of this, the Chair ordered that it be handled
in an expeditious manner. It is the understanding of the Chair that
it will be ready on Tuesday next for every Member of the House.
Mr. [John] RHODES [of Arizona]. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. BAUMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. RHODES. Would it not be possible, since the gentleman from
Maryland has repeatedly expressed his interest in this particular
report, for the gentleman from Maryland to be allowed, as an
individual Member, to go to the office of the Clerk or wherever the
report now is, to look at the report in whatever form it now is in,
rather than to await the time that might be available for the
inspection of all Members?
The SPEAKER. It is my understanding that the copy is not
available in the Clerk's office, and it is at the Government
Printing Office.
The Chair will make a request to the Printing Office that a
copy be sent to the Clerk's office and remain in the Clerk's
office, available for any Member who so desires to look at it. The
Chair will direct the Parliamentarian to call the Office of the
Printer and have them deliver it to the Clerk's office. It will be
available to any Member who wishes to peruse it in the Clerk's
office.
Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the Chair.
Sec. 2.4 The Speaker, in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter inserted in the
Congressional Record, articulated a drug-free work policy for the
House.
On June 5, 1991,(160) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
160. 137 Cong. Rec. 13587-88, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amendment offered by mr. solomon
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 40, after line 21,
insert the following new section:
``Sec. 313. (a) Each House of Congress, and each other entity within the
legislative branch, shall establish and implement a random controlled
substances testing program for employees and officers, whether appointed or
otherwise, within their respective bodies.
(b) For the purpose of this section, the term ``controlled substance''
has the meaning given such term by section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act.
Mr. [Victor] FAZIO [of California]. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order against the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN.(161) The gentleman from California
[Mr. Fazio] reserves a point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
161. Brian Donnelly (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
point of order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]
wish to be heard on his reservation of a point of order?
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the House does
feel very deeply about the problem of drug abuse. We have a policy
which has been promulgated by our Speaker, put into effect on
October 2, 1990. I will place that in the Record:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 2, 1990.
Dear Colleague: Substance abuse is a serious problem affecting
many Americans throughout our Nation. The House of Representatives,
as a governmental institution employing several thousand
individuals, is committed to providing our employees, and those we
serve, with a drug-free workplace. This statement is intended to
articulate the policy designed to meet that goal.
The unauthorized possession, use, or distribution of controlled
substances in the offices of the House of Representatives is
violative of applicable laws. Furthermore, if such violations occur
in the offices of the House of Representatives, it does not reflect
creditably on the House of Representatives. Each employing
authority in the House shall take appropriate action which may
include termination or other properly available employment action,
when such use, possession, or distribution occurs, depending upon
the specific facts and circumstances of any such instance. It is
fundamental to the employer-employee relationship that any policy
concerning remedies with respect to possession or use of controlled
substances in the workplace be administered in a humanitarian
fashion. Therefore, in the administration of this drug-free
workplace policy, remedial measures, such as counseling and
rehabilitation, as well as the full range of properly available
employment actions, may be and should be considered. With respect
to counseling and rehabilitative services the Employee Assistance
Program which is being established under the auspices of the Clerk
of the House will provide one internally available resource for
such services.
This policy is designed to ensure that workplaces in the House
of Representatives be, in a manner consistent with law, free from
the illegal use, possession, or distribution of controlled
substances (as defined by the Controlled Substances Act) by the
Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker.
But at this point, I cannot accept the authorization language
on this appropriation bill.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment,
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violated
clause 2 of rule XXI.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I recognized that
a point of order legitimately lies against the amendment, and
rather than appeal to the Chair on something I know is correct,
why, I am going to accept the ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Donnelly). The Chair will rule that, for the
reason stated by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the
point of order is sustained.
Speaker's Announced Policies
Sec. 2.5 At the beginning of each Congress, the Speaker customarily
inserts into the Congressional Record certain policy statements
regarding particular aspects of the legislative process and
protocols for the use of discretionary authorities.
On January 3, 2017,(162) the Speaker inserted into the
Congressional Record certain policy statements for 114th Congress,
including those relating to: (1) strict enforcement of the rule on
privileges of the floor; (2) introduction and reference of bills and
resolutions; (3) recognition for unanimous-consent requests for
consideration of bills and resolutions; (4) recognition for one-minute
speeches and special-order speeches; (5) decorum in debate; (6) conduct
of electronic votes; (7) use of handouts on the House floor; (8) use of
electronic equipment on the House floor; and (9) use of the House
Chamber when not in session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
162. 163 Cong. Rec. H34-H36 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st Sess. See also
161 Cong. Rec. 61-63, 114th Cong. 1st Sess (Jan. 6, 2015). For
an example of the Speaker reiterating proper decorum standards
pursuant to the Speaker's Announced Policies, see 161 Cong.
Rec. 2553-54, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (Feb. 25, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(163) The Chair customarily
takes this occasion at the outset of a Congress to announce his
policies with respect to particular aspects of the legislative
process. The Chair will insert in the Record announcements
concerning:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
163. Steve Womack (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
first, privileges of the floor;
second, introduction of bills and resolutions;
third, unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of
legislation;
fourth, recognition for 1-minute speeches;
fifth, recognition for Special Order speeches;
sixth, decorum in debate;
seventh, conduct of votes by electronic device;
eighth, use of handouts on the House floor;
ninth, use of electronic equipment on the House floor; and
tenth, use of the Chamber.
These announcements, where appropriate, will reiterate the
origins of the stated policies. The Chair intends to continue in
the 115th Congress the policies reflected in these statements. The
policy announced in the 102nd Congress with respect to
jurisdictional concepts related to clauses 5(a) of rule XXI--tax
and tariff measures--will continue to govern but need not be
reiterated, as it is adequately documented as precedent in the
House Rules and Manual.
Without objection, the announcements will be printed in the
Record.
There was no objection.
1. Privileges of the Floor
The Chair will make the following announcements regarding floor
privileges, which will apply during the 115th Congress.
announcement by the speaker with respect to staff
Rule IV strictly limits those persons to whom the privileges of the floor
during sessions of the House are extended, and that rule prohibits the
Chair from entertaining requests for suspension or waiver of that rule. As
reiterated by the Chair on January 21, 1986, January 3, 1985, January 25,
1983, and August 22, 1974, and as stated in Chapter 10, section 2, of House
Practice, the rule strictly limits the number of committee staff on the
floor at one time during the consideration of measures reported from their
committees. This permission does not extend to Members' personal staff
except when a Member's amendment is actually pending during the five-minute
rule. It also does not extend to personal staff of Members who are sponsors
of pending bills. The Chair requests the cooperation of all Members and
committee staff to assure that only the proper number of staff are on the
floor, and then only during the consideration of measures within the
jurisdiction of their committees. The Chair is making this statement and
reiterating this policy because of Members' past insistence upon strict
enforcement of the rule. The Chair requests each committee chair, and each
ranking minority member, to submit to the Speaker a list of those staff who
are allowed on the floor during the consideration of a measure in the
jurisdiction of their committee. The Sergeant at Arms, who has been
directed to assure proper enforcement of rule IV, will keep the list. Each
staff person should exchange his or her ID for a ``committee staff'' badge,
which is to be worn while on the floor. The Chair has consulted with the
Minority Leader and will continue to consult with her.
Furthermore, as the Chair announced on January 7, 2003, in accordance
with the change in the 108th Congress of clause 2(a) of rule IV regarding
leadership staff floor access, only designated staff approved by the
Speaker shall be granted the privilege of the floor. The Speaker intends
that his approval be narrowly granted on a bipartisan basis to staff from
the majority and minority side and only to those staff essential to floor
activities.
announcement by the speaker with respect to former members
The Speaker's policy announced on February 1, 2006, will continue to
apply in the 115th Congress.
announcement by the speaker, february 1, 2006
The SPEAKER. The House has adopted a revision to the rule regarding the
admission to the floor and the rooms leading thereto. Clause 4 of rule IV
provides that a former Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner or a
former Parliamentarian of the House, or a former elected officer of the
House or a former minority employee nominated as an elected officer of the
House shall not be entitled to the privilege of admission to the Hall of
the House and the rooms extending thereto if he or she is a registered
lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal; has any direct personal
pecuniary interest in any legislative measure pending before the House, or
reported by a committee; or is in the employ of or represents any party or
organization for the purpose of influencing, directly or indirectly, the
passage, defeat, or amendment of any legislative proposal.
This restriction extends not only to the House floor but adjacent rooms,
the cloakrooms and the Speaker's lobby.
Clause 4 of rule IV also allows the Speaker to exempt ceremonial and
educational functions from the restrictions of this clause. These
restrictions shall not apply to attendance at joint meetings or joint
sessions, Former Members' Day proceedings, educational tours, and other
occasions as the Speaker may designate.
Members who have reason to know that a person is on the floor
inconsistent with clause 4 of rule IV should notify the Sergeant at Arms
promptly.
2. Introduction of Bills and Resolutions
The policy that the Chair announced on January 3, 1983, with respect to
the introduction and reference of bills and resolutions will continue to
apply in the 115th Congress. The Chair has advised all officers and
employees of the House who are involved in the processing of bills that
every bill, resolution, memorial, petition or other material that is placed
in the hopper must bear the signature of a Member. Where a bill or
resolution is jointly sponsored, the signature must be that of the Member
first named thereon. The bill clerk is instructed to return to the Member
any bill which appears in the hopper without an original signature. This
procedure was inaugurated in the 92d Congress. It has worked well, and the
Chair thinks that it is essential to continue this practice to insure the
integrity of the process by which legislation is introduced in the House.
The Chair has noted a need for increased attention to detail regarding
the addition of cosponsors to measures to ensure accuracy. To that end,
Members are encouraged to use the template provided by the Office of the
Clerk, which requests Members seeking to be added as cosponsors to include
their printed name, original signature, and state. Members routinely
include their original signatures, states, and districts when voting by
card in the well, so the Chair is hopeful that the inclusion of such
information on a cosponsor form will be a familiar task.
3. Unanimous-Consent Requests for the Consideration of Legislation
The policy the Chair announced on January 6, 1999, with respect to
recognition for unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of certain
legislative measures will continue to apply in the 115th Congress. The
Speaker will continue to follow the guidelines recorded in section 956 of
the House Rules and Manual conferring recognition for unanimous-consent
requests for the consideration of bills, resolutions, and other measures
only when assured that the majority and minority floor leadership and the
relevant committee chairs and ranking minority members have no objection.
Consistent with those guidelines and with the Chair's inherent power of
recognition under clause 2 of rule XVII, the Chair, and any occupant of the
chair appointed as Speaker pro tempore pursuant to clause 8 of rule I, will
decline recognition for the unanimous-consent requests chronicled in
section 956 without assurances that the request has been so cleared. This
denial of recognition by the Chair will not reflect necessarily any
personal opposition on the part of the Chair to orderly consideration of
the matter in question, but will reflect the determination upon the part of
the Chair that orderly procedures will be followed; that is, procedures
involving consultation and agreement between floor and committee leadership
on both sides of the aisle.
4. Recognition for One-Minute Speeches
announcement by the speaker with respect to one-minute speeches
The Speaker's policy announced on August 8, 1984, with respect to
recognition for one-minute speeches will apply during the 115th Congress.
The Chair will alternate recognition for one-minute speeches between
majority and minority Members, in the order in which they seek recognition
in the well under present practice from the Chair's right to the Chair's
left, with possible exceptions for Members of the leadership and Members
having business requests. The Chair, of course, reserves the right to limit
one-minute speeches to a certain period of time or to a special place in
the program on any given day, with notice to the leadership.
In addition, during the 115th Congress, the Chair will continue the
practice of not recognizing Members for a one-minute speech more than one
time per legislative day.
5. Recognition for Special-Order Speeches
announcement by the speaker with respect to special-order
speeches
The Speaker's policy with regard to special-order speeches announced on
February 11, 1994, as clarified and reiterated by subsequent Speakers, will
continue to apply in the 115th Congress, with the following modifications.
The Chair may recognize Members for special-order speeches for up to 4
hours. Such speeches may not extend beyond the 4-hour limit without the
permission of the Chair, which may be granted only with advance
consultation between the leaderships and notification to the House.
However, the Chair will not recognize Members for any special-order
speeches beyond 10 o'clock in the evening.
The 4-hour limitation will be divided between the majority and minority
parties. Each party is entitled to reserve its first hour for respective
leaderships or their designees. The second hour reserved to each party will
be divided into two 30-minute periods. Recognition for one-hour periods and
for 30-minute periods will alternate initially and subsequently between the
parties each day. The Chair wishes to clarify for Members that any 60- or
30-minute period that is not claimed at the appropriate time will be
considered to have expired; this includes the first 60-minute period of the
day.
The allocation of time within each party's 2-hour period (or shorter
period if prorated to end by 10 p.m.) will be determined by a list
submitted to the Chair by the respective leaderships. Members may not sign
up with their leadership for any special-order speeches earlier than one
week prior to the special order. Additional guidelines may be established
for such sign-ups by the respective leaderships.
Pursuant to clause 2(a) of rule V, the television cameras will not pan
the Chamber, but a ``crawl'' indicating the conduct of morning-hour debate
or that the House has completed its legislative business and is proceeding
with special-order speeches will appear on the screen. The Chair may
announce other adaptations during this period.
The continuation of this format for recognition by the Speaker is without
prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate power of recognition under clause 2 of
rule XVII and includes the ability to withdraw recognition for longer
special-order speeches should circumstances warrant.
6. Decorum in Debate
The Chair's announced policies of January 7, 2003, January 4, 1995, and
January 3, 1991, will apply in the 115th Congress. It is essential that the
dignity of the proceedings of the House be preserved, not only to assure
that the House conducts its business in an orderly fashion but also to
permit Members to properly comprehend and participate in the business of
the House. To this end, and in order to permit the Chair to understand and
to correctly put the question on the numerous requests that are made by
Members, the Chair requests that Members and others who have the privileges
of the floor desist from audible conversation in the Chamber while the
business of the House is being conducted. The Chair would encourage all
Members to review rule XVII to gain a better understanding of the proper
rules of decorum expected of them, and especially: to avoid
``personalities'' in debate with respect to references to other Members,
the Senate, and the President; to address the Chair only during, and not
beyond, the time recognized, and not to address the television or other
imagined audience; to refrain from passing between the Chair and a Member
speaking, or directly in front of a Member speaking from the well; to
refrain from smoking in the Chamber; to wear appropriate business attire in
the Chamber; and to generally display the same degree of respect to the
Chair and other Members that every Member is due.
The Chair would like all Members to be on notice that the Chair intends
to strictly enforce time limitations on debate. Furthermore, the Chair has
the authority to immediately interrupt Members in debate who transgress
rule XVII by failing to avoid ``personalities'' in debate with respect to
references to the Senate, the President, and other Members, rather than
wait for Members to complete their remarks.
Finally, it is not in order to speak disrespectfully of the Speaker; and
under the precedents the sanctions for such violations transcend the
ordinary requirements for timeliness of challenges. This separate treatment
is recorded in volume 2 of Hinds' Precedents, at section 1248 and was
reiterated on January 19, 1995.
7. Conduct of Votes by Electronic Device
The Speaker's policy announced on January 4, 1995, with respect to the
conduct of electronic votes will continue in the 115th Congress with
modifications as follows.
As Members are aware, clause 2(a) of rule XX provides that Members shall
have not less than 15 minutes in which to answer an ordinary record vote or
quorum call. The rule obviously establishes 15 minutes as a minimum. Still,
with the cooperation of the Members, a vote can easily be completed in that
time. The events of October 30, 1991, stand out as proof of this point. On
that occasion, the House was considering a bill in the Committee of the
Whole under a special rule that placed an overall time limit on the
amendment process, including the time consumed by record votes. The Chair
announced, and then strictly enforced, a policy of closing electronic votes
as soon as possible after the guaranteed period of 15 minutes. Members
appreciated and cooperated with the Chair's enforcement of the policy on
that occasion.
The Chair desires that the example of October 30, 1991, be made the
regular practice of the House. To that end, the Chair enlists the
assistance of all Members in avoiding the unnecessary loss of time in
conducting the business of the House. The Chair encourages all Members to
depart for the Chamber promptly upon the appropriate bell and light signal.
As in recent Congresses, the cloakrooms should not forward to the Chair
requests to hold a vote by electronic device, but should simply apprise
inquiring Members of the time remaining on the voting clock. Members should
not rely on signals relayed from outside the Chamber to assume that votes
will be held open until they arrive in the Chamber. Members will be given a
reasonable amount of time in which to accurately record their votes, and
the Chair will endeavor to assess the presence of the membership and the
expectation of further votes prior to exercising his authority under clause
8(c)(2) or clause 9(b) of rule XX or clause 6(g)(2) of rule XVIII. The
Speaker believes the best practice for presiding officers is to await the
Clerk's certification that a vote tally is complete and accurate. Members
are further reminded, in accordance with the Speaker's statement of January
7, 2016, that the standard policy is to not terminate the vote when a
Member is in the well attempting to cast a vote. Other efforts to hold the
vote open are not similarly protected.
8. Use of Handouts on House Floor
The Speaker's policy announced on September 27, 1995, which was prompted
by a misuse of handouts on the House floor and made at the bipartisan
request of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, will continue in
the 115th Congress. All handouts distributed on or adjacent to the House
floor by Members during House proceedings must bear the name of the Member
authorizing their distribution. In addition, the content of those materials
must comport with standards of propriety applicable to words spoken in
debate or inserted in the Record. Failure to comply with this admonition
may constitute a breach of decorum and may give rise to a question of
privilege.
The Chair would also remind Members that, pursuant to clause 5 of rule
IV, staff is prohibited from engaging in efforts in the Hall of the House
or rooms leading thereto to influence Members with regard to the
legislation being amended. Staff cannot distribute handouts.
In order to enhance the quality of debate in the House, the Chair would
ask Members to minimize the use of handouts.
9. Use of Electronic Equipment on House Floor
The Speaker's policy announced on January 27, 2000, as clarified on
January 6, 2009, and as modified by the change in clause 5 of rule XVII in
the 112th Congress, will continue in the 115th Congress with modifications
as follows. All Members and staff are reminded of the absolute prohibition
contained in clause 5 of rule XVII against the use of mobile electronic
devices that impair decorum. Those devices include wireless telephones and
personal computers. The Chair wishes to note that electronic tablet devices
do not constitute personal computers within the meaning of this policy and
thus may be unobtrusively used in the Chamber. No device may be used for
still photography or for audio or video recording or for live broadcasting.
The Chair requests all Members and staff wishing to receive or make
wireless telephone calls to do so outside of the Chamber. The Chair further
requests that all Members and staff refrain from wearing telephone headsets
in the Chamber and to deactivate any audible ring of wireless phones before
entering the Chamber. To this end, the Chair insists upon the cooperation
of all Members and staff and instructs the Sergeant at Arms, pursuant to
clause 3(a) of rule II and clause 5 of rule XVII, to enforce this
prohibition.
In light of the changes to rule II and rule XVII in the 115th Congress,
the Chair would like to take this opportunity to educate all Members and
staff on how these changes will be implemented. The Sergeant at Arms is
charged with enforcement of clause 3(g) rule II, which prohibits the use of
electronic devices for still photography or for audio or visual recording
or broadcasting in contravention of clause 5 of rule XVII and the policies
just articulated. The Chair would advise Members of the following policies
of the Sergeant at Arms surrounding the rules change.
The Sergeant at Arms will enforce the prohibition with respect to
violations observed first-hand on the House floor as well as violations
that become apparent at a later time, such as through publication online or
broadcast on television.
In the case of violations observed on the floor, the Sergeant at Arms
will hand the offending Member a card noting the violation, and will follow
up by sending the Member a written letter. In the case of other violations,
Members will receive a written letter detailing the offending conduct.
The fine for a first offense is $500. The fine for each subsequent
offense is $2500. The Sergeant at Arms will endeavor to provide Members a
written warning prior to assessing a fine for a first offense. Because of
the inherent difficulty of enforcing this prohibition during ceremonial
events, the Sergeant at Arms may choose not to cite minor violations
occurring during such an event.
Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule II, in addition to notifying the
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner concerned, the Sergeant at Arms
will also notify the Speaker, the Chief Administrative Officer, and the
Committee on Ethics of any fine imposed. Upon receiving notification of a
fine, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may appeal the fine to
the Committee on Ethics within 30 calendar days or 5 legislative days,
whichever is later.
The Sergeant at Arms and the Committee on Ethics are each authorized to
establish policies and procedures for the implementation of these rules.
The Chief Administrative Officer is authorized to establish policies and
procedures for deducting any such fine from a Member's net salary. It is
the desire of the Chair that any such policies and procedures be submitted
for printing in the Congressional Record.
Nothing in the House rules or this policy deprives the House of its
ability to address breaches of decorum or other violations of House rules
that may give rise to questions of the privileges of the House under rule
IX.
The Chair appreciates the attention of all Members to these efforts.
10. Use of Chamber
The Speaker's policy announced on January 6, 2009, with respect to use of
the Chamber will continue in the 115th Congress.
The Chair will announce to the House the policy of the Speaker concerning
appropriate comportment in the chamber when the House is not in session.
Under clause 3 of rule I, the Speaker is responsible to control the Hall
of the House. Under clause 1 of rule IV, the Hall of the House is to be
used only for the legislative business of the House, for caucus and
conference meetings of its Members, and for such ceremonies as the House
might agree to conduct there.
When the House stands adjourned, its chamber remains on static display.
It may accommodate visitors in the gallery or on the floor, subject to the
needs of those who operate, maintain, and secure the chamber to go about
their ordinary business. Because outside ``coverage'' of the chamber is
limited to floor proceedings and is allowed only by accredited journalists,
when the chamber is on static display no audio or video recording or
transmitting devices are allowed. The long custom of disallowing even still
photography in the chamber is based at least in part on the notion that an
image having this setting as its backdrop might be taken to carry the
imprimatur of the House.
The imprimatur of the House adheres to the Journal of its proceedings,
which is kept pursuant to the Constitution. The imprimatur of the House
adheres to the Congressional Record, which is kept as a substantially
verbatim transcript pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVII. The imprimatur of
the House adheres to the audio and visual transmissions and recordings that
are made and kept by the television system administered by the Speaker
pursuant to rule V. But the imprimatur of the House may not be appropriated
to other, ad hoc accounts or compositions of events in its chamber.
Sec. 2.6 Following the mid-Congress election of a new
Speaker,(164) the Chair announced that the Speaker's
announced policies with respect to particular aspects of the
legislative process placed in the Congressional Record on opening
day of that Congress,(165) would continue in effect for
the remainder of the Congress.(166)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
164. See Sec. 1.2, supra.
165. See 161 Cong. Rec. 61-63, 114th Cong. 1st Sess (Jan. 6, 2015).
166. Parliamentarian's Note: These policies announced at the beginning
of a Congress primarily concern voluntary protocols for the
Speaker's exercise of discretionary authorities. Newly-elected
Speakers thus must reaffirm any such policies announced by
their predecessors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 29, 2015,(167) the following announcement was
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
167. 161 Cong. Rec. H7340 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(168) The Chair would take
this occasion to note that the Speaker's announced policies with
respect to particular aspects of the legislative process placed in
the Record on January 6, 2015, will continue in effect for the
remainder of the 114th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
168. Mac Thornberry (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3. Power of Appointment
As noted in the historical overview,(1) it was formerly
the case that the Speaker of the House alone possessed the authority to
assign Members to the standing committees of the House.(2)
However, this power, exercised by Speakers throughout the 19th century,
was eliminated in the ``revolt'' against Speaker Joseph Cannon in 1910.
Since that time, the Speaker's appointment authority has been narrowed
but remains present in a number of different areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 1, supra.
2. For the role of party organizations in assigning Members to
committees, see Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 8. For
committees generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 17 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to select committees of the House, or joint committees
of the House and Senate, the Speaker retains authority to appoint
Members of the House to such committees, pursuant to clause 11 of rule
I.(3) This same clause authorizes the Speaker to remove
Members from select committees, or appoint additional Members
subsequent to the original appointment.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 637 (2019). See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 6.6-6.13 and Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 17 Sec. Sec. 10.1-10.7. The membership requirements of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are found in clause
11 of rule X. House Rules and Manual Sec. 785 (2019).
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 637 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Committee on Ethics, the Speaker and the Minority
Leader each appoint Members to a pool of Members available to serve on
investigatory subcommittees when such subcommittees are formed to
review ethics cases.(5) When a member of the Committee on
Ethics becomes ineligible to serve or is otherwise disqualified from
service, the Speaker is authorized to appoint a replacement from the
same political party.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Rule X, clause 5(a)(4)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 759 (2019).
6. Rule XI, clause 3(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 806 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 2(e) of rule X,(7) the Speaker may
(with the approval of the House) appoint special ad hoc oversight
committees ``for the purpose of reviewing specific matters within the
jurisdiction of two or more standing committees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to conference committees formed to resolve differences
between House and Senate versions of legislation, the Speaker has the
authority to appoint all House conferees. However, clause 11 of rule I
establishes certain guidelines that the Speaker must follow regarding
which Members should be appointed to conference
committees.(8) The Speaker may remove conferees at any time,
and may appoint additional conferees after the initial appointment.
Pursuant to clause 12(b) of rule XXII,(9) when a conference
report falls to a point of order, the conference report is considered
rejected, the House is deemed to have requested a new conference, and
the Speaker is authorized to appoint new conferees without intervening
motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 637 (2019). For more on these
guidelines, see Sec. 4, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 6.14-6.20 and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 33
Sec. Sec. 5-8.
9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1093 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain ceremonial occasions may call for the establishment of
escort or notification committees, and the Speaker typically makes such
appointments for the House. For example, an escort committee is
appointed to accompany foreign dignitaries who have been invited to
address the House in a joint meeting.(10) A committee of
notification is traditionally appointed to inform the President that
the House has begun a legislative session(11) or is
preparing to adjourn sine die to end the session.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 3 Sec. Sec. 21.7, 21.8 and Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 36 Sec. 23.
11. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 5.1; Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3
Sec. Sec. 3, 6; Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 7.1; and
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 3 Sec. Sec. 3.15, 21.3, 21.4, and
24.2.
12. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. Sec. 3, 6; Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 3 Sec. Sec. 12.2, 21.5, and 21.6; and Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 40 Sec. Sec. 17.1, 17.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted elsewhere,(13) the Speaker appoints Speakers
pro tempore to preside over the House in the absence of the Speaker.
The Speaker also appoints the chair of the Committee of the Whole when
the House conducts business in that forum,(14) and appoints
tellers for vote counting should the House conduct votes by that
method.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Division B, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. Sec. 9-14.
14. Rule XVIII, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 970 (2019). See
also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.2.
15. Rule XX, clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 1019 (2019). See
also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 6.21, 6.24 and
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 30 Sec. 31.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several House officials are appointed by the Speaker pursuant to
the standing rules.(16) Under clause 7 of rule
II,(17) the Speaker appoints the House Historian and other
employees of the Office of the Historian. Under clause 8(a) of rule
II,(18) the Speaker appoints the House General Counsel and
other employees of the Office of General Counsel. Under clause 6(b) of
rule II,(19) the Inspector General of the House is appointed
jointly by the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader.
Other officials are appointed pursuant to statute. The Speaker appoints
the Law Revision Counsel,(20) the House Legislative
Counsel,(21) the House Parliamentarian,(22) and
the Director of Interparliamentary Affairs.(23) The Speaker,
together with the President pro tempore of the Senate, appoints the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office.(24) In the
116th Congress, separate orders of the House contained in the
resolution adopting the standing rules created additional new positions
to be appointed by the Speaker: the Director of the Office of Diversity
and Inclusion, and the Whistleblower Ombudsman.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Parliamentarian's Note: Under a former rule, the House established
a ``Corrections Calendar'' for particular kinds of business,
and the Speaker was authorized to appoint employees of the
Corrections Calendar Office, after consultation with the
Minority Leader. See Sec. 30.1, infra. The Corrections Calendar
was abolished in the 109th Congress (H. Res. 5, 151 Cong. Rec.
43, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4, 2005)). See Sec. 30, infra.
A former elected officer position, the Director of Non-
Legislative and Financial Services, was appointed jointly by
the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader,
before the elimination of the position in the 104th Congress.
See Sec. 13, infra.
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 669 (2019).
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 670 (2019).
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 667 (2019).
20. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285c. See also Sec. 22, infra.
21. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 282. See also Sec. 21, infra.
22. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 287a. See also Sec. 18, infra.
23. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5582(c)(1). See also Sec. 3.7, infra.
24. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 601(a)(2). See also Sec. 3.6, infra.
25. H. Res. 6, 165 Cong. Rec. H22 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 3, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The officers of the House (the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief
Administrative Officer, and Chaplain) are not appointed by the Speaker
but are instead elected by the full House pursuant to nominating
resolutions offered by the party caucuses.(26) However, when
one of these offices becomes vacant, the Speaker has the authority by
law to appoint a temporary replacement until a new officer can be
elected.(27) Clause 1 of rule II(28) permits the
Speaker or the House to remove the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, or Chief
Administrative Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. See Sec. 13, infra. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 2.
27. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 6.25.
28. House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Speaker is authorized by numerous statutes to appoint
individuals to a variety of boards, commissions, and external
committees.(29) For example, the Speaker appoints Members to
the United States Capitol Preservation Commission,(30) the
House Office Building Commission,(31) the Commission on
Civil Rights,(32) and similar groups. Some of these
appointments require consultation with, or the concurrence of, the
Majority Leader and/or the Minority Leader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 6.3-6.5. See also
Sec. Sec. 3.3-3.5, infra.
30. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2081.
31. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2001.
32. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1975 note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appointments to Select Committees
Sec. 3.1 Pursuant to clause 11 of rule I,(33) the Speaker
appoints all Members to select committees established by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. House Rules and Manual Sec. 637 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 26, 2005,(34) the Chair announced the
Speaker's appointment of a Member to serve on the Select Bipartisan
Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane
Katrina:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. 151 Cong. Rec. 21178, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(35) Pursuant to section
2(a) of House Resolution 437, 109th Congress, and the order of the
House of January 4, 2005, the Chair announces the Speaker's
appointment of the following Member of the House to the Select
Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and
Response to Hurricane Katrina to fill an existing vacancy thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. John Boozman (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Miller, Florida
Sec. 3.2 Pursuant to clause 11 of rule X(36) and clause 11
of rule I,(37) as well as ``recess appointment''
authority, the Speaker appoints Members to the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. House Rules and Manual Sec. 765 (2019).
37. House Rules and Manual Sec. 637 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 3, 2013,(38) the following announcement was
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. 159 Cong. Rec. 44, 113th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(39) Pursuant to clause 11
of rule X, clause 11 of rule I, and the order of the House of
today, the Chair announces the Speaker's appointment of the
following members of the House to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Mac Thornberry (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rogers, Michigan, Chairman
Mr. Ruppersberger, Maryland
Appointment to Boards and Commissions
Sec. 3.3 The Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader are
typically authorized by unanimous consent to accept resignations
and to make appointments to commissions, boards, and external
committees during a Congress.
On January 3, 2017,(40) the following unanimous-consent
request was transacted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. 163 Cong. Rec. H29 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZING SPEAKER, MAJORITY LEADER, AND MINORITY LEADER TO
ACCEPT RESIGNATIONS AND MAKE APPOINTMENTS DURING THE 115TH
CONGRESS
Mr. [Kevin] McCARTHY [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that, during the 115th Congress, the Speaker,
majority leader, and minority leader be authorized to accept
resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the
House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(41) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Steve Womack (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 3.4 Pursuant to law(42) as well as ``recess
appointment'' authority,(43) the Speaker may appoint
Members to external boards and commissions, such as the British-
American Interparliamentary Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. 22 U.S.C. Sec. 276.
43. 161 Cong. Rec. 60, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 26, 2015,(44) the following appointments were
announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. 161 Cong. Rec. 4563, 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO BRITISH-AMERICAN INTERPARLIAMENTARY
GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(45) The Chair announces the
Speaker's appointment, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 276, and the order of
the House of January 6, 2015, of the following Members on the part
of the House to the British-American Interparliamentary Group:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. John Ratcliffe (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Crenshaw, Florida, Chairman
Mr. Latta, Ohio
Mr. Aderholt, Alabama
Mr. Holding, North Carolina
Mr. Whitfield, Kentucky
Mr. Roe, Tennessee
Sec. 3.5 Pursuant to resolution,(46) as well as ``recess
appointment'' authority,(47) the Speaker appointed two
individuals to fill vacancies on the Governing Board of the Office
of Congressional Ethics, one nominated by the Speaker with the
concurrence of the Minority Leader and one nominated by the
Minority Leader with the concurrence of the Speaker.(48)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. H. Res. 5, 159 Cong. Rec. 27, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2013).
47. 159 Cong. Rec. 28, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2013).
48. Parliamentarian's Note: In the 115th and 116th Congresses, the
requirement of ``concurrence'' was changed to ``consultation''
only. See, e.g., 165 Cong. Rec. H22 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong.
1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, 2014,(49) the following appointments were
announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. 160 Cong. Rec. 142, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 159 Cong. Rec.
499, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 23, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE ON THE GOVERNING BOARD OF
THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(50) The Chair announces the
Speaker's appointment, pursuant to section 4(d) of House Resolution
5, 113th Congress, and the order of the House of January 3, 2013,
of the following individuals to serve on the Governing Board of the
Office of Congressional Ethics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. Roger Williams (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominated by the Speaker with the concurrence of the minority
leader:
Ms. Judy Biggert, Illinois, Alternate, for the remainder of the
term of Mr. Bill Frenzel.
Nominated by the minority leader with the concurrence of the
Speaker:
Brigadier General (retired) Belinda Pinckney, Virginia, for the
remainder of the term of Mrs. Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.
Appointment of Officials
Sec. 3.6 The Director of the Congressional Budget Office is appointed
jointly by the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore
of the Senate for a four-year term.(51)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. Parliamentarian's Note: Section 201(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act (2 U.S.C. Sec. 601) establishes the Congressional Budget
Office and requires its Director to be appointed jointly by the
Speaker and the President pro tempore of the Senate upon
recommendations from the Committees on the Budget, as a
nonpartisan official for a four-year term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 27, 2015,(52) the following appointment was
announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. 161 Cong. Rec. 2894, 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE AND
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, President Pro Tempore of the
Senate, and the Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker of the House of
Representatives:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, February 27, 2015.
Sec. 3.7 Pursuant to law,(53) the Speaker appoints the
Director of Interparliamentary Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 22, 2011,(54) the following appointment was
announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. 157 Cong. Rec. 14165, 112th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF INTERPARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
The SPEAKER.(55) Pursuant to section 103(c) of
Public Law 108-83, the Speaker appoints Janice C. Robinson as
Director of the Office of Interparliamentary Affairs of the United
States House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. John Boehner (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4. Restrictions on the Speaker's Authority
The Speaker of the House is one of the institution's most powerful
figures, having been granted numerous prerogatives and discretionary
authorities by the standing rules and precedents of the House. However,
these same rules and precedents also impose limitations or restrictions
on how the Speaker exercises the powers and prerogatives of the office.
In essence, the Speaker's power is not absolute.
Limitations in General; Rules and Precedents
As an initial matter, the Speaker is bound by the rules and
precedents of the House (including customs and traditions) and is not
free to simply ignore or disregard them. The parliamentary rules of the
House represent its legal code, and the Speaker must abide by that code
just as any other Member or officer of the body.(1) The
precedents of the House may be thought of as a common law of the House,
with the same binding effect as precedents established in the judicial
sphere.(2) While any Speaker may choose to disagree with or
overturn prior precedents, Speakers have traditionally been very
deferential to established precedents and will typically not reverse
precedents absent some change in circumstance or other compelling
reason.(3) The Speaker thus exercises power within an
established legal framework that guides his or her decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For example, the Speaker, like any other Member, is subject to
ethics rules established by the House (such as the Code of
Official Conduct in rule XXIII (House Rules and Manual
Sec. 1095 (2019)) and must abide by the same decorum standards
applicable to all Members. See Sec. 5, infra.
2. For more on the nature of rules and precedents generally, see
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. 1.
3. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 4.4, 4.5 and Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker is also bound to obey the will of the House, even when
the House disagrees with the Speaker's decisions. Pursuant to clause 5
of rule I,(4) decisions of the Speaker on questions of order
are subject to appeal to the full House upon demand of any
Member.(5) Thus, the membership of the body as a whole,
rather than the Speaker, is the locus of true sovereignty in the House
and is the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not
permissible.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 627 (2019).
5. For appeals generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. 13 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 31.
6. Parliamentarian's Note: Certain decisions or actions by the Chair
have been recognized as not subject to appeal. See House Rules
and Manual Sec. 629 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On occasion, Members may inquire of the Speaker to issue a ruling
or make a decision regarding some matter that is not within the
province of the Speaker to opine on or provide guidance. For instance,
the Speaker does not rule as to the constitutionality of proposed
actions by the House, that being a matter for the body to decide in
taking the action (or not).(7) The Speaker does not construe
vote results or assess the consequences of voting a particular
way.(8) The Speaker does not rule on the effect, purpose,
merits, or consistency of amendments,(9) or determine
whether language in legislative measure is ambiguous.(10)
The Speaker does not interpret special orders of business while they
are pending;(11) nor does the Speaker interpret Senate
rules.(12) The Speaker does not rule on the legal or
substantive effect of measures or committee report
language.(13) The Speaker will not speculate as to what
judicial bodies may or may not consider part of the legislative history
of a measure or the legislative intent of particular
provisions.(14) The Speaker does not opine as to the effect
of amending House rules.(15) Further, the Speaker will not
answer questions within the purview of the Committee of the
Whole.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 6.8; Deschler's Precedents Ch.
6 Sec. 4.18; Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. 13.4; 2 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 1490; and 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3507.
8. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 4.27, 4.28.
9. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 4.19-4.21; 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 3458; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5781.
10. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 4.24.
11. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 21 Sec. 19. See also 132 Cong. Rec.
30862, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 14, 1986); 139 Cong. Rec.
17116, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. (July 27, 1993); 141 Cong. Rec.
20741, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (July 27, 1995); 142 Cong. Rec.
7064, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 28, 1996); 146 Cong. Rec.
12649, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. (June 28, 2000); 147 Cong. Rec.
3229, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 8, 2001); 148 Cong. Rec.
8681, 107th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 22, 2002); 149 Cong. Rec.
25031, 108th Cong. 1st Sess. (Oct. 17, 2003).
12. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 4.6.
13. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. 14.35; Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 4.22, 4.23; 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 254; 7
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2112; 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 2280, 2841; and 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1274,
1323, and 1324. See also Sec. 4.1, infra.
14. See 134 Cong. Rec. 2932, 100th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 2, 1988).
15. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 4.8.
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 971 (2019). See also 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 6927, 6928, and 6932-6937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentary Inquiries
The Speaker has discretion to entertain parliamentary inquiries
from the membership(17) and may decline improper
inquiries.(18) Generally, the Speaker will respond to
inquiries only when such parliamentary inquiries are limited in scope
to the immediate parliamentary circumstances before the House, and will
not respond to inquiries that go beyond the instant
proceedings.(19) Thus, the Speaker refrains from issuing
advisory opinions,(20) and does not rule retrospectively on
questions not raised at the proper time or anticipate future
rulings.(21) The Speaker does not respond to hypothetical
questions(22) or requests to place proceedings in historical
context.(23) The Speaker does not speculate as to what
matters may become the subject of future votes,(24) what
actions may be taken by committees of the House,(25) or what
the future legislative schedule of the House may be.(26)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. 14.1; 6 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 541; and House Rules and Manual Sec. 628a (2019).
18. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 4.11.
19. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. 14.2. Where an inquiry is not
relevant to the current parliamentary situation, the Chair may
take the issue under advisement. Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31
Sec. Sec. 14.25, 14.27, and 14.28.
20. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. 14.34.
21. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. Sec. 14.19, 14.33.
22. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. Sec. 14.16, 14.17 and
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 4.7, 4.13, 4.14, 4.25,
and 4.26.
23. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. 14.15.
24. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 4.17.
25. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 4.15.
26. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 31 Sec. 14.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultation and Delegation of Authority
In exercising the Speaker's authorities, the Speaker will often
consult with the House Parliamentarian to determine how a rule should
be interpreted or which precedents may be applicable to a given
parliamentary situation.(27) The Speaker delegates much of
the responsibility for referring measures to committees to the
Parliamentarian, who researches prior referrals for interpretations of
committee jurisdiction and makes recommendations
accordingly.(28) Similarly, when ruling on Congressional
Budget Act points or order or making other budget-related procedural
decisions, the Speaker (or other presiding officer) is guided by
estimates provided by the Committee on the Budget or its
chair.(29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. See Sec. 18, infra.
28. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 4.3. For referrals generally,
see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 16 Sec. 3 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 16.
29. Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act provides that certain
budgetary levels shall be determined on the basis of estimates
provided by the Committee on the Budget. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 643.
Clause 4 of rule XXIX provides that such estimates may be
provided to the presiding officer by the chair of the Committee
on the Budget. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1105b (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forms
The rules of the House may provide specific language that the
Speaker must use in carrying out the duties of a presiding officer. For
example, the form of certain questions may be provided in the rules
themselves. Clause 6 of rule I(30) states the general form
that the Speaker must use in putting questions before the body. The
form of the question for resolving into the Committee of the Whole is
provided in clause 2(a) of rule XVIII,(31) while the form of
the question for engrossment and third reading of a measure prior to
final passage is provided in clause 8(c) of rule XVI.(32)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (2019).
31. House Rules and Manual Sec. 972 (2019).
32. House Rules and Manual Sec. 941 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition
As noted above,(33) the Speaker has broad authority to
recognize Members who seek the floor, and decisions regarding which
Member to recognize are not subject to appeal.(34) That
being said, the Speaker is constrained to follow the rules and
precedents of the House regarding the priority and precedence of
motions, requests, or other items of business. Thus, where two Members
seek recognition at the same time, the Speaker must recognize the
Member whose matter is more highly privileged.(35) If the
matters are of equal privilege, the choice is left to the discretion of
the Speaker.(36)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. See Sec. 2, supra.
34. See Sec. 2, supra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. 11.
35. For example, clause 4(a) of rule XVI establishes the relative
precedence of various motions available in the House. House
Rules and Manual Sec. 911 (2019). The Speaker is thus
constrained to recognize a Member with a higher priority motion
over a Member with a lower priority motion. See 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. Sec. 2609-2611.
36. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 9.55, 9.56, and 11.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While many of the rules regarding the precedence of business or
priority in recognition derive from established precedents and
traditions, the standing rules may also specify when the Speaker must
confer recognition on a Member seeking to proffer certain matters.
Clause 6(d) of rule XIII(37) permits any member of the
Committee on Rules to call up a special order of business resolution
that has been reported by the committee but not called up within seven
legislative days. Upon the filing of proper notice by the Member, the
Speaker ``shall recognize'' that Member for the purpose of calling up
the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. House Rules and Manual Sec. 861 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIX,(38) the Speaker must
give priority in recognition for a motion to recommit to an opponent of
the measure. The Speaker does not attempt to assess the degree of the
Member's opposition to the bill, and takes the opposition at the
Member's word.(39)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1001 (2019).
39. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1002c (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Speaker generally has wide discretion to recognize
Members to make any request or motion that is in order under the rules
and precedents, several standing rules of the House specifically
prohibit the Speaker from entertaining particular requests or motions.
Rule IV(40) imposes restrictions on who may be admitted to
the floor of the House, and the Speaker is barred from entertaining
unanimous-consent requests or motions to suspend these restrictions.
Members are prohibited from introducing or referencing visitors in the
House galleries, and the Speaker ``may not entertain a request for the
suspension of this rule by unanimous consent or
otherwise.''(41)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Rule IV, clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 678 (2019).
41. Rule XVII, clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 966 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any Member may raise a point of no quorum, but under clause 7(a) of
rule XX,(42) the Speaker may not entertain a point of no
quorum where no question is pending before the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1027 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to sponsors and cosponsors of legislation, the Speaker
is prohibited by clause 7(b) of rule XII(43) from
entertaining any request to delete the name of the sponsor of a bill or
resolution. The same clause places restrictions on when the Speaker may
entertain requests to add or delete cosponsors.(44)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019).
44. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normally, the Speaker may permit a Member to reserve a right to
object to a request that is before the body, but this is not the case
for objections to private legislation under the Private Calendar rule.
Under clause 5(c) of rule XV,(45) the Speaker ``may not
entertain a reservation of the right to object to the consideration of
a bill or resolution under this clause.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. House Rules and Manual Sec. 895 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker may not entertain dilatory motions pursuant to clause 1
of rule XVI.(46) Other rules permit one motion to adjourn
during the pendency of some matter, but otherwise prohibit the Speaker
from entertaining other intervening motions until the underlying matter
is disposed of by the House.(47)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 902, 903 (2019).
47. See, e.g., rule XIII, clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 857
(2019); rule XV, clause 1(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 890
(2019); and rule XV, clause 2(e), House Rules and Manual
Sec. 892 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the standing rules, certain motions or matters are only in
order on specified days, and the Speaker's discretion to recognize
Members for such business may be restricted.(48) For
example, motions to suspend the rules are only in order on Mondays,
Tuesdays, or Wednesdays (or during the last six days of a session), and
unless specifically authorized by the House, the Speaker may not
entertain motions to suspend on any other day.(49) If no
privileged business or other authorized matter interrupts the daily
order of business found in clause 1 of rule XIV,(50) the
Speaker is constrained to recognize Members for business in accordance
with its requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Other examples of such business include District of Columbia
business (rule XV, clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 894
(2019)), Private Calendar business (rule XV, clause 5, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 895 (2019)), and the consideration of
adverse reports from the Committee on Rules (rule XIII, clause
6(e), House Rules and Manual Sec. 861 (2019)). It was formerly
the case that business on the Discharge Calendar (rule XV,
clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2019)) was only in
order on certain Mondays, but this limitation was removed in
the 116th Congress. H. Res. 6, 165 Cong. Rec. H17-H24 [Daily
Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2019).
49. Rule XV, clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 885 (2019). See
also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 21 Sec. 11.
50. House Rules and Manual Sec. 869 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appointment Authority
The Speaker's various appointment authorities are extensive but may
be subject to restrictions that curtail these authorities. With respect
to conference committees, the Speaker has wide latitude in appointing
Members of his or her choosing, but the standing rules do provide
certain guidelines for the Speaker to follow in making such
appointments. Under clause 11 of rule I(51) the Speaker,
``shall appoint no less than a majority who generally supported the
House position as determined by the Speaker, shall name those who are
primarily responsible for the legislation and shall, to the fullest
extent feasible, include the principal proponents of the major
provisions of the bill or resolution passed or adopted by the House.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. House Rules and Manual Sec. 637 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the Committee on Ethics, members of the committee
may become disqualified from reviewing certain ethics cases or wish to
recuse themselves, in which case the Speaker is charged with appointing
replacements (who, by rule, must come from the same political party as
the disqualified Member).(52) The Speaker is also charged
with appointing 10 Members to a pool for purposes of being assigned to
investigatory subcommittees, and such Members must come from the same
political party as the Speaker.(53)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. Rule XI, clause 3(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 806 (2019).
53. Rule X, clause 5(a)(4)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 759 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ministerial Duties
As an officer of the House, the Speaker is charged with carrying
out a variety of ministerial or administrative duties. Such duties
typically involve notifying the membership of actions taken or events
that have transpired, in order to apprise Members of necessary
information. Often, these requirements are quite specific and do not
provide the Speaker with any discretion. For example, the standing
rules require the Speaker to make various notifications to the House
about events that have occurred or actions that have been taken. Under
rule VIII, Members, officers, or employees of the House who are served
with judicial subpoenas must notify the Speaker of such service, and
the Speaker in turn is required to promptly lay such notification
before the House.(54) Similar notification requirements are
found in clause 5(b)(1) of rule X regarding vacating committee
assignments,(55) and in clause 5(c)(3)(B) of rule XX
regarding catastrophic quorum failure reports.(56) Failure
to undertake these ministerial duties may subject the Speaker to
sanction in the form of a resolution raised as a question of the
privileges of the House.(57)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019).
55. House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (2019).
56. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1024a (2019).
57. See Sec. 26.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Practice
As noted in the historical overview, the powers of the Speaker are
not static, and have changed considerably over the history of the
House.(58) In recent decades, the Speaker's authorities have
gradually expanded in several key areas, and thus former limitations or
restrictions may no longer apply. For example, the Speaker's ability to
declare the House in recess previously was quite limited, and the House
would often specifically authorize the Speaker to declare recesses for
particular events or over certain time periods.(59) Since
the 103d Congress, pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Speaker has
broad authority to declare a recess of the House whenever there is no
question pending.(60)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. See Sec. 1, supra.
59. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 4.34, 4.35. For recesses
generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 39 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 39.
60. House Rules and Manual Sec. 638 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formerly, the use of exhibits by Members in debate could be
objected to by any Member, and such objection would then automatically
cause a vote on the question of permitting the exhibit.(61)
The Speaker had no discretion in this regard and did not make an
initial ruling as to the propriety of the exhibit. In the 107th
Congress, this rule was amended to give the Speaker additional
discretion in submitting the question of the use of an exhibit to the
House for its determination.(62)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. See Deschler Ch. 6 Sec. 4.10. A similar rule formerly applied to
the reading of papers on the floor as well. See House Rules and
Manual Sec. Sec. 964, 965 (2019). See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 80-84.
62. Rule XVII, clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 963 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authority for the Speaker to sign enrolled bills and
resolutions when the House is not in session was added to the standing
rules in 1981(63) and is now found in clause 4 of rule
I.(64) Prior to that time, the Speaker would need to be
granted specific authority by the House to sign enrollments when the
House was not in session.(65)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. See H. Res. 5, 127 Cong. Rec. 98-113, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5,
1981).
64. House Rules and Manual Sec. 624 (2019). The Speaker's determination
as to the propriety of an exhibit may be appealed to the full
House. See, e.g., 164 Cong. Rec. H592, H593 [Daily Ed.], 115th
Cong. 2d Sess. (Jan. 20, 2018).
65. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 4.37, 4.38. See also
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 24 Sec. Sec. 15.1-15.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.1 It is for the House by its vote on the merits of a
proposition, and not the Speaker, to determine the legal
significance of a pending matter.
On March 16, 1983,(66) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. 129 Cong. Rec. 5669-70, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order.
The SPEAKER.(67) The gentleman will state the point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against
consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 on the grounds that it
is not before the House in a form required by the precedents and I
ask to be heard on my point of order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is clearly a
sense of the Congress resolution on its face, expressing those
objectives which the Congress feels should be pursued in a nuclear
arms negotiation.
Obviously, this cannot be meant as legislation having binding
effect on the President and his negotiators, since under article
II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the President, not the
Congress, has the sole power to make all treaties subject to the
advice and consent of the Senate. . . .
The SPEAKER. The Chair appreciates the fact that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania brought his point of order to the Chair previous
to making it and has had an opportunity to examine it.
The committee has reported to the House a joint resolution
which was properly introduced and referred to that committee.
No point of order lies against the consideration of this
report. No rule is violated by its consideration, since
consideration has been made in order by the Committee on Rules.
Whether the joint resolution is the appropriate legislative
form for the aims intended is for the House to decide by its vote
on the proposition itself, after it has been considered and
perfected. It is not a matter for the Chair--but for the House to
determine by its vote on passage.
Paraphrasing from page 49 of Deschler's Procedure in the House,
chapter 6, section 2, relating to the authority of the Chair, the
Chair notes: ``It is for the House and not the Chair to determine
the legal significance of House actions;'' and the Chair does not
anticipate what interpretation the House may later give to a
pending amendment or measure. Consequently, the point of order is
not well taken, and is overruled.
Sec. 4.2 Although the Speaker responds to parliamentary inquiries
concerning the rules of order and decorum in debate, the Speaker
does not: rule on hypothetical questions; rule retrospectively on
questions not timely raised; or rule anticipatorily on questions
not yet presented.
On November 20, 1989,(68) the following parliamentary
inquiries were raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. 135 Cong. Rec. 30225-26, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Pat] WILLIAMS [of Montana]).
Before the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, the
Chair would like to say to Members on both sides of the aisle that
the Chair may intervene to prevent the arraignment of the motives
of other Members. The Chair would, therefore, echo the sentiments
expressed by the honorable minority leader, the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Michel], this morning when he asked the Members to
debate the issue and the policy and not to become involved in
attacking or laying for question the motives of other Members.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. [John] WEBER [of Minnesota]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to clarify on the
ruling of the Chair right now.
Does the Chair believe, if someone did suggest that Members,
not by name, but that Members of this body supported Marxist
revolution, that would be unparliamentary language?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not called upon to rule
on possible prior violation of the rules of the House or
Jefferson's Manual.
Mr. WEBER. My parliamentary inquiry is, I do not believe this,
but that seemed to be a statement of objectives, not a statement of
motivation; would that be correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is expressing his own
opinion. The Chair has simply stated that the Chair will move to
prevent the arraignment and attack of the motives of any Member of
this House in accordance with the rules of this House.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, has there been any such language
repeated in debate so far today?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has not so ruled.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
Sec. 4.3 The Speaker does not issue rulings anticipatorily on questions
not yet presented or retrospectively on questions not timely
raised.
On September 21, 2001,(69) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. 147 Cong. Rec. 17612-13, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Roy] BLUNT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding me this time.
What has happened, Mr. Speaker, in the last week, is that
100,000 layoff announcements have been issued. I do not know how
many fewer of those would have been announced if we had acted last
week, but I think fewer than that. And if we do not act this week,
there will be more layoffs next week. . . .
This is a critical time. There will be more legislation that
relates to this industry. Many of the points that have been made
here tonight can be addressed. Those points were not made during
the week in these discussions. Now, that does not mean they cannot
be made; that does not mean they cannot be made or will not be made
in the next few days. It does mean that we need to stop the layoffs
now, we need to keep these planes in the air, and we need to keep
this irreplaceable industry a viable part of our economy.
We do this with the action we take here tonight. I urge my
colleagues to vote for the rules and for the bill.
point of order
Mr. [Peter] DeFAZIO [of Oregon]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point
of personal privilege on the previous statement of the gentleman.
If I could state that, or I could ask to have his words taken down,
if you would give me a moment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(70) The Chair would inform
the gentleman that there is no point of personal privilege based on
the debate which is in order at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. Mac Thornberry (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, then, if the gentleman made a statement that
was untrue about the position of the Democratic leaders and
basically directly casting aspersion on them by saying that they
did not raise the issues raised by many Members here on the floor
in those discussions, and we know that they did, is there a process
under which I could have his words taken down or reviewed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is certainly the right of any
Member during debate to ask that a Member's words be taken down. At
that point the words must be transcribed and read to the House and
the Chair will rule upon them.
Mr. DeFAZIO. But what my question is, since he made an
assertion about the Democratic leaders, which I know and others
know to be untrue, and about the points we are making on the floor,
that these issues were not raised in the negotiations, is there
some objection that I could lodge against such an untrue statement
on the floor of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to rule or respond
in anticipation of the actual words being read back to the House.
Sec. 5. The Speaker as a Member
The extent to which the Speaker of the House engages in ordinary
legislative activity is primarily a function of the Speaker's personal
desires and attitude towards the office. As noted in the historical
overview, Speakers over the course of the history of the House have
evinced very different views on the speakership, with some largely
eschewing regular legislative pursuits and others preferring a more
active role. For the most part, the rules and precedents of the House
treat the Speaker as any other Member with respect to the ability to
debate, offer motions, propound requests, or take other routine
parliamentary actions.
Committees
Traditionally, the Speaker of the House does not serve on any
standing committees.(1) Thus, the Speaker's influence at the
committee level is less apparent than it is at other stages of the
legislative process. To the extent that the Speaker affects committee
deliberations, it is primarily through the majority party
caucus,(2) whose procedures may give the Speaker special
prerogatives in assigning Members to committees and determining the
chairs of said committees.(3) The Speaker's power of
referral(4) may also play a role in affecting the agenda of
different committees.(5) The Speaker's influence over the
Committee on Rules(6) tends to have a substantial effect on
the relative power of the standing committees in the House, as the
Committee on Rules has considerable discretion in the extent to which
it wishes to defer to committees in setting the agenda for House
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 5.6, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 6.5
and 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 230.
2. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3.
3. For a compilation of Democratic Caucus and Republican Conference
rules, see Rules Committee Print 115-37.
4. See Sec. 2, supra. For more on referrals generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 16 Sec. 3 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 16.
5. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's ability to place time limits
on the referral of legislative measures to committees (pursuant
to clause 2(c)(5) of rule XII) is an important prerogative
affecting the relationship between the Speaker and committee
chairs. House Rules and Manual Sec. 816 (2019).
6. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker served as chair of the
Committee on Rules from the 36th Congress in 1859 to the 63d
Congress in 1910. Today, the Speaker's influence over the
committee is primarily a function of internal caucus and
conference rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 11(a)(2) of rule X,(7) the Speaker is
an ex officio member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
However, the Speaker has no vote on the committee and is not counted
for purposes of determining a quorum. Under clause 11(a)(3) of rule
X,(8) the Speaker may designate leadership staff to assist
the Speaker in carrying out duties related to membership on the
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 785 (2019).
8. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate
As a full Member of the House, the Speaker may engage in debate in
the same manner as any other Member.(9) While the Speaker is
serving as the House's presiding officer, however, it is not
appropriate for such individual to engage in debate directly with
Members, as the presiding officer must maintain the appearance of
neutrality and objectivity in managing the business of the House. Under
older precedents, it was held that the Speaker may speak from the Chair
only by leave of the House.(10) Should the Speaker wish to
engage in debate, the traditional method of obtaining the floor has
been to appoint a Speaker pro tempore so that the Speaker may be
recognized by the Chair as any other Member.(11) When the
House is operating in the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker has
already appointed a presiding officer (the chair of the Committee of
the Whole), and is thus free to be recognized to offer remarks in that
forum.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 358, 947 (2019). See also
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. 1.1.
10. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1367, 1373, and 1374.
11. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 5.1, 5.2.
12. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On legislative matters, Speakers have engaged in debate on a wide
variety of topics and matters, including budget
agreements,(13) constitutional amendments,(14)
and special orders of business.(15) The Speaker has been
recognized in opposition to a motion to recommit.(16)
Speakers have also engaged in different forms of non-legislative
debate, such as one-minute speeches,(17) ``morning-hour
debate,''(18) and special-order speeches.(19) In
one instance, the Speaker called up a ceremonial resolution by
unanimous consent and was recognized to manage debate on the
measure.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 136 Cong. Rec. 27946, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 7, 1990).
14. 138 Cong. Rec. 14452, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (June 11, 1992).
15. 145 Cong. Rec. 4266, 106th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 11, 1999).
16. See Sec. 5.2, infra.
17. 138 Cong. Rec. 684, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Jan. 28, 1992).
18. 144 Cong. Rec. 6922, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 28, 1998).
19. 144 Cong. Rec. 1361-62, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (Feb. 12, 1998).
20. See Sec. 5.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By long-standing custom, the Speaker and party floor leaders are
(in most circumstances) accorded extra latitude in debate so that the
House may hear such individuals at their full length. Thus, the Speaker
may be yielded a nominal amount of time (typically one minute) but
permitted to proceed without limit.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See, e.g., Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 6.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voting
The Speaker is permitted to vote but is not required to do so
unless the Speaker's vote would create or break a tie vote (i.e., the
Speaker's vote would be decisive).(22) The Speaker may vote
on questions regardless of the method of voting_votes taken by the yeas
and nays,(23) votes by division,(24) or votes by
tellers.(25) Resigning Speakers have voted in the election
of their successors.(26) The Speaker may also be recorded as
present in order to establish a quorum.(27)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Rule I, clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 631 (2019). See
Sec. Sec. 5.4, 5.5, infra, (examples of the Speaker breaking a
tie) and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 5.6 (example of the
Speaker making a tie). The Speaker may vote after intervening
business if a correction of the roll shows a condition wherein
such vote would be decisive. See 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 5969, 6061-6063. Clause 7 of rule I also requires the
Speaker to vote when the House is engaged in voting by ballot.
However, the last time the House voted by ballot appears to
have taken place in 1868. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6003. For an
example of the Speaker announcing an intent to vote even though
not required, see 137 Cong. Rec. 1085-86, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 12, 1991). Having voted on the prevailing side, the
Speaker is eligible (as any other Member would be) to offer the
motion to reconsider. See, e.g., 161 Cong. Rec. 9534, 114th
Cong. 1st Sess. (June 12, 2015) and 164 Cong. Rec. H4233 [Daily
Ed.], 115th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 18, 2018).
23. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 5.5.
24. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 5.7.
25. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 5.8. When voting by tellers,
the Speaker is not obligated to pass through the tellers to
indicate his or her choice. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. 5.9.
26. See 161 Cong. Rec. H7335-H7337 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Oct. 29, 2015). See also 135 Cong. Rec. 10800, 101st Cong. 1st
Sess. (June 6, 1989).
27. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 5.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker may sponsor legislative measures just as any other
Member. However, instances of the Speaker introducing measures are
relatively rare and typically confined to foreign policy initiatives
(such as authorizations for the use of military force),(28)
ceremonial measures,(29) or measures related specifically to
the Speaker's congressional district.(30)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. See, e.g., H.J. Res. 114, 148 Cong. Rec. 18962, 107th Cong. 2d
Sess. (Oct. 2, 2002) and H.R. 1595, 141 Cong. Rec. 12204, 104th
Cong. 1st Sess. (May 9, 1995).
29. See, e.g., H. Res. 497, 157 Cong. Rec. 21090, 112th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Dec. 15, 2011).
30. See, e.g., H.R. 3119, 155 Cong. Rec. 16959, 111th Cong. 1st Sess.
(July 7, 2009) and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 16 Sec. 1.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation in Debate
Sec. 5.1 In rare circumstances, the Speaker has called up a measure for
consideration and managed debate thereon.
On December 13, 2005,(31) the Speaker asked unanimous
consent for the consideration of a commemorative
resolution(32) honoring Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, and
was recognized to manage debate on the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. 151 Cong. Rec. 28129-31, 28145-46, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
32. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker has often taken to the floor
for other tributes or commemorative occasions. See, e.g., 158
Cong. Rec. 8648-49, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. (June 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HONORING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN D.
DINGELL'S SERVICE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. [Dennis] HASTERT [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be
discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res.
594) honoring the 50th anniversary of the Honorable John D.
Dingell's service in the House of Representatives, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Jeb] Bradley of New Hampshire).
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res 594
Whereas John D. Dingell learned firsthand about the institution of
Capitol Hill at an early age, serving as a House of Representatives Page
from 1938 to 1943;
Whereas John D. Dingell served his country during the World War II as a
member of the United States Army;
Whereas John D. Dingell has served 50 years in the House of
Representatives, since succeeding his late father, the Honorable John David
Dingell, Sr., a 12-term incumbent, in a special election to the 84th
Congress on December 13, 1955;
Whereas a member of the Dingell family has represented the Detroit
metropolitan area in the House of Representatives since 1933;
Whereas John D. Dingell, the Dean of the House of Representatives since
the 104th Congress, is the longest serving current Member of the House of
Representatives, having been re-elected on 25 subsequent occasions;
Whereas John D. Dingell's term of service is the third-longest term of
service in the history of the House of Representatives and the fifth-
longest in Congressional history; and
Whereas John D. Dingell has served on the Energy and Commerce Committee
(and its predecessors) since the 85th Congress in 1957, and chaired that
panel from the 97th through the 103rd Congresses (1981-1995): Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. HONORING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF JOHN D. DINGELL'S SERVICE IN
THE HOUSE.
The House of Representatives--
(1) honors the lifelong commitment of the Honorable John D. Dingell to
the ideals of our Nation;
(2) recognizes the Honorable John D. Dingell's half-century of
exceptional dedication to his constituents, to the State of Michigan, and
to the United States; and
(3) congratulates the Honorable John D. Dingell on 50 years of superior
service in the United States Congress.
SEC. 2. TRANSMISSION OF ENROLLED RESOLUTION.
The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall transmit an enrolled copy
of this resolution to the Honorable John D. Dingell.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hastert) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTERT. Ladies and gentlemen, it is important for the
House to recognize important milestones. Tonight, the Democratic
leader and I on behalf of the House take this brief time to honor
our colleague John Dingell.
If Members would also like to add words of congratulations, I
would encourage them to insert remarks as part of the Congressional
Record or partake in a Special Order following votes tonight.
I rise in support of this resolution saluting and
congratulating our good friend, John Dingell, for 50 years of
service in the U.S. House of Representatives.
As the Clerk said, only two other House Members have made the
50-year milestone, Jamie Whitten and Carl Vinson. For a half
century, John has walked the Halls of this Capitol doing the
business of the people of southeast Michigan. And I must say the
Congress is a better place because we have men like John Dingell.
I first met John when I came to the House in 1986, and he had
already been here three decades at that time. We really got to know
each other better when I started my third term when I was named to
the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I knew him as Mr.
Chairman. In fact, I think I only started to call him John after I
became Speaker.
Mr. Dingell earned my respect early on. He knew the issues
under his committee's jurisdiction, which was just about
everything. He knew their legislative history. He knew how to count
votes. He knew how to get legislation through the process. He was
tough, but he was fair.
His congressional work has done much to benefit the American
people. During his time in the House, he has left his mark on
historic legislation like the Clean Air Act of 1990, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and
every other major energy and telecommunications bill since the
1970s. In fact, during the 1980s, he oversaw the investigation into
the safety of the Nation's blood supply, including the procedures
that we now have to ensure that donated blood is disease free.
As Dean of the House, John Dingell administers the oath of
office to the Speaker. The Speaker then administers the oath of
office to all the Members as well. I could not be more proud to
have had John Dingell administer my oath four times.
Mr. Speaker, in this age of sound-bite politicians, John
Dingell is the real deal. You always know where he stands, and you
can always rest assured that he stands for something. And so today
we salute John Dingell for 50 years of service with dignity, with
dedication, with courage, with principle, and with honor. I thank
you, John, for your good work.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), the Democratic leader, for her remarks. . . .
The SPEAKER.(33) Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Dennis Hastert (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . .
Sec. 5.2 The Speaker may be recognized in opposition to a motion to
recommit.
On April 27, 2012,(34) Speaker John Boehner of Ohio
claimed time in opposition to a motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. 158 Cong. Rec. 5918, 5922, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION TO RECOMMIT
Mrs. [Lois] CAPPS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion
to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(35) Is the gentlewoman
opposed to the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Steve Womack (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. CAPPS. Yes, I am opposed to this bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Capps moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4628 to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce with instructions to report the same back
to the House forthwith with the following amendment: Add at the
end of the bill the following new section:
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST CUTS IN HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR WOMEN AND
CHILDREN.
Nothing in this Act shall endorse, promote, or result in a reduction of,
or increased costs for, benefits in health insurance coverage offered by
health insurance companies for women and children, including benefits for
commonly prescribed contraception, mammograms, cervical cancer screenings,
childhood immunizations, and health screenings for newborns. . . .
Mr. [John] BOEHNER [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in
opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOEHNER. How in the world did we ever get here? . . .
Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit. Vote ``yes'' on the
final bill. Let's send it over to the Senate now.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Sponsoring Legislation
Sec. 5.3 Although rare, the Speaker may introduce legislation.
On September 9, 2015,(36) the following bill sponsored
by the Speaker was introduced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. 161 Cong. Rec. H5865 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess. For a prior
example of legislation introduced by the Speaker, see H.R.
1595, 141 Cong. Rec. 12204, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (May 9,
1995).
By Mr. BOEHNER:
H.R. 3461. A bill to approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,
signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of Iran;
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on
Financial Services, the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and
Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,
in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Voting by the Speaker
Sec. 5.4 Where a vote in the House by electronic device results in a
tie, the Speaker announces the number of votes for and against the
question and then announces the Speaker's decisive vote from the
Chair immediately prior to announcing the final result.
On May 23, 1974,(37) Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma,
cast a tie-breaking vote from the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. 120 Cong. Rec. 16264-65, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed
the chair, Mr. Delaney, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee
having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 14832) to provide for
a temporary increase in the public debt limit, pursuant to House
Resolution 1141, he reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER.(38) Under the rule, the previous
question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Harold] GROSS [of Iowa]. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote
on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
191, nays 190, not voting 53, as follows:
[Roll No. 245] . . .
The SPEAKER. The Chair announces that he votes ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following pairs: . . .
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. -------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Chair announced the bill was
passed. This Member is under the impression that it is a tie vote,
and the bill should be rejected.
The SPEAKER. The Chair voted ``aye.'' The Chair announced that
all time had expired. Then the Chair voted ``aye'' and then
announced the vote and that the bill had passed.
Sec. 5.5 Before announcing the result of a vote by electronic device
the Speaker may advise the Tally Clerk directly of the Speaker's
vote to break a tie thereon.(39)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to electronic voting, the Speaker's
name was not on the roll from which the yeas and nays were
called. The Speaker would signal an intention to vote at the
end of the roll. Even when the electronic voting system is
used, any Member may cast a vote from the well by means of a
vote card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 1990,(40) after Speaker Thomas Foley of
Washington announced his intention to vote ``aye,'' a Member asked a
parliamentary inquiry concerning the Speaker's vote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. 136 Cong. Rec. 30229-32, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE VI--INCENTIVES FOR PEACE IN ANGOLA . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(41) The question is on the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Andrew Gephardt (MO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Harold] VOLKMER [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
207, nays 206, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 482] . . .
The SPEAKER.(42) On this vote the yeas are 206, and
the nays are 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair votes ``aye.''
The yeas are 207.
So the amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
parlimentary inquiry
Mr. [Henry] HYDE [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, as I understood it, the vote was by
electronic device. I did not see you vote by electronic device. You
had announced the vote, Mr. Speaker. You passed the vote.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will suspend while the Chair
explains the result of the vote.
The Chair's vote is entered into the electronic system upon the
announcement of the Chair of his vote and prior to the announcement
of the final result.
The Chair's vote is entered into the system at the time of the
Chair's announced vote, the Chair will advise the gentleman.
Mr. HYDE. Once more this evening, I thank the Chair.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was
read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
Committee Service
Sec. 5.6 Although there is no House rule requiring newly-elected
Speakers to resign their committee assignments upon election,
Speakers have traditionally done so.
On October 29, 2015,(43) newly-elected Speaker Paul Ryan
of Wisconsin resigned from his committee assignments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. 161 Cong. Rec. H7340 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATIONS AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS AND JOINT
COMMITTEE ON TAXATION(44)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Parliamentarian's Note: The House must accept a Member's
resignation from a standing committee of the House, but it does
not accept a resignation from the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Pursuant to law, one cannot be a member of the Joint Committee
on Taxation if not also a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means. See 26 U.S.C. Sec. 8002. Accordingly, Rep. Ryan's
resignation from the Committee on Ways and Means rendered him
ineligible to serve on the Joint Committee on Taxation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Mac] Thornberry [of Texas]) laid
before the House the following resignations as a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means and the Joint Committee on Taxation:
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, October 29, 2015.
Hon. Karen Haas,
Clerk of the House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Haas: As a result of my election today as Speaker,
this letter is to inform you that I resign as Chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means and from further service on that
Committee. I also resign as Chairman and a member of the Joint
Committee on Taxation.
Sincerely,
Paul D. Ryan,
Chairman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.
Sec. 6. Preserving Order
For any parliamentary body, it is imperative that proper decorum be
observed in order to ensure that orderly deliberations take place.
Under one of the oldest rules of the House, the Speaker has a duty to
``preserve order and decorum'' in the House.(1) The Speaker
is assisted by the House Sergeant-at-Arms, who has a similar duty to
``maintain order under the direction of the Speaker.''(2)
Decorum rules in the House may be divided into two classes: those
involving disorderly words and those involving disorderly conduct. The
Speaker's role may differ with respect to each class, depending on the
precise circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule I, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (2019). A form of
this clause was originally adopted in 1789. See 1 Annals of
Cong. 103, 1st Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 7, 1789). See also
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 7.1-7.16; Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 40-66; Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 29;
and Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.2, infra.
2. Rule II, clause 3(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unparliamentary Remarks; Disorderly Speech
One of the most fundamental rules of decorum for any legislative
assembly is the requirement to engage in respectful debate with other
members of the body. In the House of Representatives, Members do not
debate directly but engage with one another through the Speaker or
other presiding officer.(3) All remarks in debate are thus
addressed to the Chair and not to other Members. When Members wish to
refer to their colleagues in debate, they do so indirectly, typically
by describing the individual by the state in which his or her district
is located (i.e., ``The gentleman from Alabama'' or ``The gentlewoman
from Wyoming'').(4) Remarks in debate should not be
addressed to those outside the Chamber, such as television
viewers,(5) the media,(6) or the
President.(7) The Speaker will take the initiative to call
Members to order should they use profanity or vulgar language in
debate.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Rule XVII, clause 1(a), provides that Members who desire to speak
``shall respectfully address the Speaker.'' House Rules and
Manual Sec. 945 (2019). See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29
Sec. Sec. 42.1, 42.2, and 42.5.
4. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 7.3 and Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 42.24-42.26. Even when Members engage in
colloquies on the floor of the House, they maintain indirect
engagement by continuing to address all remarks to the Chair.
See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. 20. It is not in order to
address the Chair and other members simultaneously. See also
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. 42.5.
5. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 42.15-42.23.
6. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 7.4.
7. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. 42.3.
8. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 43.6-43.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XVII, remarks in debate must be
``confined to the question under debate, avoiding
personality.''(9) A ``personality'' in this context refers
to negative remarks that reference the personal qualities of the
individual described (rather than the individual's ideas or arguments).
It is not proper for Members to engage in personalities with respect to
other Members, Senators, or the President.(10) The Speaker
will unilaterally call Members to order when remarks descend to
personalities with respect to Senators or the President.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 945 (2019).
10. Parliamentarian's Note: The prohibition on personalities directed
toward the President extends to the President-elect and major-
party candidates for the office. See House Rules and Manual
Sec. 370 (2019). See also 162 Cong. Rec. H6111-H6112 [Daily
Ed.], 114th Cong. 2d Sess. (Nov. 14, 2016). The Vice President,
as President of the Senate, is similarly covered under this
prohibition against personalities.
11. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 7.7, 7.8 and Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 44, 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the Chair will typically not call Members to order for
personalities directed at other Members of the House. In most cases, it
is left to other Members to object to unparliamentary remarks or
personalities directed at fellow Members. The procedure involves
calling for the offending words to be ``taken down,'' i.e., deleted
from the Congressional Record transcript of the
proceedings.(12) Pursuant to clause 4(b) of rule XVII, it is
the duty of the Speaker to rule on the validity of the demand that
words be taken down (i.e., whether the words objected to were
unparliamentary or constituted a breach of decorum).(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 960 (2019).
13. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not in order to engage in personalities with respect to the
Speaker of the House. Although Members may make remarks critical of the
Speaker's actions, it is not in order to arraign the motives of the
Speaker or otherwise speak disrespectfully of the Speaker's personal
conduct or character.(14) The Speaker's announced policy
with regard to decorum in debate has, since the 104th Congress,
specified that remarks critical of the Speaker may not descend to
personalities.(15) If a Member does violate the rules of
decorum with respect to the Speaker, such Member's words may be taken
down via the procedure described above.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 6.4, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29
Sec. Sec. 57.1-57.7. For an example of remarks in the Senate
critical of the Speaker's actions, see 134 Cong. Rec. 24729,
100th Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 22, 1988).
15. See Sec. 2.5, supra. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. 9 and
Sec. 6.6, infra.
16. See Sec. 6.7, infra. If the issue of unparliamentary remarks
directed at the Speaker comes before the body, the Speaker will
appoint a Speaker pro tempore to issue the preliminary ruling
in order to maintain the neutrality of the presiding officer
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Speaker chooses to engage in debate, he or she must abide
by the same rules of decorum as any other Member. If the Speaker
transgresses such rules, the Speaker may be admonished,(17)
and the Speaker's words may be taken down and stricken from the
Congressional Record.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See, e.g., 165 Cong. Rec. H500 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 11, 2019).
18. See Sec. 6.9, infra. See also Sec. 6.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above,(19) one of the Speaker's most
significant powers is the ability to confer recognition on Members. A
Member may not speak on the House floor without first being properly
recognized by the presiding officer. It is not in order for a Member to
begin remarks before being properly recognized, nor to continue
speaking after the Member is no longer recognized. If a Member is
recognized for a specific amount of time, it is a breach of decorum to
continue to speak after the Speaker indicates (using the gavel or
otherwise) that the Member's time has expired.(20) The
Speaker may withdraw recognition in certain
circumstances.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 2, supra.
20. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. 11.19.
21. See Sec. 2.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When one Member has been recognized to control the floor, it is a
breach of decorum to interrupt that Member and interject
remarks.(22) The Chair will use the gavel to indicate that
an interrupting Member has not been properly recognized and should
therefore cease. Interjected remarks are not carried in the
Congressional Record.(23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 7.1, 7.2 and Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 42.8-42.12. A Member may
respectfully request that the Member currently occupying the
floor yield for comments, but the choice of whether to yield or
not lies with the Member who has the floor. See Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 42.9, 42.14.
23. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. 42.13 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comportment; Disorderly Acts
The Speaker's control of the House Chamber is another component of
the Speaker's ability to regulate Member behavior in order to preserve
decorum.(24) As an initial matter, the Speaker enforces
House rules on admission to the floor of the House, thus ensuring that
only properly authorized individuals are present in the
Chamber.(25) For many decades, the Speaker has inserted into
the Congressional Record a list of policy statements that explain how
the Speaker will exercise discretionary authorities regarding Member
comportment in the Chamber.(26) In addition to regulating
admission to the floor, such policy statements also typically address:
the prohibition on trafficking the well during debate (i.e., passing
between the Chair and the Member speaking or passing directly in front
of a Member speaking in the well of the House),(27) proper
attire to be worn in the Chamber; proper procedure for conducting votes
using the electronic voting system; the prohibition on smoking in the
Chamber; the distribution of handouts and other materials on the
floor;(28) the prohibition on unauthorized audio or visual
recording or broadcasting within the Chamber; the appropriate use of
personal electronic devices (including mobile phones, laptop computers,
tablets, and similar technology); and comportment in the House Chamber
when the House is not in session. Rules and precedents also prohibit
the wearing of hats in the Chamber (other than religious
headdress),(29) and displaying communicative badges while
under recognition.(30)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 40, 41.
25. Rule IV, clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 678.
26. See Sec. 2.5, supra.
27. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 7.13 and Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 41.4, 41.5.
28. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 7.15.
29. Rule XVII, clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 962 (2019). The
clarification regarding religious headdress was added in the
116th Congress.
30. House Rules and Manual Sec. 945 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clause 9(a) of rule XVII(31) prohibits Members from
engaging in ``disorderly or disruptive conduct in the Chamber,''
including: obstructing the passage of other Members in the Chamber;
using exhibits to disturb or disrupt proceedings; and denying others
the use of legislative instruments (such as microphones or lecterns).
Clause 3(g) of rule III(32) authorizes the Sergeant-at-Arms
to impose monetary fines on Members who violate the prohibition on
still photography or audio-visual recording or broadcasting in the
Chamber (subject to appeal to the Committee on Ethics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. House Rules and Manual Sec. 968a (2019).
32. House Rules and Manual Sec. 660a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under clause 6 of rule XVII, Members may object to the use of any
exhibit by another Member, and the Speaker has discretion to submit the
question of whether the exhibit should be allowed to the House for a
vote.(33)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. House Rules and Manual Sec. 963 (2019). Prior to employing an
exhibit in debate, Members often consult with the Chair and
Parliamentarian to determine whether use of the exhibit
represents a breach of decorum. For a history of this rule
regarding exhibits and a similar rule regarding the reading of
papers, see Sec. 4, supra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch.
29 Sec. 84 and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 4.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a violation of House rules for Members to bring to the
attention of the House guests seated in the House galleries.
Introducing or referencing such individuals in the galleries is
prohibited by clause 7 of rule XVII, and the Speaker will proactively
enforce this prohibition.(34)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. House Rules and Manual Sec. 966 (2019). Pursuant to the rule, the
Speaker is prohibited from entertaining any request or motion
to waive or suspend this restriction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining Order in the House Galleries
Under clause 2 of rule I,(35) the Speaker has a duty to
maintain order and decorum in the House galleries. The Speaker's
general authority over the House Chamber(36) permits the
Speaker to regulate admission to the galleries (which may involve
issuing tickets for admission or other procedures).(37)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (2019).
36. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. Sec. 1-6. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 4 Sec. 5.
37. For older precedents regarding admission to the galleries, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guests in the gallery may view the proceedings of the House in a
respectful manner and are expected to maintain proper decorum at all
times.(38) Manifestations of approval or disapproval of the
proceedings are strictly prohibited, as are any other disruptive acts
or demonstrations.(39) The Speaker admonishes guests in the
gallery who transgress these rules.(40) If the disturbance
is sufficiently egregious, the Speaker may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms
and the Capitol Police to remove the disorderly individuals from the
gallery.(41) In extreme circumstances, the Speaker has the
authority to order the galleries to be cleared.(42)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 4. Guests in the gallery who
engage in disruptive behavior may be prosecuted under statutes
that prohibit individuals from impeding or disrupting session
of Congress. See 40 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 193f(b)(4), 193h(b).
39. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 8.3.
40. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker has authority to quell
demonstrations in the gallery even prior to the adoption of
rules. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 6.6; Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 4.7; and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5
Sec. 5.7.
41. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 8.4.
42. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 8.5 and Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 4 Sec. 4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.1 Under clause 2 of rule I,(43) the Speaker shall
preserve order and decorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 22, 2016,(44) in response to the presence of
large numbers of Members in the well of the House, the Chair made the
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. 162 Cong. Rec. H4066 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(45) Under clause 2 of rule
I, the Chair is charged with preserving order and decorum in the
proceedings of the House. The Chair finds that the House is
currently not in a state of order due to the presence of Members in
the well who are not under recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. Ted Poe (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would ask Members to please leave the well so that
the House may proceed with business.
Sec. 6.2 The Chair frequently reiterates for Members proper decorum
standards, including the importance of heeding the gavel when time
for debate has expired.
On July 28, 2009,(46) the following announcement was
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. 155 Cong. Rec. 19565, 111th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(47) The Chair must ask all
Members to bear in mind that the principle of heeding the gavel
that sounds at the expiration of their time is one of the most
essential ingredients of the decorum that properly dignifies the
proceedings of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. John Salazar (CO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Member should labor under a misapprehension that ignoring
the gavel at the expiration of one's time can be a demonstration of
civil disobedience. To the contrary, such a willful discourtesy is
an act of stark incivility and has been the object of a formal call
to order.
The Chair enlists the understanding and cooperation of all the
Members at this point.
Remarks Critical of the Speaker
Sec. 6.3 Remarks in the House concerning the Speaker's conduct should
be directed to the Chair even if the Speaker is not occupying the
Chair.(48)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Parliamentarian's Note: Various precedents state that it is not in
order to use personally offensive language regarding the
Speaker. However, even if these remarks are unparliamentary,
they should still be directed to the Chair (see, e.g., 2 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 1248; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5094, 5188,
and 5192; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2497, 2498, and
2531).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 1, 1983,(49) the following remarks were made
concerning the Speaker, even though the Speaker was not occupying the
Chair at the time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. 129 Cong. Rec. 30267, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 3.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT
(Mr. WALKER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, it is
apparent from your remarks in the New York Times this morning that
the political rhetoric of 1984 is going to get plenty rough.
It becomes clear that you are finding that you can no longer
sustain rational opposition to the President's policies, so you
have decided to unleash irrational personal attacks on the
President, his family, and the people within his administration. .
. . -------------------
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. [Samuel] STRATTON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(50) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. Paul Simon (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, is it in order for any Member of the
House to address a Speaker pro tempore who is occupying the chair
and make charges that were directed at the Speaker himself?
It would appear to be improper. I would think, under the rules
of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is advised that the remarks
are directed to the Chair, whoever the occupant of the chair is.
Mr. STRATTON. But the Chair has not been interviewed in the New
York Times this morning, has he?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has not.
Mr. STRATTON. Well, but the gentleman from Pennsylvania seems
to have been disturbed about the altering of the record, and I
thought it was important that we direct the remarks toward one
Member, specifically to that Member, and not to confuse it with
some temporary outkickment of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I thank the gentleman from New York
for coming to my defense.
Sec. 6.4 Debate on a question of personal privilege must be confined to
the statements or issue which gave rise to the question of
privilege, and should not include critical remarks directed at the
Speaker.
On May 31, 1984,(51) the following remarks caused the
Speaker pro tempore to remind Members to confine their remarks to the
question of personal privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. 130 Cong. Rec. 14622-23, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 5075-5077; 6 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 576, 608; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2448,
2481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Again, I thank the
gentleman for his characterization. I just would refer the
gentleman to the rules of the House. Under rule I of clause 2, one
of the duties of the Speaker is to preserve order and decorum. I
would suggest that engaging in partisan name calling is hardly
preserving the decorum of the House.
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said he thought the American people
viewed the responsibility of the Speaker as being fair and
impartial as the presiding officer. I think that is right, and I
think this Speaker has been fair and impartial as a presiding
officer.
As a matter of fact, going back over the last decade it is
absolutely rare, probably to the point of being able to count the
times on one hand, where we have had an appeal from a ruling of the
Chair, whether it is being occupied by the Speaker personally, or
by someone acting in his behalf. This cannot be said of the other
body or of most State legislatures.
The reason that has been true of the House is that Members on
both sides, regardless of their philosophy or party, have learned
to respect the rulings of this Speaker as fair and impartial to all
Members. I think the gentleman misstates his complaint if he
suggests that this presiding officer is unfair.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for his defense of the
Speaker, but I would suggest to the gentleman that this gentleman
is simply raising the point that when the Speaker engages in name
calling as part of his regular duties as Speaker, as part of the
press conference that he holds as Speaker each day, that that is
not fair, that that is not impartial, that that is not the kind of
behavior that the American people think that the Speaker should be
engaged in.
The gentleman can disagree with that, but I happen to think
that a majority of Americans will not appreciate the fact that this
Speaker has become unfair.
Mr. [Vin] WEBER [of Minnesota]. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. WALKER. I would be very glad to yield to the gentleman from
Minnesota.
Mr. WEBER. I would just say to my colleague from Washington,
the fact that there have not been appeals of the rulings of the
chair, I believe it is a lot more than a decade, I think it is over
several speakerships, is indicative of the respect that all Members
hold for the institution of the Speaker. The point that we are
making is that an individual Speaker can conduct himself in a
manner that damages that respect.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. WALKER. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. FOLEY. The point I was trying to make, I will tell the
gentleman, is that this Speaker as well as other Speakers in both
parties, going back to the last generation or more, have had the
confidence of the House in their rulings as presiding officers
because they have been fair. They have had respect not simply
because of the office they hold, but because the actual conduct of
the Speaker, including Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., has been absolutely
fair and impartial when he presides over the House or someone
presides in his place.
The fact of the matter is that that is reflected in the respect
that has been given to his rulings on both sides.
I only make this comment because it is one thing for the
gentleman to suggest that some action of the Speaker off the floor
and not presiding over the floor is something he wants to
criticize; it is another thing to imply that there is unfairness,
partiality or partisanship in the way this Speaker has conducted
himself in this Chamber.
Mr. WALKER. I would say to the gentleman that the Speaker of
the House is the Speaker of the House full time. He is the symbol
of this body when he is on the floor and when he is off the floor.
What he says and does as Speaker of the House reflects on us all,
all of the time. I am suggesting that in what he is saying in his
press conference is, in fact, a reflection of his opinion of at
least some Members in this body. That is not, it seems to me, in
the tradition of fairness that we have come to expect of the
Speakers of the House with regard to elected Members of this
institution.
That is the question that I raise here. Again, I would expect a
member of the leadership of the Democratic side to come to the
defense of their Speaker, but I do believe that there is a need to
air what I regard as a serious problem.
Mr. WEBER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from
Minnesota.
Mr. WEBER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
What we have just heard from our colleague from Washington is a
definition of fairness of the chair being that that Speaker's
rulings are not appealed. Well, I will say to you on this side of
the aisle we do not think that this Speaker has been fair. We do
not think it is fair that legislation is bottled up in committee
and not brought to the floor for votes, we do not think it is fair
that constitutional amendments are scheduled for action on the
Suspension, Calendar, we do not think it is fair that we are not
given proportional representation on any committees of the House of
Representatives, and I could go on and on and on.
All the gentleman is telling me, though, is that none of that
matters and that the only way you can demonstrate your feeling
about the unfairness of the Speaker is by appealing his rulings. If
that is what the gentleman is saying to us, then he is giving us
instruction on what should be our future behavior. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(52) The Chair would like to
have order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. John Murtha (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Chair remind the Members to confine their remarks to
the issue of personal privilege which is the newspaper article
which was brought up in the first place.
Sec. 6.5 At the beginning of each Congress, the Speaker customarily
inserts into the Congressional Record certain policy statements
regarding proper decorum, including the proper standard for
references to the Speaker.
On January 4, 1995,(53) the following policies were
inserted into the Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. 141 Cong. Rec. 551-53, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. The policy statement
with regard to references to the Speaker was new for the 104th
Congress, but has been reiterated in subsequent Congresses.
See, e.g., 159 Cong. Rec. 45-46, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3,
2013). See also Sec. 2.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLICIES OF THE CHAIR
The SPEAKER.(54) The Chair customarily takes this
occasion on the opening day of a Congress to announce his policies
with respect to particular aspects of the legislative process. The
Chair will insert in the Record announcements by the Speaker
concerning: first, privileges of the floor; second, the
introduction of bills and resolutions; third, unanimous-consent
requests for the consideration of bills and resolutions; fourth,
recognition for 1-minute speeches and special orders; fifth,
decorum in debate; sixth, the conduct of votes by electronic
device; and seventh, requests for leave of committees to sit during
the 5-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. Newt Gingrich (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These announcements, where appropriate, will reiterate the
origins of the stated policies. The Speaker intends to continue in
the 104th Congress the policies reflected in these statements. The
policy announced in Congresses prior to the 103d Congress with
respect to requests for committees to sit during the 5-minute rule
is once again pertinent. The policy announced in the 102d Congress
with respect to jurisdictional concepts related to clause 5(b) of
rule XXI--tax and tariff measures--will continue to govern but need
not be reiterated, as it is adequately documented as precedent in
the House Rules and Manual. . . .
5. Decorum in Debate
The Speaker's statement in the 102d Congress on January 3,
1991, with respect to decorum in debate, will apply during the
104th Congress as supplemented by an announcement made by the
Speaker earlier today.
announcement by the speaker, january 3, 1991
The Speaker. It is essential that the dignity of the
proceedings of the House be preserved, not only to assure that the
House conducts its business in an orderly fashion but to permit
Members to properly comprehend and participate in the business of
the House. To this end, and in order to permit the Chair to
understand and to correctly but the question on the numerous
requests that are made by Members, the Chair requests that Members
and others who have the privileges of the floor desist from audible
conversation in the Chamber while the business of the House is
being conducted. The Chair would encourage all Members to review
rule XIV to gain a better understanding of the proper rules of
decorum expected of them, and especially: First, to avoid
``personalities'' in debate with respect to references to other
Members, the Senate, and the President; second, to address the
Chair while standing and only when and not beyond the time
recognized, and not to address the television or other imagined
audience; third, to refrain from passing between the Chair and the
Member speaking, or directly in front of a Member speaking from the
well; fourth, to refrain from smoking in the Chamber; and generally
to display the same degree of respect to the Chair and other
Members that every Member is due.
announcement by the speaker, january 4, 1995
The Speaker. The Chair would like all Members to be on notice
that the Chair intends to strictly enforce time limitations on
debate. Before gavelling Members down precisely when their time has
expired, the Chair will lightly tap the gavel as a warning that a
Member has 10 seconds remaining. Furthermore, the Chair may
immediately interrupt Members in debate who transgress rule XIV by
failing to avoid ``personalities'' in debate with respect to
references to the Senate, the President, and other Members, rather
than wait for Members to complete their remarks.
Finally, it is not in order to speak disrespectfully of the
Speaker; and under the precedents the sanctions for such violations
transcend the ordinary requirements for timeliness of challenges.
This separate treatment is recorded in volume 2 of Hinds'
Precedents, at section 1248.
Sec. 6.6 A revision in the Congressional Record of the Chair's ruling
regarding unparliamentary remarks concerning the Speaker was held
not to constitute a substantive change in the Record within the
meaning of clause 9 of rule XIV (now clause 1 of rule
XVII).(55)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. House Rules and Manual Sec. 945 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 18, 1995,(56) the Chair ruled that words
personally offensive to the Speaker were out of order and the ruling
was sustained on appeal. Modifications were made to the Chair's
statements in the daily Congressional Record.(57) On January
19, 1995,(58) the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. 141 Cong. Rec. 1441-47, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
57. Parliamentarian's Note: The language of the Chair's ruling was
modified to clarify that references to the personal conduct or
characteristics of the Speaker are out of order. No substantive
change to the ruling was intended. Nevertheless, in response to
the point of order raised on January 19, 1995, the House (by
unanimous consent) agreed to allow the original, unmodified
version of the ruling to be retained in the Record. See 141
Cong. Rec. 1866, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 20, 1995).
58. 141 Cong. Rec. 1599-602, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
point of order
Mr. [Barney] FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(59) The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. David Dreier (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of
this session, the House adopted a new rule which says the
Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of
remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to
technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by
the Member making the remarks involved.
In the Congressional Record that we received this morning,
reflecting yesterday's proceedings, at page H301 in the transcript
of the remarks of the Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from
Florida, there are two changes that were made between what he, in
fact, said and what is in the Record.
The first change is as follows:
He said yesterday with regard to the statements of the
gentlewoman from Florida about the book of the Speaker, ``It is the
Speaker's opinion that innuendo and personal references to the
Speaker's conduct are not in order.''
That has been altered and that does not appear verbatim in the
Congressional Record. Instead, it says, ``It is the Speaker's
opinion that innuendo and critical references to the Speaker's
personal conduct are not in order.''
Additionally, later on in response to a parliamentary inquiry
from the gentleman from Missouri, the Speaker pro tempore said, as
I recollect it, ``it has been the Chair's ruling, and the
precedents of the House support this, a higher level of respect is
due to the Speaker.''
In the Congressional Record that has been changed to ``a proper
level of respect.''
Now, I do not believe that changing ``personal'' to
``critical'' and ``proper'' to ``higher'' is either technical,
grammatical, or typographical. Both make quite substantive changes.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that by the standard that the
Speaker yesterday uttered, the gentlewoman from Florida was judged,
but if you take today's standard of revised, illegitimately revised
version that is in the Record, there would be no objection to what
the gentlewoman from Florida said.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(60) The Chair might respond
to the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. Clifford Stearns (FL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would recite from the manual that in accordance with
existing accepted practices, the Speaker may make such technical or
parliamentary insertions, or corrections in transcript as may be
necessary to conform to rule, custom, or precedent. The Chair does
not believe that any revision changed the meaning of the ruling.
The Chair would under the circumstances inform the House on
behalf of the Parliamentarian that the new rule is as it might
apply to the role of the Chair will be examined. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the Chair might respond to the
gentleman.
Mr. [John] DINGELL [of Michigan]. I would like to persist in my
parliamentary inquiry. Or that the rulings of the Chair of
yesterday are going to be reexamined?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must reiterate that the
principles of decorum in debate relied on by the Chair yesterday
with respect to words taken down are not new to the 104th Congress.
First, clause 1 of rule XIV establishes an absolute rule
against engaging in personality in debate where the subject of a
Member's conduct is not the pending question.
Second, it is the long and settled practice of the House over
many Congresses to enforce that standard by demands from the floor
that words be taken down under rule XIV. Although the rule enables
the Chair to take initiative to address breaches of order, the
Chair normally defers to demands that words be taken down in the
case of references to Members of the House. On occasion, however,
the Chair has announced general standards of proper reference to
Members, as was the case on June 15, 1988. There, in response to a
series of 1-minute speeches and special order debates focusing on
the conduct of the Speaker as the subject of an ethical complaint
and on the motives of the Member who filed the complaint, the Chair
stated as follows:
Thus, the Chair would caution all Members not to use the 1-
minute period or special orders, as has already happened, to
discuss the conduct of Members of the House in a way that
inevitably engages in personalities.
Third, longstanding precedents of the House provide that the
stricture against personalities has been enforced collaterally with
respect to criticism of the Speaker even when intervening debate
has occurred. This separate treatment is recorded in volume 2 of
Hinds' Precedents, at section 1248.
Finally, a complaint against the conduct of the Speaker is
presented directly for the action of the House and not by way of
debate on other matters. As Speaker Thomas B. Reed of Maine
explained in 1897, criticism of past conduct of the presiding
officer is out of order not because he is above criticism but,
instead, because of the tendency of piecemeal criticism to impair
the good order of the House.
Speaker Reed's rationale is recorded in volume 5 of Hinds'
Precedents section 5188 from which the Chair now quotes as follows:
The Chair submits to the House that allusions or criticisms of
what the Chair did at some past time is certainly not in order not
because the Chair is above criticism or above attack but for two
reasons; first, because the Speaker is the Speaker of the House,
and such attacks are not conducive to the good order of the House;
and, second, because the Speaker cannot reply to them except in a
very fragmentary fashion, and it is not desirable that he should
reply to them. For these reasons, such attacks ought not be made.
Based on these precedents, the Chair was justified in
concluding that the words challenged on yesterday were in their
full context out of order as engaging in personalities.
The Chair will inform that the Chair is going to proceed with
1-minutes.
Sec. 6.7 It is not order to refer to the Speaker in terms personally
offensive, such as accusing the Speaker of lying to Congress.
On April 17, 1997,(61) a Member's words were ruled out
of order by the Chair as unparliamentary. After objection was heard to
the traditional unanimous-consent request to strike the offending
language, the House, by a recorded vote, agreed to strike the
words:(62)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. 143 Cong. Rec. 5831, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
62. Parliamentarian's Note: Although the House voted to strike the
offending words, they were inadvertently retained in the
Congressional Record, necessitating a correction in the
permanent Record of April 21, 1997. See 143 Cong. Rec. 5943-44,
105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPEAKER'S COMPENSATION FOR COST OF ETHICS INVESTIGATION
(Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [John] LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see
my Republican colleagues on the floor today congratulating Speaker
Newt Gingrich for doing something he should have done months ago,
paying $300,000 for lying to Congress.
Speaker Gingrich admitted to bringing discredit on the House of
Representatives. He has admitted to lying to this House.
Mr. [Gerald] SOLOMON [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I ask the
gentleman's words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [James] Kolbe [of Arizona]). The
gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from Georgia will be seated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The Clerk will report the
words.
The Clerk read as follows:
I am surprised to see my Republican colleagues on the floor
today congratulating Speaker Newt Gingrich for doing something he
should have done months ago, paying $300,000 for lying to Congress.
Speaker Gingrich admitted to bringing discredit on the House of
Representatives. He has admitted to lying to this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The words of the gentleman from Georgia constitute a
personality against the Speaker. Under the precedents, the debate
should not go to the official conduct of a Member where that
question is not pending as a question of privilege on the House
floor. The fact that the House has addressed a Member's conduct at
a prior time does not permit this debate at this time. Therefore,
the gentleman's words are out of order.
Without objection, the gentleman's words will be stricken from
the Record.
Mr. [Lloyd] DOGGETT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Unparliamentary Remarks by the Speaker
Sec. 6.8 By unanimous consent, words used in debate by the Speaker in
reference to a specific Member were withdrawn, following a demand
that the words be taken down.
On July 2, 1980,(63) Speaker Thomas O'Neill of
Massachusetts made the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. 126 Cong. Rec. 18361, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I have
served in legislative bodies for 44 years. In my legislative
lifetime I have never seen a Speaker ever make a wrong ruling. When
he makes a ruling, he makes it for posterity.
At no time do I ever want to make a ruling and have anyone look
at the record and say, ``He was political.'' I have my life to live
with, and the records will always be there.
I was 16 years in the Massachusetts Legislature, and only once
did I ever see anybody appeal the Chair's ruling. Every member of
his party voted against him. . . .
I am sorry that the gentlewoman from Massachusetts was duped
the way she was. I am sorry, in my opinion----
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I demand that
the gentleman's words be taken down.
Mr. O'NEILL. She was duped the way she was.
Mr. BAUMAN. I demand the gentleman's words be taken down.
Mr. O'NEILL. Here we go, with the same dilatory manner.
Mr. BAUMAN. You said it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. O'NEILL. The man who lives 50 miles from here----
Mr. BAUMAN. I demand his words be taken down.
Mr. O'NEILL. And commutes every night. What concern is it to
you?
Mr. BAUMAN. Regular order. The Speaker no longer has the floor.
I demand his words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(64) Does the gentleman from
Massachusetts withdraw the word that was used?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. Paul Simon (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'NEILL. The Speaker will withdraw the word.
Mr. [John] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]. Louder. Could not hear it.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman be permitted to withdraw the word ``duped.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Sec. 6.9 Remarks of the Speaker may be subject to a demand that the
words be taken down.
On May 15, 1984,(65) Speaker Thomas O'Neill of
Massachusetts made the following remarks, which the Majority Whip, Rep.
Trent Lott of Mississippi, demanded be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. 130 Cong. Rec. 12201-202, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] GINGRICH [of Georgia]. OK. I would be delighted to
yield to our distinguished Speaker, if he wishes to continue this,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. [Thomas] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. You yield to me.
I just want to say this.
Mr. GINGRICH. Please use the mike.
Mr. O'NEILL. There is no question in my mind that the arguments
and statements that I said on this floor came to me by complaint of
the Members.
First, that they had not been notified. I do not believe that
they were notified. I believe that truly, that they did not get the
mail in their office, No. 1.
No. 2, the sense of your letter here: ``I am inviting you to
hear a dialog on my perception of what American policy and foreign
affairs should be. I am going to go back,'' you did not tell them
you were going to go back to 1970 to get clips, 1972 in the
instance of Mr. Edward Boland, the gentleman whom I have the
greatest respect for; chairman of our Intelligence Committee. And
you were going to ask him a question as to their policy and how
they felt about the Vietnam war and the question of ``Did you beat
your wife lately?'' ``I want you to come in and answer the
questions of the philosophy that you had then.''
You talk about Angola, you did not--you do not talk about
Angola, how during the Eisenhower administration we were for the
very, very people that later on the Nixon people were opposed to.
Change in strategy. You do not say anything about things of that
nature. Very interesting.
My personal opinion is this: You deliberately stood in that
well before an empty House and challenged these people, and you
challenged their Americanism, and it is the lowest thing that I
have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, If I may reclaim my time, let me say
first of all that----
Mr. [Trent] LOTT [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, I demand that
the Speaker's words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(66) Words will be taken
down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. John Joseph Moakley (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows:
My personal opinion is this: you deliberately stood in that
well before an empty House and challenged these people and you
challenged their Americanism and it is the lowest thing that I have
ever seen In my 32 years in Congress.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, has the Chair ruled?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has not ruled.
Mr. LOTT. If the Chair would rule, I have a request that I
would like to make.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair feels that that type of
characterization should not be used in debate.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent at this point
that the Speaker be allowed to continue in order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Mississippi?
Mr. [William] THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, will the gentleman from Mississippi indicate to me
the intent and purpose of that unanimous-consent request. . . .
Mr. THOMAS of California. And that requires unanimous consent?
Mr. LOTT. I am asking for that unanimous consent. Our point has
been made. I think that we want to change the tenor of this debate
and we should now proceed on a higher plane with this debate.
Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, I shall not object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Sec. 7. Ethics Investigations of the Speaker
The Speaker, like all Members, must abide by ethics rules
established in House rules and statutes, and is therefore subject to
the same disciplinary measures as any other Member.(1) The
Speaker thus may become the subject of an inquiry(2)
conducted by the Committee on Ethics (previously the Committee of
Standards of Official Conduct).(3) A resolution requesting
that the Committee on Ethics open an inquiry into allegations relating
to the Speaker's conduct constitutes a question of the privileges of
the House under rule IX.(4) The House may also establish a
special select committee to conduct an investigation into alleged
violations by the Speaker.(5) A resolution alleging improper
delay in the conduct of an investigation of the Speaker may be raised
as a valid question of the privileges of the House.(6) The
Speaker, like any Member, may rise to a point of personal privilege to
address allegations of unethical conduct.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For ethics and disciplinary matters generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 12 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 12.
2. Parliamentarian's Note: Speaker James Wright of Texas became the
subject of an investigation by the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct (now the Committee on Ethics) in the 100th
Congress in 1988. Following the committee's release of its
``Statement of Alleged Violation,'' Speaker Wright resigned the
speakership on June 6, 1989. For more specifics on this case,
see Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 12. See also Sec. 7.4, infra. In
the 104th Congress, Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia became the
subject of an investigation by the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct (now the Committee on Ethics). See Sec. 7.3,
infra. The case was transferred to a special Select Committee
on Ethics created at the beginning of the 105th Congress to
review the matter. See H. Res. 5, 143 Cong. Rec. 122, 105th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 7, 1997). See also Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 3 Sec. 8.7. The House adopted the report of the select
committee on January 21, 1997. See Sec. 7.3, infra. Following
adoption of the report, Speaker Gingrich remained in office for
the remainder of the Congress, but resigned his seat for the
following Congress. For more specifics on this case, see
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 12. See also Sec. Sec. 7.2, 7.5, infra
and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 8.7.
3. From the 90th Congress until the 111th Congress, this committee was
known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Its
name was changed to the Committee on Ethics at the outset of
the 112th Congress in 2011.
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 698, 699, and 703 (2019). For a
resolution requesting that the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct (now the Committee on Ethics) open an inquiry
into possible unauthorized release of classified information by
the Speaker, see Sec. 7.1, infra.
5. See Sec. 7.3, infra.
6. See Sec. 7.2, infra. See also 141 Cong. Rec. 35075, 104th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Nov. 30, 1995).
7. See Sec. Sec. 7.4, 7.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction of Resolution
Sec. 7.1 A resolution directing the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct (now the Committee on Ethics) to investigate possible
disclosure of classified information by the Speaker was introduced
by a Member and referred to the Committee on Rules.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Parliamentarian's Note: Although this resolution was introduced
through the hopper and referred to the appropriate committee,
it would have been privileged for immediate consideration had
it been raised as a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 11 Sec. Sec. 9,
10. See also House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 698, 699, and 703
(2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 1988,(9) the following resolution was
introduced and referred to the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 134 Cong. Rec. 27328-29, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 5 of rule X and clause 4 of rule XXII, public
bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as
follows: . . .
By Mr. CHENEY (for himself, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Livingston, Mr. McEwen, Mr.
Lungren, and Mr. Shuster):
H. Res. 561. Resolution directing the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to conduct an investigation regarding a possible unauthorized
disclosure of classified information in violation of the Rules of the House
of Representatives; to the Committee on Rules.
Resolution Alleging Procedural Irregularities by Committee
Sec. 7.2 A resolution alleging procedural irregularities and delay by
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now the Committee
on Ethics) in the disposition of ethics complaints against the
Speaker and resolving that the committee report to the House on the
status of the investigation, constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 17, 1995,(11) the following resolution was
raised as a question of the privileges of the House (and subsequently
laid on the table):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 141 Cong. Rec. 33846-47, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. For a similar
question of the privileges of the House, see 141 Cong. Rec.
35075, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov. 30, 1995). For a special-
order speech reciting the text of a resolution raised as a
question of the privileges of the House relative to complaints
against the Speaker, see 141 Cong. Rec. 33853-54, 104th Cong.
1st Sess. (Nov. 17, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Pete] PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privileges of the House, and pursuant to rule IX, I
offer a resolution on behalf of myself and the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Johnston] and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(12) The Clerk will report
the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Robert Walker (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 277
Whereas the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is currently
considering several ethics complaints against Speaker Newt Gingrich;
Whereas the Committee has traditionally handled such cases by appointing
an independent, non-partisan, outside counsel--a procedure which has been
adopted in every major ethics case since the Committee was established;
Whereas, although complaints against Speaker Gingrich have been under
consideration for more than 14 months, the Committee has failed to appoint
an outside counsel;
Whereas the Committee has also deviated from other long-standing
precedents and rules of procedure; including its failure to adopt a
Resolution of Preliminary Inquiry before calling third-party witnesses and
receiving sworn testimony;
Whereas these procedural irregularities-and the unusual delay in the
appointment of an independent, outside counsel--have led to widespread
concern that the Committee is making special exceptions for the Speaker of
the House;
Whereas the integrity of the House depends on the confidence of the
American people in the fairness and impartiality of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
Therefore be it resolved that;
The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct should report to the House, no later than November 28, 1995,
concerning:
The status of the Committee's investigation of the complaints against
Speaker Gingrich;
The Committee's disposition with regard to the appointment of a non-
partisan outside counsel and the scope of the counsel's investigation:
A timetable for Committee action on the complaints.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair holds that the resolution
gives rise to a question of the privileges of the House concerning
the integrity of its
proceedings. -------------------
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Harry] JOHNSTON of Florida. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. [Nancy] JOHNSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I understand that
a motion to table will be made. In the event that the motion to
table is passed, this would be an adverse disposition of the
privileged resolution.
My inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is, with minor changes of the
privileged resolution, would it be in order for the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Peterson] and myself to file a similar resolution
tomorrow and each business day from now to the conclusion of the
104th Congress? . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Linder [of Georgia]). The
Chair will note that proper questions of privilege may be
renewed. -------------------
motion to table offered by mr. armey
Mr. [Richard] ARMEY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the
House prohibit members of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct from discussing ongoing business. Accordingly, I offer a
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
Mr. ARMEY moves to lay the resolution on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have
it. -------------------
record vote
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
219, noes 177, answered ``present'' 10, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 815] . . .
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Filing of Report
Sec. 7.3 A report from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
(now the Committee on Ethics) regarding the results of an inquiry
into the official conduct of the Speaker is filed from the floor as
privileged under clause 5 of rule XIII.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 853 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 12, 1995,(14) the following report informing
the House that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had
notified Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia of several violations of the
rules of the House (while dismissing other complaints) was filed as
privileged and referred to the House Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 141 Cong. Rec. 36212, 36266, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT ON INQUIRY INTO VARIOUS COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST
REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, from the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 104-401)
on the inquiry into various complaints filed against Representative
Newt Gingrich, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered
to be printed. -------------------
STATEMENT ON REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL
CONDUCT
(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mrs. [Nancy] JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today, at the
direction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I have
introduced a resolution which eliminates one of the few exceptions
to House Rules regarding outside earned income.
As you know, the Rules of the House now restrict the amount of
outside income a Member or senior staffer may earn to $20,040 per
year. However, copyright royalties and book advances are exempted
from this restriction. A Member may publish a book and receive a
large cash advance and unlimited royalties.
The resolution introduced today would amend rule 47 of the
Rules of the House of Representatives so as to prohibit advances
and treat copyright royalties as earned income subject to the
$20,040 yearly cap. The new restriction would apply to royalties
earned after December 31, 1995, for any book published after the
beginning of House service, and would prohibit the deferral or
royalties beyond the year in which earned.
It is the committee's hope that this resolution will be
considered and approved this year.
As with our necessary reforms, this proposal may cause some
momentary financial hardship in individual cases, or even delay the
communication of useful ideas. In the long run, however, this
proposal, by preventing the perception that book contracts are
offered or their terms altered in deference to a Member's position
rather than as a reflection of the book's content, will bring added
attention to whatever ideas we may put forth.
As has passage of the gift rule resolution and, hopefully,
other reform initiatives, this change in our House rules will
assure that our actions_both in fact and perception_merit public
confidence. -------------------
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were
delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper
calendar, as follows: . . .
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut: Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct. Inquiry into various complaints filed against
Representative Newt Gingrich (Rept. 104-401). Referred to the House
Calendar.
In the following Congress, the House created a Select Committee on
Ethics to complete the continuing investigation into Speaker Newt
Gingrich of Georgia's conduct.(15) On January 21,
1997,(16) the House adopted the final report of the select
committee, thereby reprimanding the Speaker and ordering him to
reimburse the committee for the costs of the investigation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See H. Res. 5, 143 Cong. Rec. 122, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 7,
1997). See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 8.7 (appointing
a Member to the select committee).
16. 143 Cong. Rec. 393-95, 419-20, 422, 445-49, and 459, 105th Cong.
1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
Mrs. [Nancy] JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
rule IX and by direction of the Select Committee on Ethics, I send
to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 31) in the matter of
Representative Newt Gingrich, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
House Resolution 31
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
Resolved, That the House adopt the report of the Select Committee on
Ethics dated January 17, 1997, In the Matter of Representative Newt
Gingrich.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(17) The resolution
constitutes a question of privilege and may be called up at any
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Doug Bereuter (NE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before we proceed, the Chair will have
a statement about the decorum expected of the Members.
The Chair has often reiterated that Members should refrain from
references in debate to the conduct of other Members where such
conduct is not the question actually pending before the House,
either by way of a report from the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct or by way of another question of the privileges of
the House.
This principle is documented on pages 168 and 526 of the House
Rules and Manual and reflects the consistent rulings of the Chair
in this and in prior Congresses. It derives its force primarily
from clause 1 of rule XIV which broadly prohibits engaging in
personality in debate. It has been part of the rules of the House
since 1789.
On the other hand, the calling up of a resolution reported by
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or the offering of
a resolution as a similar question of the privileges of the House,
embarks the House on consideration of a proposition that admits
references in debate to a Member's conduct. Disciplinary matters by
their very nature involve personalities.
Still, this exception to the general rule against engaging in
personality--admitting references to a Member's conduct when that
conduct is the very question under consideration by the House--is
closely limited. This point was well stated on July 31, 1979, as
follows: While a wide range of discussion is permitted during
debate on a disciplinary resolution, clause 1 of rule XIV still
prohibits the use of language which is personally abusive. This is
recorded in the Deschler-Brown Procedure in the House of
Representatives in chapter 12, at section 2.11.
On the question now pending before the House, the resolution
offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Members should confine
their remarks in debate to the merits of that precise question.
Members should refrain from remarks that constitute personalities
with respect to members of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct or the Select Committee on Ethics or with respect to other
sitting Members whose conduct is not the subject of the pending
report. Finally, Members should exercise care to maintain an
atmosphere of mutual respect.
On January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report that stated the
following: It is the duty of the House to require its Members in
speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will
permit the House to conduct its business in an orderly manner and
without unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its
Members.
This is recorded in Cannon's Precedents in volume 8 at section
2497.
The report adopted on that occasion responded to improper
references in debate to the President, but it articulated a
principle that occupants of the Chair over many Congresses have
held equally applicable to Members' remarks toward each other.
The Chair asks and expects the cooperation of all Members in
maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the
proceedings of the House.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that debate on the resolution be extended for a half an
hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs.
Johnson] is recognized for 90 minutes.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of
debate only, I yield 45 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Cardin], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as chairman of the Select Committee on
Ethics to lay before you the committee's bipartisan recommendation
for final action on the matter of Representative Newt Gingrich. The
committee recommends that Representative Gingrich be reprimanded
and reimburse the House $300,000. The penalty is tough and
unprecedented. It is also appropriate. No one is above the rules of
the House of Representatives.
This matter centered on two key questions: whether the Speaker
violated Federal tax law and whether he intentionally filed
incorrect information with the Ethics Committee. While the
committee investigated these questions extensively, its findings
were inconclusive. Rather, the committee found that Representative
Gingrich brought discredit to the House by failing to get
appropriate legal advice to ensure that his actions would be in
compliance with tax law and to oversee the development of his
letters to the committee to ensure they were accurate in every
respect.
Each Member of Congress, especially those in positions of
leadership, shoulders the responsibility of avoiding even the
appearance of impropriety. Representative Gingrich failed to
exercise the discipline and caution of his office and so is subject
to penalty today.
As I have said, the penalty recommended by the committee is
tough and unprecedented. In past cases of this nature, the House
has reprimanded a Member only where the Member was found to have
intentionally made false statements to the Ethics Committee. In
this case, the committee recommended a reprimand of Representative
Gingrich even though the statement of alleged violations did not
assert that he intentionally misled the committee. Likewise in past
cases where the committee imposed monetary sanctions on a Member,
the committee found that the Member had been personally enriched by
the misconduct. The committee made no such finding against
Representative Gingrich, yet recommends that a cost reimbursement
of $300,000 be paid to the House by him.
The report before us contains several hundred pages of exhibits
and a detailed analysis of the subcommittee's findings. The
allegations and the key facts supporting them were laid out by the
special counsel during a public hearing on January 17. The
committee's recommendations before you today end 2 long years of
work.
Throughout this process we never lost sight of our key goals:
full and complete disclosure of the facts and a bipartisan
recommendation. We accomplished both. Even though it would have
been easy for Republicans or Democrats to walk away from the
process at many stages, we did not, because we believed in this
institution and in the ethics process.
The investigative subcommittee was ably chaired by
Representative Porter Goss. Representatives Ben Cardin, Steve
Schiff, and Nancy Pelosi, along with Mr. Goss deserve the gratitude
of this House for the extraordinary workload they shouldered and
for their dedication to pursuing each issue until they reached
consensus. Together with Mr. James Cole, the special counsel, they
laid the groundwork for the bipartisan conclusion of this matter. I
want to thank Mr. Cardin, the current ranking member, as well, for
working with me through difficult times to enable the bipartisan
Ethics Committee process to succeed.
In the last 2 years the committee was forced to conduct its
work against the backdrop of harsh political warfare. It is the
first time ever that members of the Ethics Committee have been the
target of coordinated partisan assaults in their districts.
Coordinated political pressure on members of the Ethics Committee
by other Members is not only destructive of the ethics oversight
process but is beneath the dignity of this great institution and
those who serve here. . . .
Mr. [Benjamin] CARDIN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume. . . .
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
report of the Select Committee on Ethics be made a part of the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Douglas] Bereuter [of Nebraska]).
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
The report is as follows:
IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH
I. Introduction
A. Procedural Background
On September 7, 1994, a complaint was filed with the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (``Committee'') against Representative Newt
Gingrich by Ben Jones, Mr. Gingrich's opponent in his 1994 campaign for re-
election. The complaint centered on a course taught by Mr. Gingrich called
``Renewing American Civilization.'' Among other things, the complaint
alleged that Mr. Gingrich had used his congressional staff to work on the
course in violation of House Rules. The complaint also alleged that Mr.
Gingrich had created a college course under the sponsorship of 501(c)(3)
organizations in order ``to meet certain political, not educational,
objectives'' and, therefore, caused a violation of section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code to occur. In partial support of the allegation that
the course was a partisan, political project, the complaint alleged that
the course was under the control of GOPAC, a political action committee of
which Mr. Gingrich was the General Chairman.
Mr. Gingrich responded to this complaint in letters dated October 4,
1994, and December 8, 1994, but the matter was not resolved before the end
of the 103rd Congress. On January 26, 1995, Representative David Bonior
filed an amended version of the complaint originally filed by Mr. Jones. It
restated the allegations concerning the misuse of tax-exempt organizations
and contained additional allegations. Mr. Gingrich responded to that
complaint in a letter from his counsel dated March 27, 1995.
On December 6, 1995, the Committee voted to initiate a Preliminary
Inquiry into the allegations concerning the misuse of tax-exempt
organizations. The Committee appointed an Investigative Subcommittee
(``Subcommittee'') and instructed it to: determine if there is reason to
believe that Representative Gingrich's activities in relation to the
college course ``Renewing American Civilization'' were in violation of
section 501(c)(3) or whether any foundation qualified under section
501(c)(3), with respect to the course, violated its status with the
knowledge and approval of Representative Gingrich * * *.
The Committee also resolved to appoint a Special Counsel to assist in the
Preliminary Inquiry. On December 22, 1995, the Committee appointed James M.
Cole, a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave LLP, as the Special Counsel.
Mr. Cole's contract was signed January 3, 1996, and he began his work.
On September 26, 1996, the Subcommittee announced that, in light of
certain facts discovered during the Preliminary Inquiry, the investigation
was being expanded to include the following additional areas:
(1) Whether Representative Gingrich provided accurate, reliable, and
complete information concerning the course entitled ``Renewing American
Civilization,'' GOPAC's relationship to the course entitled ``Renewing
American Civilization,'' or the Progress and Freedom Foundation in the
course of communicating with the Committee, directly or through counsel
(House Rule 43, Cl. 1);
(2) Whether Representative Gingrich's relationship with the Progress and
Freedom Foundation, including but not limited to his involvement with the
course entitled ``Renewing American Civilization,'' violated the
foundation's status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and
related regulations (House Rule 43, Cl. 1);
(3) Whether Representative Gingrich's use of the personnel and facilities
of the Progress and Freedom Foundation constituted a use of unofficial
resources for official purposes (House Rule 45); and
(4) Whether Representative Gingrich's activities on behalf of the Abraham
Lincoln Opportunity Foundation violated its status under 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code and related regulations or whether the Abraham
Lincoln Opportunity Foundation violated its status with the knowledge and
approval of Representative Gingrich (House Rule 43, Cl. 1).
As discussed below, the Subcommittee issued a Statement of Alleged
Violation with respect to the initial allegation pertaining to Renewing
American Civilization and also with respect to items 1 and 4 above. The
Subcommittee did not find any violations of House Rules in regard to the
issues set forth in items 2 and 3 above. The Subcommittee, however, decided
to recommend that the full Committee make available to the IRS documents
produced during the Preliminary Inquiry for use in its ongoing inquiries of
501(c)(3) organizations. In regard to item 3 above, the Subcommittee
decided to issue some advice to Members concerning the proper use of
outside consultants for official purposes.
On January 7, 1997, the House conveyed the matter of Representative Newt
Gingrich to the Select Committee on Ethics by its adoption of clause
4(e)(3) of rule X, as contained in House Resolution 5.
On January 17, 1997, the Select Committee on Ethics held a sanction
hearing in the matter pursuant to committee rule 20. Following the sanction
hearing, the Select Committee ordered a report to the House, by a roll call
vote of 7-1, recommending that Representative Gingrich be reprimanded and
ordered to reimburse the House for some of the costs of the investigation
in the amount of $300,000. The following Members voted aye: Mrs. Johnson of
Connecticut, Mr. Goss, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Borski, and
Mr. Sawyer. The following Member voted no: Mr. Smith of Texas.
The adoption of this report by the House shall constitute such a
reprimand and order of reimbursement. Accordingly, the Select Committee
recommends that the House adopt a resolution in the following form.
HOUSE RESOLUTION --
Resolved, That the House adopt the report of the Select Committee on
Ethics dated January 17, 1997, In the Matter of Representative Newt
Gingrich.
Statement Pursuant to Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of Rule XI
No oversight findings are considered pertinent.
B. Investigative Process
The investigation of this matter began on January 3, 1996, and lasted
through December 12, 1996. In the course of the investigation,
approximately 90 subpoenas or requests for documents were issued,
approximately 150,000 pages of documents were reviewed, and approximately
70 people were interviewed. Most of the interviews were conducted by Mr.
Cole outside the presence of the Subcommittee. A court reporter transcribed
the interviews and the transcripts were made available to the Members of
the Subcommittee. Some of the interviews were conducted before the Members
of the Subcommittee primarily to explore the issue of whether Mr. Gingrich
had provided the Committee, directly or through counsel, inaccurate,
unreliable, or incomplete information.
During the Preliminary Inquiry, Mr. Cole interviewed Mr. Gingrich twice
and Mr. Gingrich appeared before the Subcommittee twice. Several draft
discussion documents, with notebooks of exhibits, were prepared for the
Subcommittee in order to brief the Members on the findings and status of
the Preliminary Inquiry. After receiving the discussion documents, the
Subcommittee met to discuss the legal and factual questions at issue.
In most investigations, people who were involved in the events under
investigation are interviewed and asked to describe the events. This
practice has some risk with respect to the reliability of the evidence
gathered because, for example, memories fade and can change when a matter
becomes controversial and subject to an investigation. One advantage the
Subcommittee had in this investigation was the availability of a vast body
of documentation from multiple sources that had been created
contemporaneously with the events under investigation. A number of
documents central to the analysis of the matter, in fact, had been written
by Mr. Gingrich. Thus, the documents provided a unique, contemporaneous
view of people's purposes, motivations, and intentions with respect to the
facts at issue. This Report relies heavily, but not exclusively, on an
analysis of those documents to describe the acts, as well as Mr. Gingrich's
purpose, motivations, and intentions.
As the Report proceeds through the facts, there is discussion of
conservative and Republican political philosophy. The Committee and the
Special Counsel, however, do not take any positions with respect to the
validity of this or any other political philosophy, nor do they take any
positions with respect to the desirability of the dissemination of this or
any other political philosophy. Mr. Gingrich's political philosophy and its
dissemination is discussed only insofar as it is necessary to examine the
issues in this matter.
C. Summary of the Subcommittee's Factual Findings
The Subcommittee found that in regard to two projects, Mr. Gingrich
engaged in activity involving 501(c)(3) organizations that was
substantially motivated by partisan, political goals. The Subcommittee also
found that Mr. Gingrich provided the Committee with material information
about one of those projects that was inaccurate, incomplete, and
unreliable. . . .
D. Statement of Alleged Violation
On December 21, 1996, the Subcommittee issued a Statement of Alleged
Violation stating that Mr. Gingrich had engaged in conduct that did not
reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in that by failing to
seek and follow legal advice, Mr. Gingrich failed to take appropriate steps
to ensure that activities with respect to the AOW/ACTV project and the
Renewing American Civilization project were in accordance with section
501(c)(3); and that on or about December 8, 1994, and on or about March 27,
1995, information was transmitted to the Committee by and on behalf of Mr.
Gingrich that was material to matters under consideration by the Committee,
which information, as Mr. Gingrich should have known, was inaccurate,
incomplete, and unreliable.
On December 21, 1996, Mr. Gingrich filed an answer with the Subcommittee
admitting to this violation of House Rules.
The following is a summary of the findings of the Preliminary Inquiry
relevant to the facts as set forth in the Statement of Alleged Violation.
II. Summary of Facts Pertaining to American Citizens Television . . .
IX. Analysis and Conclusion
A. Tax Issues
In reviewing the evidence concerning both the AOW/ACTV project and the
Renewing American Civilization project, certain patterns became apparent.
In both instances, GOPAC had initiated the use of the messages as part of
its political program to build a Republican majority in Congress. In both
instances there was an effort to have the material appear to be non-
partisan on its face, yet serve as a partisan, political message for the
purpose of building the Republican Party.
Under the ``methodology test'' set out by the Internal Revenue Service,
both projects qualified as educational. However, they both had substantial
partisan, political aspects. Both were initiated as political projects and
both were motivated, at least in part, by political goals.
The other striking similarity is that, in both situations, GOPAC was in
need of a new source of funding for the projects and turned to a 501(c)(3)
organization for that purpose. Once the projects had been established at
the 501(c)(3) organizations, however, the same people continued to manage
it as had done so at GOPAC, the same message was used as when it was at
GOPAC, and the dissemination of the message was directed toward the same
goal as when the project was at GOPAC--building the Republican Party. The
only significant difference was that the activity was funded by a 501(c)(3)
organization.
This was not a situation where one entity develops a message through a
course or a television program for purely educational purposes and then an
entirely separate entity independently decides to adopt that message for
partisan, political purposes. Rather, this was a coordinated effort to have
the 501(c)(3) organization help in achieving a partisan, political goal. In
both instances the idea to develop the message and disseminate it for
partisan, political use came first. The use of the 501(c)(3) came second as
a source of funding.
This factual analysis was accepted by all Members of the Subcommittee and
the Special Counsel. However, there was a difference of opinion as to the
result under 501(c)(3) when applying the law to these facts. Ms. Roady, the
Subcommittee's tax expert, was of the opinion that the facts presented a
clear violation of 501(c)(3) because the evidence showed that the
activities were intended to benefit Mr. Gingrich, GOPAC, and other
Republican candidates and entities. Mr. Holden, Mr. Gingrich's tax
attorney, disagreed. He found that the course was non-partisan in its
content, and even though he assumed that the motivation for disseminating
it involved partisan, political goals, he did not find a sufficiently
narrow targeting of the dissemination to conclude that it was a private
benefit to anyone.
Some Members of the Subcommittee and the Special Counsel agreed with Ms.
Roady and concluded that there was a clear violation of 501(c)(3) with
respect to AOW/ACTV and Renewing American Civilization. Other Members of
the Subcommittee were troubled by reaching this conclusion and believed
that the facts of this case presented a unique situation that had not
previously been addressed by the legal authorities. As such, they did not
feel comfortable supplanting the functions of the Internal Revenue Service
or the Tax Court in rendering a ruling on what they believed to be an
unsettled area of the law.
B. Statements Made to the Committee
The letters Mr. Gingrich submitted to the Committee concerning the
Renewing American Civilization complaint were very troubling to the
Subcommittee. They contained definitive statements about facts that went to
the heart of the issues placed before the Committee. In the case of the
December 8, 1994 letter, it was in response to a direct request from the
Committee for specific information relating to the partisan, political
nature of the course and GOPAC's involvement in it.
Both letters were efforts by Mr. Gingrich to have the Committee dismiss
the complaints without further inquiry. In such situations, the Committee
does and should place great reliance on the statements of Members.
The letters were prepared by Mr. Gingrich's lawyers. After the
Subcommittee deposed the lawyers, the reasons for the statements being in
the letters was not made any clearer. The lawyers did not conduct any
independent factual research. Looking at the information the lawyers used
to write the letters, the Subcommittee was unable to find any factual basis
for the inaccurate statements contained therein. A number of exhibits
attached to the complaint were fax transmittal sheets from GOPAC. While
this did not on its face establish anything more than GOPAC's fax machine
having been used for the project, it certainly should have put the
attorneys on notice that there was some relationship between the course and
GOPAC that should have been examined before saying that GOPAC had
absolutely no involvement in the course.
The lawyers said they relied on Mr. Gingrich and his staff to ensure that
the letters were accurate; however, none of Mr. Gingrich's staff had
sufficient knowledge to be able to verify the accuracy of the facts. While
Mr. Gaylord and Mr. Eisenach did have sufficient knowledge to verify many
of the facts, they were not asked to do so. The only person who reviewed
the letters for accuracy, with sufficient knowledge to verify those facts,
was Mr. Gingrich.
The Subcommittee considered the relevance of the reference to GOPAC in
Mr. Gingrich's first letter to the Committee dated October 4, 1994. In that
letter he stated that GOPAC was one of the entities that paid people to
work on the course. Some Members of the Subcommittee believed that this was
evidence of lack of intent to deceive the Committee on Mr. Gingrich's part
because if he had planned to hide GOPAC's involvement, he would not have
made such an inconsistent statement in the subsequent letters. Other
Members of the Subcommittee and the Special Counsel appreciated this point,
but believed the first letter was of little value. The statement in that
letter was only directed to establishing that Mr. Gingrich had not used
congressional resources in developing the course. The first letter made no
attempt to address the tax issues, even though it was a prominent feature
of the complaint. When the Committee specifically focused Mr. Gingrich's
attention on that issue and questions concerning GOPAC's involvement in the
course, his response was not accurate.
During his testimony before the Subcommittee, Mr. Gingrich stated that he
did not intend to mislead the Committee and apologized for his conduct.
This statement was a relevant consideration for some Members of the
Subcommittee, but not for others.
The Subcommittee concluded that because these inaccurate statements were
provided to the Committee, this matter was not resolved as expeditiously as
it could have been. This caused a controversy over the matter to arise and
last for a substantial period of time, it disrupted the operations of the
House, and it cost the House a substantial amount of money in order to
determine the facts.
C. Statement of Alleged Violation
Based on the information described above, the Special Counsel proposed a
Statement of Alleged Violations (``SAV'') to the Subcommittee on December
12, 1996. The SAV contained three counts: (1) Mr. Gingrich's activities on
behalf of ALOF in regard to AOW/ACTV, and the activities of others in that
regard with his knowledge and approval, constituted a violation of ALOF's
status under section 501(c)(3); (2) Mr. Gingrich's activities on behalf of
Kennesaw State College Foundation, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and
Reinhardt College in regard to the Renewing American Civilization course,
and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and
approval, constituted a violation of those organizations' status under
section 501(c)(3); and (3) Mr. Gingrich had provided information to the
Committee, directly or through counsel, that was material to matters under
consideration by the Committee, which Mr. Gingrich knew or should have
known was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.
1. DELIBERATIONS ON THE TAX COUNTS
There was a difference of opinion regarding whether to issue the SAV as
drafted on the tax counts. Concern was expressed about deciding this tax
issue in the context of an ethics proceeding. This led the discussion to
the question of the appropriate focus for the Subcommittee. A consensus
began to build around the view that the proper focus was on the conduct of
the Member, rather than a resolution of issues of tax law. From the
beginning of the Preliminary Inquiry, there was a desire on the part of
each of the Members to find a way to reach a unanimous conclusion in this
matter. The Members felt it was important to confirm the bipartisan nature
of the ethics process.
The discussion turned to what steps Mr. Gingrich had taken in regard to
these two projects to ensure they were done in accord with the provisions
of 501(c)(3). In particular, the Subcommittee was concerned with the fact
that: (1) Mr. Gingrich had been ``very well aware'' of the American
Campaign Academy case prior to embarking on these projects; (2) he had been
involved with 501(c)(3) organizations to a sufficient degree to know that
politics and tax-deductible contributions are, as his tax counsel said, an
``explosive mix;'' (3) he was clearly involved in a project that had
significant partisan, political goals, and he had taken an aggressive
approach to the tax laws in regard to both AOW/ACTV; and (4) Renewing
American Civilization projects. Even Mr. Gingrich's own tax lawyer told the
Subcommittee that if Mr. Gingrich had come to him before embarking on these
projects, he would have advised him to not use a 501(c)(3) organization for
the dissemination of AOW/ACTV or Renewing American Civilization. Had Mr.
Gingrich sought and followed this advice, he would not have used the
501(c)(3) organizations, would not have had his projects subsidized by
taxpayer funds, and would not have created this controversy that has caused
significant disruption to the House. The Subcommittee concluded that there
were significant and substantial warning signals to Mr. Gingrich that he
should have heeded prior to embarking on these projects. Despite these
warnings, Mr. Gingrich did not seek any legal advice to ensure his conduct
conformed with the provisions of 501(c)(3).
In looking at this conduct in light of all the facts and circumstances,
the Subcommittee was faced with a disturbing choice. Either Mr. Gingrich
did not seek legal advice because he was aware that it would not have
permitted him to use a 501(c)(3) organization for his projects, or he was
reckless in not taking care that, as a Member of Congress, he made sure
that his conduct conformed with the law in an area where he had ample
warning that his intended course of action was fraught with legal peril.
The Subcommittee decided that regardless of the resolution of the 501(c)(3)
tax question, Mr. Gingrich's conduct in this regard was improper, did not
reflect creditably on the House, and was deserving of sanction.
2. DELIBERATIONS CONCERNING THE LETTERS
The Subcommittee's deliberation concerning the letters provided to the
Committee centered on the question of whether Mr. Gingrich intentionally
submitted inaccurate information. There was a belief that the record
developed before the Subcommittee was not conclusive on this point. The
Special Counsel suggested that a good argument could be made, based on the
record, that Mr. Gingrich did act intentionally, however it would be
difficult to establish that with a high degree of certainty.
The culmination of the evidence on this topic again left the Subcommittee
with a disturbing choice. Either Mr. Gingrich intentionally made
misrepresentations to the Committee, or he was again reckless in the way he
provided information to the Committee concerning a very important matter.
The standard applicable to the Subcommittee's deliberations was whether
there is reason to believe that Mr. Gingrich had acted as charged in this
count of the SAV. All felt that this standard had been met in regard to the
allegation that Mr. Gingrich ``knew'' that the information he provided to
the Committee was inaccurate. However, there was considerable discussion to
the effect that if Mr. Gingrich wanted to admit to submitting information
to the Committee that he ``should have known'' was inaccurate, the
Subcommittee would consider deleting the allegation that he knew the
information was inaccurate. The Members were of the opinion that if there
were to be a final adjudication of the matter, taking into account the
higher standard of proof that is involved at that level, ``should have
known'' was an appropriate framing of the charge in light of all the facts
and circumstances.
3. DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. GINGRICH'S COUNSEL AND RECOMMENDED SANCTION
On December 13, 1996, the Subcommittee issued an SAV charging Mr.
Gingrich with three counts of violations of House Rules. Two counts
concerned the failure to seek legal advice in regard to the 501(c)(3)
projects, and one count concerned providing the Committee with information
which he knew or should have known was inaccurate.
At the time the Subcommittee voted this SAV, the Members discussed the
matter among themselves and reached a consensus that it would be in the
best interests of the House for the matter to be resolved without going
through a disciplinary hearing. It was estimated that such a hearing could
take up to three months to complete and would not begin for several months.
Because of this, it was anticipated that the House would have to deal with
this matter for another six months. Even though the Subcommittee Members
felt that it would be advantageous to the House to avoid a disciplinary
hearing, they all were committed to the proposition that any resolution of
the matter had to reflect adequately the seriousness of the offenses. To
this end, the Subcommittee Members discussed and agreed upon a recommended
sanction that was fair in light of the conduct reflected in this matter,
but explicitly recognized that the full Committee would make the ultimate
decision as to the recommendation to the full House as to the appropriate
sanction. In determining what the appropriate sanction should be in this
matter, the Subcommittee and Special Counsel considered the seriousness of
the conduct, the level of care exercised by Mr. Gingrich, the disruption
caused to the House by the conduct, the cost to the House in having to pay
for an extensive investigation, and the repetitive nature of the conduct.
As is noted above, the Subcommittee was faced with troubling choices in
each of the areas covered by the Statement of Alleged Violation. Either Mr.
Gingrich's conduct in regard to the 501(c)(3) organizations and the letters
he submitted to the Committee was intentional or it was reckless. Neither
choice reflects creditably on the House. While the Subcommittee was not
able to reach a comfortable conclusion on these issues, the fact that the
choice was presented is a factor in determining the appropriate sanction.
In addition, the violation does not represent only a single instance of
reckless conduct. Rather, over a number of years and in a number of
situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the
standards of conduct that applied to his activities.
Under the Rules of the Committee, a reprimand is the appropriate sanction
for a serious violation of House Rules and a censure is appropriate for a
more serious violation of House Rules. Rule 20(g), Rules of the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct. It was the opinion of the Subcommittee
that this matter fell somewhere in between. Accordingly, the Subcommittee
and the Special Counsel recommend that the appropriate sanction should be a
reprimand and a payment reimbursing the House for some of the costs of the
investigation in the amount of $300,000. Mr. Gingrich has agreed that this
is the appropriate sanction in this matter.
Beginning on December 15, 1996, Mr. Gingrich's counsel and the Special
Counsel began discussions directed toward resolving the matter without a
disciplinary hearing. The discussions lasted through December 20, 1996. At
that time an understanding was reached by both Mr. Gingrich and the
Subcommittee concerning this matter. That understanding was put on the
record on December 21, 1996 by Mr. Cole follows:
Mr. Cole: The subcommittee has had an opportunity to review the facts in
this case, and has had extensive discussion about the appropriate
resolution of this matter.
Mr. Cardin: If I might just add here to your next understanding, the
Members of the subcommittee, prior to the adoption of the Statement of
Alleged Violation, were concerned that the nonpartisan deliberations of the
subcommittee continue beyond the findings of the subcommittee. Considering
the record of the full Ethics Committee in the 104th Congress and the
partisan environment in the full House, the Members of the subcommittee
felt that it was important to exercise bipartisan leadership beyond the
workings of the subcommittee. * * *
Mr. Cole: It was the opinion of the Members of the subcommittee and the
Special Counsel, that based on the facts of this case as they are currently
known, the appropriate sanction for the conduct described in the original
Statement of Alleged Violations is a reprimand and the payment of $300,000
toward the cost of the preliminary inquiry.
In light of this opinion, the subcommittee Members and the Special
Counsel intend to recommend to the full committee that this be the sanction
recommended by the full committee to the House. The Members also intend to
support this as the sanction in the committee and on the Floor of the
House.
However, if new facts are developed or brought to the attention of the
Members of the subcommittee, they are free to change their opinions.
The Subcommittee, through its counsel, has communicated this to Mr.
Gingrich, through his counsel. Mr. Gingrich has agreed that if the
subcommittee will amend the Statement of Alleged Violations to be one
count, instead of three counts, however, still including all of the conduct
described in the original Statement of Alleged Violations, and will allow
the addition of some language which reflects aspects of the record in this
matter concerning the involvement of Mr. Gingrich's counsel in the
preparation of the letters described in the original Count 3 of the
Statement of Alleged Violations,88 he will admit to the entire
Statement of Alleged Violation and agree to the view of the subcommittee
Members and the Special Counsel as to the appropriate sanction.
----------
88 These changes included the removal of the word ``knew''
from the original Count 3, making the charge read that Mr. Gingrich
``should have known'' the information was inaccurate.
----------
In light of Mr. Gingrich's admission to the Statement of Alleged
Violation, the subcommittee is of the view that the rules of the committee
will not require that an adjudicatory hearing take place; however, a
sanction hearing will need to be held under the rules.
The subcommittee and Mr. Gingrich desire to have the sanction hearing
concluded as expeditiously as possible, but it is understood that this will
not take place at the expense of orderly procedure and a full and fair
opportunity for the full committee to be informed of any information
necessary for each Member of the full committee to be able to make a
decision at the sanction hearing.
After the subcommittee has voted a new Statement of Alleged Violation,
Mr. Gingrich will file his answer admitting to it. The subcommittee will
seek the permission of the full committee to release the Statement of
Alleged Violation, Mr. Gingrich's answer, and a brief press release which
has been approved by Mr. Gingrich's counsel. At the same time, Mr. Gingrich
will release a brief press release that has been approved by the
subcommittee's Special Counsel.
Both the subcommittee and Mr. Gingrich agree that no public comment
should be made about this matter while it is still pending. This includes
having surrogates sent out to comment on the matter and attempt to
mischaracterize it.
Accordingly, beyond the press statements described above, neither Mr.
Gingrich nor any Member of the subcommittee may make any further public
comment. Mr. Gingrich understands that if he violates this provision, the
subcommittee will have the option of reinstating the original Statement of
Alleged Violations and allowing Mr. Gingrich an opportunity to withdraw his
answer.
And I should note that it is the intention of the subcommittee that
``public comments'' refers to press statements; that, obviously, we are
free and Mr. Gingrich is free to have private conversations with Members of
Congress about these matters.89
----------
89 It was also agreed that in the private conversations Mr.
Gingrich was not to disclose the terms of the agreement with the
Subcommittee.
----------
After the Subcommittee voted to issue the substitute SAV, the Special
Counsel called Mr. Gingrich's counsel and read to him what was put on the
record concerning this matter. Mr. Gingrich's counsel then delivered to the
Subcommittee Mr. Gingrich's answer admitting to the Statement of Alleged
Violation.
D. Post-December 21, 1996 Activity
Following the release of this Statement of Alleged Violation, numerous
press accounts appeared concerning this matter. In the opinion of the
Subcommittee Members and the Special Counsel, a number of the press
accounts indicated that Mr. Gingrich had violated the agreement concerning
statements about the matter. Mr. Gingrich's counsel was notified of the
Subcommittee's concerns and the Subcommittee met to consider what action to
take in light of this apparent violation. The Subcommittee determined that
it would not nullify the agreement. While there was serious concern about
whether Mr. Gingrich had complied with the agreement, the Subcommittee was
of the opinion that the best interests of the House still lay in resolving
the matter without a disciplinary hearing and with the recommended sanction
that its Members had previously determined was appropriate. However, Mr.
Gingrich's counsel was informed that the Subcommittee believed a violation
of the agreement had occurred and retained the right to withdraw from the
agreement with appropriate notice to Mr. Gingrich. To date no such notice
has been given.
X. Summary of Facts Pertaining to Use of Unofficial Resources
The Subcommittee investigated allegations that Mr. Gingrich had
improperly utilized the services of Jane Fortson, an employee of the
Progress in Freedom Foundation (``PFF''), in violation of House Rule 45,
which prohibits the use of unofficial resources for official purposes.
Ms. Fortson was an investment banker and chair of the Atlanta Housing
Project who had experience in urban and housing issues. In January 1995 she
moved to Washington, D.C., from Atlanta to work on urban and housing issues
as a part-time PFF Senior Fellow and subsequently became a full-time PFF
Senior Fellow in April, 1995.
The Subcommittee determined that Mr. Gingrich sought Ms. Fortson's advice
on urban and housing issues on an ongoing and meaningful basis. During an
interview with Mr. Cole, Mr. Gingrich stated that although he believed he
lacked the authority to give Ms. Fortson assignments, he often requested
her assistance in connection with urban issues in general and issues
pertaining to the District of Columbia in particular. The investigation
further revealed that Ms. Fortson appeared to have had unusual access to
Mr. Gingrich's official schedule and may have occasionally influenced his
official staff in establishing his official schedule.
In her capacity as an unofficial policy advisor to Mr. Gingrich, Ms.
Fortson provided ongoing advice to Mr. Gingrich and members of Mr.
Gingrich's staff to assist Mr. Gingrich in conducting official duties
related to urban issues. Ms. Fortson frequently attended meetings with
respect to the D.C. Task Force during which she met with Members of
Congress, officials of the District of Columbia, and members of their
staffs. Although Mr. Gingrich and principal members of his staff advised
the Subcommittee that they perceived Ms. Fortson's assistance as limited to
providing information on an informal basis, the Subcommittee discovered
other occurrences which suggested that Mr. Gingrich and members of his
staff specifically solicited Ms. Fortson's views and assistance with
respect to official matters.
The Subcommittee acknowledges that Members may properly solicit
information from outside individuals and organizations, including nonprofit
and for-profit organizations. Regardless of whether auxiliary services are
accepted from a nonprofit or for-profit organization, Members must exercise
caution to limit the use of outside resources to ensure that the duties of
official staff are not improperly supplanted or supplemented. The
Subcommittee notes that although Mr. Gingrich received two letters of
reproval from the Committee on Standards regarding the use of outside
resources, Ms. Fortson's activities ceased prior to the date the Committee
issued those letters to Mr. Gingrich. While the Subcommittee did not find
that Ms. Fortson's individual activities violated House Rules, the
Subcommittee determined that the regular, routine, and ongoing assistance
she provided Mr. Gingrich and his staff over a ten-month period could
create the appearance of improper commingling of unofficial and official
resources. The Subcommittee determined, however, that these activities did
not warrant inclusion as a Count in the Statement of Alleged Violation.
XI. Availability of Documents to Internal Revenue Service
In light of the possibility that documents which were produced to the
Subcommittee during the Preliminary Inquiry might be useful to the IRS as
part of its reported ongoing investigations of various 501(c)(3)
organizations, the Subcommittee decided to recommend that the full
Committee make available to the IRS all relevant documents produced during
the Preliminary Inquiry. It is the Committee's recommendation that the
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 105th Congress
establish a liaison with the IRS to fulfill its recommendation and that
this liaison be established in consultation with Mr. Cole.
A P P E N D I X . . .
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
395, noes 28, answered ``present'' 5, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 8] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Addressing Report
Sec. 7.4 The Speaker has risen to a question of personal privilege to
address a report issued by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct (now the Committee on Ethics), and to further announce his
intention to resign as Speaker and as a Member of the
House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For proceedings regarding the Speaker's resignation, see 135 Cong.
Rec. 10800-803, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. (June 6, 1989). See also
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37 Sec. 9.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 31, 1989,(19) following the release by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of a ``Statement of Alleged
Violation'' regarding improper official conduct by the Speaker, Speaker
James Wright took to the floor on a question of personal privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 135 Cong. Rec. 10431, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE--JIM WRIGHT, SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. [Thomas] Foley [of Washington]).
The Chair recognizes the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Mr. [James] WRIGHT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I ask that I may be
heard on a question of personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The distinguished Speaker is
recognized for 1 hour.
(Mr. WRIGHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, for 34 years I have had the great
privilege to be a Member of this institution, the people's House,
and I shall forever be grateful for that wondrous privilege. I
never cease to be thankful to the people of the 12th District of
Texas for their friendship and their understanding and their
partiality toward me. . . .(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For the full transcript of Speaker Wright's resignation speech, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37 Sec. 9.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.5 The Speaker has risen to a question of personal privilege to
address the House adoption of a resolution recommended by the
Select Committee on Ethics reprimanding the Speaker and requiring
him to reimburse the House for the costs of the committee's
investigation.
On April 17, 1997,(21) Speaker Newt Gingrich took to the
floor on a question of personal privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 143 Cong. Rec. 5834, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
Mr. [Newt] GINGRICH [of Georgia]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. [James] Kolbe [of Arizona]). The
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I am standing here in the People's
House at the center of freedom, and it is clear to me that for
America to be healthy, our House of Representatives must be
healthy. The Speaker of the House has a unique responsibility in
this regard.
When I became Speaker of the House, it was the most moving day
I could have imagined. It was the culmination of a dream. Little
did I know that only 2 years later, I would go through a very
painful time.
During my first 2 years as Speaker, 81 charges were filed
against me. Of the 81 charges, 80 were found not to have merit and
were dismissed as virtually meaningless. But the American public
might wonder what kind of man has 81 charges brought against him?
Under our system of government, attacks and charges can be
brought with impunity against a Congressman, sometimes with or
without foundation. Some of these charges involved a college course
I taught about renewing American civilization. . . .
B. The Speaker Pro Tempore
Sec. 8. Definition and Nature of Office; Authorities
This division details the precedents concerning Speakers pro
tempore.(1) These precedents address the
designation(2) or election(3) of Members to act
as Speaker pro tempore, the functions and authorities of Speakers pro
tempore, and limitations on Speaker pro tempore authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 9, 10. See also 2 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 1377-1418; 6 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 263-282; and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 9-
14.
2. See Sec. 11, infra.
3. See Sec. 12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker serves as presiding officer of the House, but is not
required to preside at all times. In the earliest days of the House,
the Speaker would personally preside over all sessions of the House,
only leaving the Chair in order to appoint another Member to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.(4) In 1811, the standing
rules of the House were amended to provide that the Speaker be
permitted to ``name any Member to substitute him and to perform the
duties of the Chair temporarily, but such substitution shall not extend
beyond an adjournment.''(5) The Member assuming this
function is known as the Speaker pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Parliamentarian's Note: The parliamentary device of the Committee
of the Whole in House practice dates to the First Congress in
1789. 1 Annals of Cong. 103, 1st Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 7,
1789). The current rule authorizing the House to resolve into
the Committee of the Whole is clause 1 of rule XVIII. House
Rules and Manual Sec. 970 (2019). For more on the history of
the Committee of the Whole, see 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4705.
For the Committee of the Whole generally, see Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 19 and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 19.
5. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the speakership grew in power and prestige throughout the 19th
century, the authority to appoint Speakers pro tempore gradually
expanded. In 1876, the rule was amended to provide authority to appoint
a Speaker pro tempore for up to ten days (with the approval of the
House) in cases where the Speaker's illness precluded the Speaker from
presiding.(6) In 1920, the rule was amended to provide that
the Speaker's appointment of a Speaker pro tempore may extend up to
three legislative days.(7) In 1983, the rule was again
amended to provide that the Speaker be authorized to appoint a Speaker
pro tempore (with the approval of the House) solely for the purpose of
signing enrolled bills and joint resolutions over a specified
time.(8) The current rule encompassing these different
Speaker pro tempore appointing authorities is clause 8 of rule
I.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Id.
7. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 263.
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019). See also Sec. 11, infra.
For prior practice regarding the authority of Speakers pro
tempore to sign enrollments, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. Sec. 4.36-4.40.
9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019). The rule does not permit
Delegates or the Resident Commissioner to be appointed Speaker
pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the House
rules were amended in various ways to provide increased flexibility in
responding to emergency circumstances. One such amendment addressed
situations where the Speaker might become incapacitated or otherwise
unable to exercise the duties of the office. Pursuant to clause 8(b)(3)
of rule I, the Speaker is required to deliver to the Clerk a list of
Members designated to act as Speaker pro tempore should the Office of
Speaker become vacant (due to the death of the Speaker or the inability
of the Speaker to perform the duties of the office).(10)
This Speaker pro tempore ``may exercise such authorities of the Office
of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate'' until the House is
able to elect a new Speaker or a Speaker pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019). See Sec. 10.2, infra and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these rules regarding the appointment of a Speaker
pro tempore by the Speaker, earlier precedents demonstrate the ability
of the House, in the absence of the Speaker, to elect a Speaker pro
tempore.(11) In 1798, Speaker Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey
fell ill and was unable to preside over the House. The Clerk convened
the House and a motion was offered (and adopted) to elect a ``Speaker
pro tem'' to temporarily exercise the duties of Speaker.(12)
A subsequent resolution was also adopted to inform the Senate of the
election.(13) This appears to have been the first instance
of the House electing another Member to assume the duties of the
Speaker on a temporary basis. Since that time, it has been recognized
that the House may use either method to install a Speaker pro tempore_
through appointment by the Speaker, or via election by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 634 (2019).
12. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1405. These proceedings occurred prior to
the adoption of the present rule regarding the appointment of
Speakers pro tempore due to the illness of the Speaker.
13. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The differences between an appointed or designated Speaker pro
tempore(14) and an elected Speaker pro tempore are discussed
below.(15) The authorities exercised by a Speaker pro
tempore will depend in large measure on which type of Speaker pro
tempore is involved. Where a Speaker pro tempore does not have inherent
authority to take some action, the House may nevertheless permit the
action by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's selection of an individual to
act as Speaker pro tempore may be described as an appointment
or a designation. Throughout this division, the terms
``designated Speaker pro tempore'' and ``appointed Speaker pro
tempore'' will be used interchangeably, there being no
parliamentary difference between the two formulations.
15. See Sec. Sec. 11, 12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9. Oath of Office
A Speaker pro tempore who is designated or appointed by the Speaker
(either to preside over the House, or merely to sign enrollments
pursuant to clause 8(b)(2) of rule I) does not take the oath of office
upon appointment.(1) The Speaker's appointment in such cases
is for a limited duration and for a limited purpose--the individual
holding the office thus may be viewed as a merely a temporary
replacement for the Speaker.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Parliamentarian's Note: There are two cases in which the House
formally approves of the Speaker's appointment of a Speaker pro
tempore. Under clause 8(b)(1) of rule I, the House's approval
is required for an appointment of a Speaker pro tempore for up
to ten days due to the illness of the Speaker. See House Rules
and Manual Sec. 632 (2019). Under clause 8(b)(2) of rule I, the
House's approval is required for the Speaker to appoint a
Speaker pro tempore to sign enrolled bills and joint
resolutions. Under modern practice, this approval is generally
given to a list of Members at the beginning of the session via
unanimous consent, and the oath of office is not administered.
However, under prior practice, the House would often adopt a
resolution formally approving of the appointment of a Speaker
pro tempore, and the Speaker pro tempore would take the oath of
office under such circumstances. See Deschler's Precedents Ch.
6 Sec. 11.2. However, this practice was not always uniform. See
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 11.3.
2. Parliamentarian's Note: An appointed or designated Speaker pro
tempore has been described as ``characteristically a ``stand-
in'' Speaker,'' indicating the limited nature of the office.
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, a Speaker pro tempore elected by the House assumes
virtually all of the duties, authorities, and prerogatives of the
Speaker of the House.(3) As such, an elected Speaker pro
tempore is administered the oath of office upon his or her
election.(4) The oath of office is the same as that which is
administered to the Speaker and Members at the outset of a new
Congress.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 12, infra.
4. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 11.1.
5. Parliamentarian's Note: The oath prescribed by law reads as
follows: ``I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear
true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me
God.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2
Sec. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The oath of office may be administered to a Speaker pro tempore by
the Speaker (if present),(6) or another Member chosen by the
elected Speaker pro tempore (such as the Dean of the
House,(7) a party floor leader,(8) or other
Member).(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 9.1, infra.
7. See Sec. 9.2, infra.
8. Id. For more on party leaders, see Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3.
9. Id. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oath Administered by the Speaker
Sec. 9.1 When the House adopts a privileged resolution electing a
Speaker pro tempore, the oath may be administered to the Speaker
pro tempore by the Speaker.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. If the Speaker is absent, the oath may be administered by another
Member, such as the Dean of the House. See Sec. 9.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 17, 1998,(11) after the House elected a Speaker
pro tempore, the oath was administered to the elected Speaker pro
tempore by Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia:
11. 144 Cong. Rec. 3800, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 11.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
election of hon. richard k. armey as speaker pro tempore on
today
Mr. [John] BOEHNER [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 386) electing the Honorable Richard K. Armey of
Texas to act as Speaker pro tempore, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 386
Resolved, that the Honorable Richard K. Armey, a Representative from the
State of Texas, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker pro tempore on this
day.
Sec. 2. The Clerk of the House shall notify the President and the Senate
of the election of the Honorable Richard K. Armey as Speaker pro tempore
during the absence of the Speaker.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. -------------------
SWEARING IN OF HON. RICHARD K. ARMEY AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
DURING ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER.(12) Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey) assume the chair and take the oath of office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Newt Gingrich (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] ARMEY [of Texas] took the oath of office
administered to him by the Speaker, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,
and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which you are about to enter. So help you God.
Oath Administered by Member
Sec. 9.2 An elected Speaker pro tempore may be administered the oath by
Members other than the Speaker.
On June 26, 1975,(13) after the House adopted a
privileged resolution electing a Speaker pro tempore during the absence
of the Speaker, the oath was administered by the Dean of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 20967, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 11.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION OF HON. JOHN J. McFALL AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE DURING
ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER
Mr. [Thomas] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I send to
the desk a resolution (H. Res. 571) electing the Honorable John J.
McFall Speaker pro tempore during the absence of the Speaker, and
ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER.(14) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 571
Resolved, That the Honorable John J. McFall, a Representative from the
State of California, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker pro tempore
during the absence of the Speaker.
Resolved, That the President and the Senate be notified by the Clerk of
the election of the Honorable John J. McFall as Speaker pro tempore during
the absence of the Speaker.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. -------------------
SWEARING IN OF HON. JOHN J. McFALL AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
DURING ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. I now ask the dean of the House of
Representatives, the Honorable Wright Patman, of Texas, to
administer the oath of office to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McFall), as Speaker pro tempore.
Mr. McFALL assumed the chair and took the oath of office
administered to him by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Patman).
On August 19, 1982,(15) after the House adopted a
privileged resolution electing a Speaker pro tempore during the absence
of the Speaker, the oath was administered by the Majority Whip to the
elected Speaker pro tempore:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 22279, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION OF HON. MELVIN PRICE AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE DURING THE
ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER
Mr. [Daniel] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 573) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 573
Resolved, That Hon. Melvin Price, a Representative from the State of
Illinois, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker pro tempore during the
absence of the Speaker. Resolved, That the President and the Senate be
notified by the Clerk of the election of Hon. Melvin Price as Speaker pro
tempore during the absence of the Speaker.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. -------------------
SWEARING IN OF HON. MELVIN PRICE AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE DURING
ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(16) The Chair asks the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price) to assume the
chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PRICE assumed the chair and took the oath of office
administered to him by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley).
On May 22, 1980,(17) after the House adopted a
privileged resolution electing a Speaker pro tempore during the absence
of the Speaker, the oath was administered by another Member to the
Speaker pro tempore:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 12238, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION OF THE HONORABLE JOHN BRADEMAS AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
DURING THE ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER
Mr. [Richard] BOLLING [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 680) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 680
Resolved, That Honorable John Brademas, a Representative from the State
of Indiana, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker pro tempore during the
absence of the Speaker.
Resolved, That the President and the Senate be notified by the Clerk of
the election of Honorable John Brademas as Speaker pro tempore during the
absence of the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(18) Without objection, the
resolution is agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John Murtha (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, Mr. Speaker, does the Speaker pro tempore feel the
election of a new Speaker is of such great merit or importance that
a rollcall might be in order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It just makes allowance for
enrollments to be signed over the weekend.
Mr. BAUMAN. But it makes the gentleman from Indiana the Speaker
of the House, does it not?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Speaker pro tempore.
Mr. BAUMAN. With that assurance, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resolution is
agreed to.
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. -------------------
SWEARING IN OF THE HONORABLE JOHN BRADEMAS AS SPEAKER PRO
TEMPORE DURING ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will ask the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Price) to administer the oath of office to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Brademas) as Speaker pro tempore.
Mr. [John] BRADEMAS [of Indiana] assumed the chair and took the
oath of office administered to him by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Price).
Sec. 10. Term of Office
The term of office for a Speaker pro tempore varies depending on
the circumstances. A Speaker pro tempore appointed pursuant to clause
8(a) of rule I(1) may not continue in office beyond the
third legislative day of the appointment.(2) At the other
end of the spectrum, a designated Speaker pro tempore's appointment may
last as little as a few moments (for example, to preside over the
election of a Speaker pro tempore).(3) Speakers pro tempore
may be appointed for any period up to the three day
limit.(4) A Speaker pro tempore elected by the House is
typically elected for the duration of the Speaker's absence, and is not
temporally limited in the same manner as appointed Speakers pro tempore
under clause 8 of rule I.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
2. Parliamentarian's Note: This restriction essentially creates an
obligation for the Speaker to personally convene the House
every fourth legislative day. If the Speaker continued to be
absent after the expiration of the designated Speaker pro
tempore's appointment, the House would be required to elect a
Speaker pro tempore. The election of a Speaker pro tempore by
the House effectively resets the clock for purposes of further
appointments, as an elected Speaker pro tempore qualifies as a
Speaker for purposes of appointments under clause 8(a) of rule
I. See 142 Cong. Rec. 27040, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 2,
1996).
3. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 11.7.
4. Speakers pro tempore have been appointed for: the remainder of the
legislative day (Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 11.8); one
legislative day (Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 11.9); a two-
day period (Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 11.10); two
separate legislative days (Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. 11.11); three legislative days (Deschler's Precedents Ch.
6 Sec. 11.12); and ``the balance of the week'' (where such
period did not exceed three legislative days) (Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 11.13).
5. See, e.g., Sec. 12.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illness of the Speaker
When the Speaker is unable to preside over the House due to
illness, the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 8(b)(1) of rule
I,(6) appoint a Member to perform the duties of the Chair
for a period not to exceed ten days. Such an appointment is subject to
the approval of the House.(7) Should the Speaker remain ill
at the expiration of the appointment, the House would be required to
elect a Speaker pro tempore to serve until the Speaker is able to
return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
7. Parliamentarian's Note: The approval of the House may be tacit.
See, e.g., Sec. 10.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signing Enrollments
In the 99th Congress in 1985, clause 8 of rule I,(8) was
amended to include authority for the Speaker to appoint Speakers pro
tempore solely for the purpose of signing enrolled bills and joint
resolutions over a specified period of time. Such an appointment
requires the approval of the House.(9) Under prior practice,
the House would sometimes grant the Speaker the same authority on an ad
hoc basis.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019). For the inaugural
invocation of this authority, see Sec. 10.6, infra.
9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
10. See, e.g., Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 13.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The duration of the Speaker's appointment authority under this
clause is not temporally limited, and thus may cover an entire
Congress. In prior years, the appointment of such Speakers pro tempore
usually did not extend beyond a discrete period (for example, a lengthy
period of adjournment in which the Speaker would not be present in
Washington, D.C., to sign enrollments).(11) Beginning in the
111th Congress in 2009, however, the Speaker has traditionally made
appointments of Speakers pro tempore to sign enrollments that cover the
entire Congress.(12) In order to increase flexibility, the
Speaker has also designated multiple Members to act as Speaker pro
tempore to carry out this function, any of whom would be authorized to
sign enrollments in the Speaker's absence.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See, e.g., 138 Cong. Rec. 34799, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 9,
1992).
12. See 155 Cong. Rec. 25, 111th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6, 2009).
13. See, e.g., Sec. 10.7, infra and 157 Cong. Rec. 3539-40, 112th Cong.
1st Sess. (Mar. 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjournment Authorities
In recent Congresses, resolutions adopted by the House have
sometimes included authority for the Speaker to appoint Speakers pro
tempore ``as though under clause 8(a) of rule I''(14) for
the duration of the adjournment period. Such resolutions effectively
waive the three legislative day limit imposed by clause 8 of rule
I.(15) This type of waiver may also be granted by unanimous
consent.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See, e.g., H. Res. 513, 163 Cong. Rec. H7325 [Daily Ed.], 115th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Sept. 13, 2017).
15. Parliamentarian's Note: With the growing infrequency of concurrent
resolutions of adjournment, the House has used special order of
business resolutions to carry out functions of the House during
recess periods, including approval of the Journal, adjournment,
and setting the time for reconvening on the next scheduled
legislative day.
16. See Sec. 10.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.1 Pursuant to clause 8(a) of rule I,(17) the Speaker
is authorized to appoint another Member as Speaker pro
tempore.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
18. Parliamentarian's Note: For an example of a Speaker designating a
Member to act as Speaker pro tempore on the day following two
legislative days of service by an elected Speaker pro tempore,
see 142 Cong. Rec. 27040, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 2, 1996).
In that instance, the Speaker had not opened the House for five
legislative days. Designated Speakers pro tempore opened the
House for two legislative days, a Member was elected as Speaker
pro tempore and opened the House on the following two
legislative days, and the Speaker designated a Member to act as
Speaker pro tempore for the fifth legislative day. Because an
elected Speaker pro tempore qualifies as a ``Speaker'' for
purposes of clause 8(a) of rule I, the Speaker was able to
designate a Speaker pro tempore on that fifth legislative day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings of January 4, 2016,(19) typify the
procedure by which the Speaker appoints a Speaker pro tempore and such
appointment is announced to the House:
19. 162 Cong. Rec. H1 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
January 4, 2016.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Jeff Denham to act as Speaker
pro tempore on this day.
Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
In Case of Vacancy in Office of Speaker
Sec. 10.2 Following the election of a new Speaker, the Speaker delivers
to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act
as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a vacancy in the Office of
Speaker, pursuant to clause 8(b)(3)(B) of rule I.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 2015,(21) the following announcement was
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 161 Cong. Rec. 63, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Sec. 10.10,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(22) The Chair announces
that the Speaker has delivered to the Clerk a letter dated January
6, 2015, listing Members in the order in which each shall act as
Speaker pro tempore under clause 8(b)(3) of rule I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Virginia Foxx (NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illness of Speaker
Sec. 10.3 Pursuant to clause 8(b)(1) of rule I,(23) the
Speaker cited illness as the predicate for appointing a Speaker pro
tempore to perform the duties of the Chair for a fourth consecutive
legislative day.(24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
24. Parliamentarian's Note: The rule allows the designation of Speakers
pro tempore for up to ten days when the Speaker is absent due
to illness. In this circumstance, the Speaker had emergency
surgery during the recess and was unable to open the House on
the fourth consecutive day (having designated Speakers pro
tempore for the preceding three days under clause 8(a) of rule
I). Because the ten-day illness rule requires specific approval
of the House, the Chair should have queried whether any Member
objected to the appointment. Due to the uncontroversial nature
of the appointment, no such query was made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 26, 2001,(25) the following appointment was
tacitly approved by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 147 Cong. Rec. 2192, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. See also House Rules and
Manual Sec. 634 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
February 26, 2001.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Frank R. Wolf to act as Speaker
pro tempore due to my illness.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Waiving the Three-Day Limitation
Sec. 10.4 A special order may waive the three-day limit found in clause
8(a) of rule I,(26) and the Speaker, thus, may be
authorized by such special order to appoint Speakers pro tempore
for the duration of a certain period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 2012,(27) the following resolution was
adopted by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. 158 Cong. Rec. 15310, 15312, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6156, RUSSIA AND MOLDOVA
JACKSON-VANIK REPEAL AND SERGEI MAGNITSKY RULE OF LAW
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2012
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 808 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 808
Resolved, . . .
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the
Chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 2 of this
resolution as though under clause 8(a) of rule I. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(28) The question is on the
resolution, H. Res. 808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Robert Dold (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. [James] McGOVERN [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I demand
a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
253, noes 150, not voting 30, as follows: . . .
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
Sec. 10.5 The House, by unanimous consent, authorized the Speaker to
appoint Speakers pro tempore for the duration of a discrete period
as though under clause 8(a) of rule I (thus waiving the three-day
limitation imposed by such rule).(29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2011,(30) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. 157 Cong. Rec. 10682, 112th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMISSION TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE
CHAIR
Mr. [Eric] CANTOR [of Virginia]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties
of the Chair for the duration of the period from August 8, 2011,
through September 6, 2011, as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(31) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Aaron Schock (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Appointing Speakers Pro Tempore to Sign Enrollments
Sec. 10.6 Pursuant to former clause 7 of rule I (now clause 8 of rule
I),(32) the Speaker designated a Speaker pro tempore to
sign enrollments over a discrete period.(33)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
33. Parliamentarian's Note: In the 99th Congress, clause 8(b)(2) of
rule I was added to allow the Speaker (with the concurrence of
the House) to designate Speakers pro tempore solely to sign
enrollments over a specific period of time. The proceedings
here were the first invocation of this authority under the new
rule. In 2009, this authority was exercised to designate
Speakers pro tempore to perform this function for the duration
of the entire Congress. See 155 Cong. Rec. 25, 111th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 4, 1985,(34) the House approved the Speaker's
designation of a Member to act as Speaker pro tempore to sign
enrollments until a certain date:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. 131 Cong. Rec. 7577, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 13.2 and 138 Cong. Rec. 34799, 102d Cong.
2d Sess. (Oct. 9, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESIGNATION OF HON. JIM WRIGHT TO ACT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE TO
SIGN ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS UNTIL APRIL 16, 1985
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication:
Washington, DC.
April 4, 1985.
I hereby designate the Honorable Jim Wright to act as Speaker
pro tempore to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions until
April 16, 1985.
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER.(35) Without objection, the designation
is agreed to.
35. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 10.7 Pursuant to clause 8(b)(2) of rule I,(36) the
Speaker appointed two Members in the alternative to act as Speakers
pro tempore to sign enrollments during the remainder of the
session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 2010,(37) the House approved the
Speaker's appointment of Speakers pro tempore as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. 156 Cong. Rec. 23371-72, 111th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 157 Cong.
Rec. 3539-40, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 9, 2011) and 155
Cong. Rec. 25, 111th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF HON. DONNA F. EDWARDS TO ACT AS SPEAKER PRO
TEMPORE TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS THROUGH
REMAINDER OF SECOND SESSION OF 111TH CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
December 21, 2010.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Donna F. Edwards or, if she is
not available to perform this duty, the Honorable Gerald E.
Connolly to act as Speaker pro tempore to sign enrolled bills and
joint resolutions through the remainder of the second session of
the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(38) Without objection, the
appointment is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Deborah Halvorson (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 10.8 Where a Speaker pro tempore is designated for the purpose of
signing enrollments over a discrete period, the Chair announces to
the House when such authority has been exercised.
On January 17, 2014,(39) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. 160 Cong. Rec. 1790, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. The authority exercised
here was provided by House Resolution 458. See 160 Cong. Rec.
702, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (Jan. 15, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(40) Pursuant to clause 4 of
Rule I, the following enrolled bill was signed by Speaker pro
tempore Harris on Friday, January 17, 2014:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Andrew Harris (MD).
H.R. 3547, making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 30, 2014, and for other purposes.
-------------------ENROLLED BILL
SIGNED
Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly
enrolled a bill of the House of the following title, which was
thereupon signed by the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. Harris:
H.R. 3547. An act making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes.
Sec. 10.9 The House, by unanimous consent, approved the Speaker's
designation of Members to act as Speaker pro tempore to sign
enrollments over a specified period pursuant to clause 8 of rule
I.(41)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 2015,(42) the following designation was
approved by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. 161 Cong. Rec. 63, 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO ACT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE TO SIGN
ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS DURING THE 114TH CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communications from the Speaker:
The Speaker's Rooms,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2015.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Jeff Denham, the Honorable Mac
Thornberry, the Honorable Fred Upton, the Honorable Andy Harris,
the Honorable Barbara Comstock, and the Honorable Luke Messer to
act as Speaker pro tempore to sign enrolled bills and joint
resolutions through the remainder of the One Hundred Fourteenth
Congress.
John A. Boehner,
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(43) Without objection, the
appointments are approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. Virginia Foxx (NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 10.10 Upon the election of a new Speaker,(44) the
House, by unanimous consent, approved the Speaker's
designation(45) of Members to act as Speaker pro tempore
to sign enrollments for a remainder of the Congress pursuant to
clause 8 of rule I.(46)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. See Sec. 10.9, supra.
45. Parliamentarian's Note: These appointments were made immediately
following Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin's election as Speaker. He
designated the same individuals to serve as Speaker pro tempore
to sign enrollments as Speaker Boehner had designated on
January 6, 2015, at the beginning of the Congress. See
Sec. 10.2, supra.
46. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 29, 2015,(47) the following designation was
approved by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. 161 Cong. Rec. H7340 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess. See also
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 38 Sec. 2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO ACT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE TO SIGN
ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS DURING THE 114TH CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 29, 2015.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Jeff Denham, the Honorable Mac
Thornberry, the Honorable Fred Upton, the Honorable Andy Harris,
the Honorable Barbara Comstock, and the Honorable Luke Messer to
act as Speaker pro tempore to sign enrolled bills and joint
resolutions through the remainder of the One Hundred Fourteenth
Congress.
Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(48) Without objection, the
appointments are approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Mac Thornberry (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 11. Designation of a Speaker Pro Tempore
An appointed or designated Speaker pro tempore does not possess the
full panoply of authorities and prerogatives that the Speaker enjoys.
Rather, an appointed Speaker pro tempore is merely a temporary
substitute for the Speaker--a Member most often called to the chair
simply to preside over the House for a set period of time. Throughout
the course of a legislative day, numerous Speakers pro tempore may be
appointed to assume this function. While it is normally the Speaker who
makes the appointment of a Speaker pro tempore, an elected Speaker pro
tempore may also appoint other Members to be appointed Speaker pro
tempore.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 12.3, 12.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no particular restrictions with regard to who the Speaker
may appoint as Speaker pro tempore, other than the fact that such
individual must be a full Member of the House.(2) Neither
Delegates nor the Resident Commissioner may be appointed as Speaker pro
tempore.(3) The Dean of the House has been appointed as
Speaker pro tempore,(4) as well as party floor
leaders,(5) though often the Member chosen has no particular
status within the House. Although minority party Members have been
appointed as Speakers pro tempore in the past (almost exclusively for
ceremonial occasions), this has not been done in many
years.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Rule I, clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
3. Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to clause 1 of rule XVIII,
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may be appointed as
chair of the Committee of the Whole. House Rules and Manual
Sec. 970 (2019).
4. See 119 Cong. Rec. 1555, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 18, 1973) and
Sec. 11.2, infra.
5. See Sec. 11.1, infra.
6. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 12.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appointment of a Speaker pro tempore is normally effectuated
via a letter from the Speaker designating the individual chosen to
serve.(7) Such letter is usually the first item of business
addressed by the House on any given legislative day, and it is read
aloud by the Reading Clerk for the information of Members. When
different Members assume the chair throughout the legislative day,
there is typically no announcement to the body (although the
Congressional Record will note that a new Member has been designated at
the point at which such Speaker pro tempore first addresses the House).
Under prior practice, the Speaker would occasionally make appointments
orally rather than through formal letter, but no such oral appointments
have been made in recent years.(8) Although it is not
required, the Speaker may indicate reasons for the designation (such as
illness) at the time of appointment.(9) The Speaker may
withdraw a prior designation of a Speaker pro tempore.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 12.2, 12.4.
8. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 12.1, 12.3.
9. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 12.5.
10. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 12.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appointment Authority
A designated Speaker pro tempore does not exercise the same
appointment authorities as the Speaker. While the Speaker appoints
Members to select committees, joint committees, and external boards and
commissions, a designated Speaker pro tempore may only make such
appointments directly with the unanimous consent of the
House.(11) As a practical matter, a designated Speaker pro
tempore will typically make the formal announcement to the House that
these types of appointments have been made by the Speaker (such
announcement being an action not requiring unanimous consent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See, e.g., 125 Cong. Rec. 1511, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 31,
1979); 139 Cong. Rec. 1316, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 27,
1993); 139 Cong. Rec. 1621, 103d Cong, 1st Sess. (Feb. 2,
1993); 143 Cong. Rec. 3293, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 6,
1997); and 153 Cong. Rec. 2626, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 30,
2007). See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 14.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to appointments to conference committees, a designated
Speaker pro tempore must be granted unanimous consent to make the
initial appointment,(12) to appoint additional conferees at
a later time,(13) or to remove conferees.(14) If
the unanimous-consent request to permit the appointed Speaker pro
tempore to undertake any of these actions draws
objection,(15) the House may choose instead to elect a
Speaker pro tempore(16) (an elected Speaker pro tempore
being able to exercise this authority without unanimous
consent).(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 11.4, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. 12.9 and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 33 Sec. 6.6.
13. See 139 Cong. Rec. 16260, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. (July 20, 1993) and
144 Cong. Rec. 8354, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 6, 1998). See
also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 12.10.
14. See Sec. 11.5, infra.
15. See Sec. 11.3, infra.
16. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 14.9, 14.10. See also
Sec. 12, infra.
17. Parliamentarian's Note: Although unanimous consent is required for
a designated Speaker pro tempore to appoint conferees to a
conference committee, unanimous consent is not required for
such Speaker pro tempore to merely announce to the House an
appointment made by the Speaker. In such cases, it is the
Speaker exercising the appointment authority, not the Speaker
pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veto Messages
Under prior practice,(18) unanimous consent was also
required for designated Speakers pro tempore to lay down veto messages
and to order the same to be spread at large upon the Journal. However,
under modern practice,(19) unanimous consent is no longer
required.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 12.11.
19. See Sec. 11.6, infra.
20. Parliamentarian's Note: The laying down of a veto message is a
ministerial act similar to other functions regarding
communications to the House that a designated Speaker pro
tempore is competent to perform. Thus, modern practice aligns
the receipt of veto messages with comparable authorities over
messages and communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration of the Oath of Office to Members-elect
The Speaker administers the oath of office to Members-elect, both
on opening day of a new Congress and throughout the Congress as special
elections are held to fill vacancies. A designated Speaker pro tempore,
however, is not competent to perform this function as a matter of
inherent authority. For an appointed Speaker pro tempore to administer
the oath of office to a Member-elect, the unanimous consent of the
House is required.(21) Alternatively, the House may choose
to elect a Speaker pro tempore for purposes of administering the
oath.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 12.8.
22. See Sec. 12.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding at Organization
On opening day of a new Congress, the Clerk of the House from the
prior Congress presides over the initial organizational steps,
including the quorum call of Members-elect and the election of Speaker.
Following the election of Speaker, the Speaker will typically remain in
the Chair to preside over other organizational business, such as the
administration of the oath of office to Members en masse and the
consideration of notification and other administrative resolutions.
Under modern practice, however, the Speaker will often relinquish the
Chair soon after by appointing Speakers pro tempore for the remainder
of the legislative day.(23) With respect to a second (or
subsequent) session of Congress, the Speaker is not required to preside
over organization, but has typically done so (if only to initiate the
quorum call to begin the session before appointing a Speaker pro
tempore).(24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker has the inherent authority
under general parliamentary law to appoint Speakers pro tempore
prior to the adoption of the standing rules. See, e.g., 157
Cong. Rec. 80, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5, 2011).
24. See Sec. 11.7, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. 12.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding over Joint Sessions and Joint Meetings
Although the Speaker traditionally presides over a joint session of
the House to hear a message from the President, a Speaker pro tempore
may be appointed for this purpose.(25) Similarly, a
designated Speaker pro tempore may preside over a ceremonial joint
meeting for the purpose of hearing an address by a foreign dignitary or
other individual.(26) Unanimous consent is not required for
a designated Speaker pro tempore to undertake this function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. See, e.g., 131 Cong. Rec. 32951, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov. 21,
1985). For an example of an elected Speaker pro tempore
presiding over a joint session, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. 14.12.
26. See Sec. 11.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designating Floor Leaders as Speakers Pro Tempore
Sec. 11.1 The Speaker has designated the Majority Whip to act as
Speaker pro tempore.
On February 20, 1974,(27) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. 120 Cong. Rec. 3514, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 12 o'clock noon.
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] McFall [of California]).
The Clerk will read the following communication.
The Clerk read as follows:
The Speaker's Rooms,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 20, 1974.
I hereby designate the Honorable John J. McFall(28)
to act as Speaker pro tempore today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Parliamentarian's Note: Rep. John McFall of California served as
Majority Whip during the 93d and 94th Congresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Albert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Designating the Dean of the House as Speaker Pro Tempore
Sec. 11.2 The Speaker has designated the Dean of the House to act as
Speaker pro tempore to lead the House procession to the
inauguration of the President and Vice President.
On January 19, 1989,(29) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. 135 Cong. Rec. 244, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. See also 135 Cong. Rec.
324, 325, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 20, 1989) (where the
designated Speaker pro tempore announced that the House proceed
to the West Front of the Capitol). See also 119 Cong. Rec.
1555, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 18, 1973) and Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 36 Sec. 25.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE TO LEAD HOUSE PROCESSION IN
INAUGURATION CEREMONY
The SPEAKER.(30) The Chair designates the Honorable
Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, dean of the House, to act as
Speaker pro tempore on Friday, January 20, 1989, to lead the House
procession to the inauguration of the President and Vice President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appointments to Conference Committees
Sec. 11.3 While a designated Speaker pro tempore may appoint conferees
only by approval of the House,(31) an elected Speaker
pro tempore exercises the same appointment authorities as the
Speaker, and thus may appoint conferees without such approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Rule I, clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019). See also
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 12.9, 12.10, 12.17, 14.9,
and 14.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 1984,(32) after objection was made for the
appointment of conferees by a designated Speaker pro tempore, the House
elected a Speaker pro tempore, and the following conferees were
appointed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. 130 Cong. Rec. 17707-09, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 33 Sec. 6.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5167, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1985
Mr. [Charles] PRICE [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5167) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1985 for the military
functions of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel levels for that fiscal year for the Department of
Defense, and for other purposes, . . .
Mr. [Richard] CHENEY [of Wyoming]. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(33) The gentleman reserves
a right to object to the Chair's appointment of conferees?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. CHENEY. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that one of the individuals
to be appointed to serve on the conference from the House on the
Defense authorization bill is not a member of the appropriate
committee. I wonder if the Chair could clarify that for me.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will tell the gentleman that
the Members to be appointed are those who were designated by
Speaker O'Neill, and they are Members designated under the rule,
members of the committee, and for purposes of specific amendments,
as the rules of the House provide, when requested by the author of
a specific amendment, the author of that specific amendment may be
appointed to the conference expressly and solely for purposes of
consideration of that amendment.
Mr. CHENEY. Further reserving the right to object, it is my
understanding, to be specific, that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr.
AuCoin], who is not a member of the Armed Services Committee, is
being appointed as a member of the conference, specifically with
respect to the MX.
I wonder if the Chair could confirm that for me.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair, would simply declare that
the Speaker's designation of conferees is not for that reason
subject to challenge, and whomever the Speaker has asked this
presiding, officer to appoint, will be appointed.
Mr. CHENEY. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker,
it is indeed my understanding under rule 10, clause 6, section F,
that the Speaker does indeed have that authority, but the gentleman
in the chair, obviously, is currently serving in that capacity but
has asked for unanimous consent that we proceed with the
appointment of the conferees.
I am deeply concerned about the precedent of appointing someone
to serve on a conference committee who is not a member of the
authorizing committee, and on that basis, I would be constrained to
object to the appointment of
conferees. -------------------
ELECTION OF HON. JIM WRIGHT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE DURING THE
ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER
Mr. [Gillis] LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 531) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 531
Resolved, That the Honorable Jim Wright, a Representative from the State
of Texas, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker pro tempore during the
absence of the Speaker.
Resolved, That the President and the Senate be notified by the: Clerk of
the election of the Honorable Jim Wright as Speaker pro tempore during the
absence of the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
Mr. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
230, nays 148, not voting 55, as follows: . . .
-------------------SWEARING IN OF
HON. JIM WRIGHT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE DURING ABSENCE OF THE
SPEAKER
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [James] Wright [of Texas]). Will
the dean of the House please come forward and administer the oath
of office?
Mr. WRIGHT assumed the chair and took the oath of office
administered to him by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Whitten].
order of business
Mr. [William] DANNEMEYER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] later. At this moment the Chair is
appointing conferees. -------------------
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5167
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair appoints the following
conferees on H.R. 5167:
From the Committee on Armed Services: Messrs. Price, Bennett,
Stratton, Nichols, Daniel, Montgomery, Aspin, Dellums, Dickinson,
Whitehurst, and Spence, Mrs. Holt, Mr. Hillis, and Mr. Badham.
As additional conferees: From the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, solely when differences regarding intelligence-
related activities are under consideration: Messrs. Boland, Mineta,
Hamilton, Mccurdy, Robinson, and Stump.
From the Committee on Education and Labor, solely for the
consideration of sections 1026, 1036, and 292, and title IV of the
Senate amendment and modifications committed to conference: Messrs.
Perkins, Ford of Michigan, Andrews of North Carolina, Miller of
California, Simon, Erlenborn, Goodling, and Coleman of Missouri.
From the Committee on Foreign Affairs, solely for the
consideration of sections 1021, 1025, 1029, 1030, 1035, 1037, 1038,
1039, 1041, 1042, and 1047, and title IV of the Senate amendment
and modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Fascell,
Hamilton, Yatron, Solarz, Bonker, Mica, Broomfield, Winn, and
Pritchard.
Solely for the consideration of section 207 of the House bill
and section 1011 of the Senate amendment: Mr. Brown of California
and Mr. Mavroules.
Solely for consideration of sections 110 and 1132 of the House
bill and section 1008 of the Senate amendment: Mrs. Schroeder, Mr.
Mavroules, and Mr. AuCoin.
Solely for consideration of section 812 of the House bill and
those portions of section 199 of the Senate bill which add section
2323 to title 10 of the United States Code relating to spare parts:
Mr. Bedell.
Solely for consideration of section 1112 of the House bill and
modifications committed to conference: Mr. Skelton.
Sec. 11.4 Pursuant to clause 11 of rule I,(34) a designated
Speaker pro tempore may appoint conferees on a bill only with
approval of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. House Rules and Manual Sec. 637 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 16, 2004,(35) the following conferees were
appointed by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. 150 Cong. Rec. 23593, 108th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4818, FOREIGN OPERATIONS,
EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
Mr. [James] KOLBE [of Arizona]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4818)
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and
for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to
the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(36) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Arizona? The Chair hears none
and, without objection, appoints the following conferees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. Doug Ose (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, for
consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Kolbe, Knollenberg,
Lewis of California, Wicker, Bonilla, Vitter, Kirk, Crenshaw, Mrs.
Lowey, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Rothman and Ms.
Kaptur.
From the Committee on Appropriations, for consideration of the
House bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference: Messrs. Young of Florida, Regula, Hobson, Obey and
Visclosky.
There was no objection.
Sec. 11.5 Pursuant to clause 11 of rule I,(37) a designated
Speaker pro tempore may modify an appointment of conferees by
adding or removing Members, but only with the approval of the
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. House Rules and Manual Sec. 637 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2007,(38) the following modification to
conferee appointments was made by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. 153 Cong. Rec. 9582, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 144 Cong. Rec.
8354, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 6, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSTITUTION OF CONFEREE ON H.R. 1591, U.S. TROOP READINESS,
VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(39) Without objection and
pursuant to clause 11 of rule I, the Chair removes the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Price) as a conferee on H.R. 1591 and
appoints the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) to fill the
vacancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. James McDermott (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will notify the Senate of
the change in conferees.
Veto Messages
Sec. 11.6 A designated Speaker pro tempore may order a veto message to
be spread at large upon the Journal and, under modern practice,
unanimous consent is not required.
On July 19, 2006,(40) the following
occurred:(41)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. 152 Cong. Rec. 15095-96, 15113, 109th Cong. 2d Sess.
41. Parliamentarian's Note: Historically, unanimous consent was
required for a designated Speaker pro tempore to order a veto
message spread at large upon the Journal. See 7 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 1103 and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. 12.11. In modern practice, however, unanimous consent is
not required to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005--VETO MESSAGE FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 109-127)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Randy] Kuhl of New York) laid
before the House the following veto message from the President of
the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 810, the
``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.''
Like all Americans, I believe our Nation must vigorously pursue
the tremendous possibilities that science offers to cure disease
and improve the lives of millions. Yet, as science brings us ever
closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers
temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our
conscience and history as a Nation demand that we resist this
temptation. With the right scientific techniques and the right
policies, we can achieve scientific progress while living up to our
ethical responsibilities.
In 2001, I set forth a new policy on stem cell research that
struck a balance between the needs of science and the demands of
conscience. When I took office, there was no Federal funding for
human embryonic stem cell research. Under the policy I announced 5
years ago, my Administration became the first to make Federal funds
available for this research, but only on embryonic stem cell lines
derived from embryos that had already been destroyed. My
Administration has made available more than $90 million for
research of these lines. This policy has allowed important research
to go forward and has allowed America to continue to lead the world
in embryonic stem cell research without encouraging the further
destruction of living human embryos.
H.R. 810 would overturn my Administration's balanced policy on
embryonic stem cell research. If this bill were to become law,
American taxpayers for the first time in our history would be
compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos.
Crossing this line would be a grave mistake and would needlessly
encourage a conflict between science and ethics that can only do
damage to both and harm our Nation as a whole.
Advances in research show that stem cell science can progress
in an ethical way. Since I announced my policy in 2001, my
Administration has expanded funding of research into stem cells
that can be drawn from children, adults, and the blood in umbilical
cords with no harm to the donor, and these stem cells are currently
being used in medical treatments. Science also offers the hope that
we may one day enjoy the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells
without destroying human life. Researchers are investigating new
techniques that might allow doctors and scientists to produce stem
cells just as versatile as those derived from human embryos without
harming life. We must continue to explore these hopeful
alternatives, so we can advance the cause of scientific research
while staying true to the ideals of a decent and humane society.
I hold to the principle that we can harness the promise of
technology without becoming slaves to technology and ensure that
science serves the cause of humanity. If we are to find the right
ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing
when necessary to reject the wrong ways. For that reason, I must
veto this bill.
George W. Bush.
The White House, July 19, 2006.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will
be spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto message and the
bill will be printed as a House document.
Presiding on Opening Day
Sec. 11.7 At the convening of the House on the day set for commencement
of the second session of a Congress, a designated Speaker pro
tempore may call the House to order.(42)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 976 authorized the Speaker
to appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair for the
remainder of the first session as though under clause 8(a) of
rule I. House Rules and Manual Sec. 637 (2019). The House
assembled a quorum on January 12, 2010. See 156 Cong. Rec. 6,
111th Cong. 2d Sess. Although Speakers often personally preside
over the quorum call at the beginning of a second session of a
Congress, there is no requirement that they do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 5, 2010,(43) on the opening day of the second
session of the 111th Congress, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. 156 Cong. Rec. 2-3, 111th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 12.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This being the day fixed pursuant to the 20th amendment to the
Constitution by Public Law 111-121 for the meeting of the second
session of the 111th Congress, the House met at noon and was called
to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. [Donna] Edwards of
Maryland). -------------------
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
January 5, 2010.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Donna F. Edwards to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Presiding Over Joint Meetings
Sec. 11.8 A designated Speaker pro tempore may preside over a joint
meeting of the House and Senate.
On April 6, 2005,(44) a designated Speaker pro tempore
presided over a joint meeting:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. 151 Cong. Rec. 5711-14, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. See Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 36 Sec. 23.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT MEETING OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE TO HEAR AN ADDRESS BY HIS
EXCELLENCY VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. [Tom] DeLay [of Texas]) presided.
The Assistant to the Sergeant at Arms, Bill Sims, announced the
Vice President and Members of the U.S. Senate who entered the Hall
of the House of Representatives, the Vice President taking the
chair at the right of the Speaker pro tempore, and the Members of
the Senate the seats reserved for them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair appoints as member of the
committee on the part of the House to escort His Excellency Viktor
Yushchenko into the Chamber: . . .
-------------------
JOINT MEETING DISSOLVED
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The purpose of the joint meeting
having been completed, the Chair declares the joint meeting of the
two Houses now dissolved.
Accordingly, at 11 o'clock and 44 minutes a.m., the joint
meeting of the two Houses was dissolved.
The Members of the Senate retired to their Chamber.
Sec. 12. Election of a Speaker Pro Tempore; Authorities
As noted in Section 8, a Speaker pro tempore may either be
appointed by the Speaker or elected by the House. However, under modern
practice, the election of a Speaker pro tempore does not occur with
great frequency.(1) The lack of Speaker pro tempore
elections in recent years can be attributed to several factors. Perhaps
the most consequential factor has been amendments to the rules of the
House that provide standing authority to appoint Speakers pro tempore
for certain purposes_duties that in prior years could not be exercised
by a designated Speaker pro tempore. For example, until the 99th
Congress in 1985, a designated Speaker pro tempore could not sign
enrollments(2) and the House would often choose instead to
elect a Speaker pro tempore to carry out this function.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Parliamentarian's Note: Since 1985, there have only been five
Speakers pro tempore elected by the House. See 139 Cong. Rec.
20950, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. (Sept. 13, 1993); 142 Cong. Rec.
16130, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. (July 8, 1996); 142 Cong. Rec.
26593, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 30, 1996); 144 Cong. Rec.
3800, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 17, 1998); and Sec. 12.1,
infra.
2. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 274 and 2 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 1401. See also Sec. 10.6, supra.
3. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 13.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the House has in recent years adopted resolutions
waiving the temporal limit contained in clause 8(a) of rule
I.(4) The use of such waivers has obviated the need for the
House to elect Speakers pro tempore during extended absences of the
Speaker.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
5. See, e.g., H. Res. 513, 163 Cong. Rec. H7325 [Daily Ed.], 115th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Sept. 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of illness, the Speaker may appoint a Member to perform
the duties of the Chair, for a period not to exceed ten days pursuant
to clause 8(b)(1) of rule I.(6) If the Speaker is absent and
has omitted to make such an appointment, the House shall elect a
Speaker pro tempore in the Speaker's absence.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019). See 144 Cong. Rec. 3800,
105th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 17, 1998). See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 14.1, 14.2.
7. Rule I, clause 8(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019). See
also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 14.3-14.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the House has adopted continuity of operations
provisions in its rules that account for the possible extended absence,
incapacity, or death of the Speaker. Clause 8(b)(3)(A) of rule
I,(8) provides that in the case of a vacancy in the Office
of Speaker, a pre-designated Speaker pro tempore ``shall act as
Speaker'' and ``may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker
as may be necessary and appropriate'' until the election of a Speaker
or Speaker pro tempore. These provisions effectively establish a line
of succession for the speakership, thus avoiding the need to address
these issues on an ad hoc basis via the election of temporary Speakers
pro tempore.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
9. Parliamentarian's Note: Under prior practice, if the Speaker of the
House died in office, the Clerk of the House would convene the
House on the next legislative day and preside over the election
of a new Speaker. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 6.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorities
An elected Speaker pro tempore wields virtually all of the same
authorities as the Speaker, and thus, unlike a designated Speaker pro
tempore, is not simply a temporary replacement called to the chair for
a limited purpose. An elected Speaker pro tempore takes the oath of
office upon his or her election, signifying that the authorities of the
speakership are being conferred upon such individual. As a result, the
unanimous consent of the House is not required for an elected Speaker
pro tempore to undertake regular duties normally performed by the
Speaker. However, where the Speaker must be authorized by the House to
take some action, an elected Speaker pro tempore must also be so
authorized.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Parliamentarian's Note: In several areas, the Speaker's authorities
have expanded in recent years, and these authorities generally
may be exercised by an elected Speaker pro tempore without
unanimous consent. For example, it was formerly the case that
the Speaker would need to be formally authorized by the House
to declare certain recesses. Thus, an elected Speaker pro
tempore would likewise have to be authorized to declare those
recesses. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 14.15,
14.16. However, beginning in the 103d Congress, the Speaker has
had broad authority to declare recesses when no question is
pending. Rule I, clause 12(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 638
(2019). Thus, an elected Speaker pro tempore would be able to
declare recesses pursuant to that rule, and unanimous consent
is not required. A similar situation prevails with regard to
signing enrollments during adjournments of the House. See
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 14.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An elected Speaker pro tempore exercises the same appointment
authorities as the Speaker, and thus may (without the unanimous consent
of the House) appoint Members to select, joint, or conference
committees, or external boards and commissions.(11) By
contrast, a designated Speaker pro tempore must obtain unanimous
consent to make such appointments. If that request draws objection, the
House may choose to elect a Speaker pro tempore in order to make the
appointments.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 14.9-14.11, and 14.13.
12. See, e.g., 130 Cong. Rec. 17708, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. (June 21,
1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An elected Speaker pro tempore may administer the oath of office to
Members-elect.(13) An elected Speaker pro tempore may
preside over joint sessions or joint meetings.(14) The
Speaker's authority to appoint or designate Speakers pro tempore is
itself a power that may be exercised by an elected Speaker pro tempore.
Thus, elected Speakers pro tempore may themselves appoint other Members
to preside over the House (or for other purposes, such as signing
enrollments).(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 14.8. See also Sec. 12.4, infra.
14. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 14.12.
15. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1384 and 6 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 275. See also Sec. 12.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election Procedure
The election of a Speaker pro tempore normally proceeds by the
adoption of a simple resolution declaring that a Member has been duly
elected by the House.(16) Such resolutions are privileged
for consideration,(17) and, due to their uncontroversial
nature, are typically adopted with little or no debate.(18)
When the need to elect a Speaker pro tempore is known in advance (i.e.,
the Speaker's travel schedule requires an extended absence from
Washington, D.C.), the Speaker may personally invite a Member to offer
the requite resolution.(19) Upon the election of a Speaker
pro tempore, both the President and the Senate are notified of said
election.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See, e.g., 144 Cong. Rec. 3800, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 17,
1998). See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 14.1. Under
older practice, the election of a Speaker pro tempore could
take place via a motion to that effect. See 2 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 1380.
17. See 125 Cong. Rec. 37317, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 20, 1979).
18. See, e.g., Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 14.1.
19. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 14.3-14.5.
20. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 14.2. Directions to the Clerk
to make such notifications are typically included in the
resolution electing the Speaker pro tempore. Earlier practice
shows some variance with regard to these notifications. 2
Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1406-1412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules and precedents impose no restrictions on who may be
elected as Speaker pro tempore.(21) A Member previously
designated by the Speaker to act as Speaker pro tempore may be elected
to that position.(22) When the election of a Speaker pro
tempore was a more frequent occurrence, it was common for a majority
party leader (i.e., the Majority Leader(23) or Majority
Whip)(24) to be elected as a Speaker pro
tempore.(25) On February 6, 1996, a female Member of the
House was elected as Speaker pro tempore for the first time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Parliamentarian's Note: Just as there is no constitutional
requirement that the Speaker of the House be chosen from the
sitting membership, there is similarly no positive requirement
that an elected Speaker pro tempore be a Member of the House.
However, no non-Member has ever been elected Speaker or Speaker
pro tempore.
22. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 14.6 (a designated Speaker pro
tempore is ``normally'' elected to the position when the need
arises). See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 14.7 (on
``rare occasions'' a Member other than the designated Speaker
pro tempore is elected Speaker pro tempore).
23. See, e.g., 144 Cong. Rec. 3800, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 17,
1998).
24. See, e.g., 130 Cong. Rec. 32340, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 12,
1984).
25. See Sec. 12.1, infra. The second female Member to assume the
position was elected on July 8, 1996. See 142 Cong. Rec. 16130,
104th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electing Members as Speaker Pro Tempore
Sec. 12.1 A Speaker pro tempore is elected by the House via adoption of
a privileged resolution, and upon election, the Speaker pro tempore
is administered the oath of office.
On February 6, 1996,(26) the following
occurred:(27)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. 142 Cong. Rec. 2335, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
27. Parliamentarian's Note: Rep. Morella was the first woman to be
elected as Speaker pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas] DAVIS [of Virginia]. Madam Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 363
Resolved, That the Honorable Constance A. Morella, a Representative from
the State of Maryland, be, and she is hereby, elected Speaker pro tempore
during any absence of the Speaker, such authority to continue not later
than Tuesday, February 27, 1996.
Sec. 2. The Clerk of the House shall notify the President and the Senate
of the election of the Honorable Constance A. Morella as Speaker pro
tempore during the absence of the Speaker.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. -------------------
SWEARING IN OF THE HONORABLE CONSTANCE A. MORELLA AS SPEAKER
PRO TEMPORE DURING ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(28) Will the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Davis] please come to the well of the House and
administer the oath of office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Richard Armey (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Constance] MORELLA [of Maryland] took the oath of office
administered to her by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] as
follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,
and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which you are about to enter. So help you God.
Sec. 12.2 The Majority Leader was elected Speaker pro tempore during
the absence of the Speaker and was administered the oath by the
Speaker.
On April 12, 1984,(29) Majority Leader Jim Wright was
elected Speaker pro tempore and Speaker Thomas O'Neill administered the
oath to him:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. 130 Cong. Rec. 9515-16, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION OF HON. JIM WRIGHT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE DURING THE
ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I send to the
desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 488) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 488
Resolved, That the Honorable Jim Wright, a Representative from the State
of Texas, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker pro tempore during the
absence of the Speaker.
Resolved, That the President and the Senate be notified by the Clerk of
the election of the Honorable Jim Wright as Speaker pro tempore during the
absence of the Speaker.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. -------------------
SWEARING IN OF HON. JIM WRIGHT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE DURING
THE ABSENCE OF THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER.(30) The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Wright) will take the chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WRIGHT assumed the chair and took the oath of office
administered to him by the Speaker, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
Designating a Speaker Pro Tempore
Sec. 12.3 An elected Speaker pro tempore may designate a Speaker pro
tempore(31) pursuant to clause 8(a) of rule
I.(32)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Parliamentarian's Note: A Speaker pro tempore elected pursuant to
clause 8(b)(1) of rule I, may in turn designate another Member
to act as Speaker pro tempore on the same terms as the Speaker.
32. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 23, 1996,(33) the following designation was
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. 142 Cong. Rec. 2807, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. See also House Rules and
Manual Sec. 634 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 11 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore [Mr. [Thomas] Davis [of
Virginia]. -------------------
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker pro tempore:
Washington, DC,
February 20, 1996.
I hereby designate the Honorable Thomas M. Davis to act as
Speaker pro tempore on Friday, February 23, 1996.
Constance A. Morella,
Speaker pro tempore of the
House of Representatives.
Administration of the Oath of Office to Members
Sec. 12.4 An elected Speaker pro tempore may administer the oath of
office to a Member-elect.
On March 17, 1998,(34) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. 144 Cong. Rec. 3835-36, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 2 Sec. 3.12 and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. 14.8. An elected Speaker pro tempore does not need the
approval of the House to administer the oath of office to a
Member-elect. However, a designated Speaker pro tempore would
need the approval of the House to administer an oath to a
Member. See Sec. 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Richard] Armey [of Missouri])
laid before the House the following communication from the Clerk of
the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 17, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy
of the original Certificate of Election received from the Honorable
Bill Jones, Secretary of State, State of California, indicating
that, according to the semi-official canvass of votes cast in the
Special Election held March 10, 1998, the Honorable Lois Capps was
elected Representative in Congress for the Twenty-second
Congressional District, State of California.
With warm regards,
Robin H. Carle,
Clerk.
State of California--Secretary of State
certificate of election
I, Bill Jones, the Secretary of State of the State of
California, hereby certify:
That according to the semi-official canvass of votes cast in
the Special Election held on the 10th day of March, 1998 in the
22nd Congressional District,
Lois Capps was elected to the office of United States
Representative--District 22, for the term prescribed by law.
In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the Great
Seal of the State of California at Sacramento, this 11th day of
March 1998.
Bill Jones,
Secretary of State. -------------------
SWEARING IN OF THE HONORABLE LOIS CAPPS, OF CALIFORNIA, AS A
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the Members of the California
delegation escort the gentlewoman from California, the Member-
elect, to the rostrum to receive the oath of office.
Mrs. Capps appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath
of office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this
obligation freely and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,
and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which you are about to enter. So help you God?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Congratulations, you are now a Member
of Congress of the United States.
C. Elected House Officers
Sec. 13. In General
Although the U.S. Constitution provides that the House ``shall
chuse their Speaker and other Officers,''(1) it does not
enumerate these additional officers nor specify their duties. Pursuant
to clause 1 of rule II,(2) the officers of the House (other
than Speaker) are the Clerk,(3) the Sergeant-at-
Arms,(4) the Chief Administrative Officer
(CAO),(5) and the Chaplain.(6) Pursuant to clause
4(d)(1)(A) of rule X,(7) the Committee on House
Administration provides policy direction for the Clerk, Sergeant-at-
Arms, and CAO. Although the House has established different positions
throughout its history, the principal officers of the House have
remained remarkably static over the centuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5; House Rules and Manual Sec. 26
(2019).
2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
3. See Sec. 14, infra.
4. See Sec. 15, infra.
5. See Sec. 17, infra.
6. See Sec. 16, infra.
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 752 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Background
When the First Congress met in 1789, the House quickly established
the positions of Clerk,(8) Doorkeeper, Assistant
Doorkeeper,(9) and (some weeks later) Sergeant-at-
Arms.(10) Originally, the distribution of mail was overseen
by the Doorkeeper, but the House created a separate position of
Postmaster in 1838.(11) Similarly, the position of Chaplain
was not originally a House officer but became one in the years
preceding the Civil War.(12) The various rules and customs
surrounding the election of these officers were consolidated in the
major revision of the standing rules undertaken by Rep. Israel Washburn
of Maine in 1860.(13) Thus, for over a century, the five
principal officers of the House (apart from the Speaker) were the
Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Doorkeeper, the Postmaster, and the
Chaplain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 1 Annals of Cong. 100, 1st Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 1, 1789). When the
first rules were adopted, several provisions therein pertained
to the duties of the Clerk. See 1 Annals of Cong. 102-106, 1st
Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 7, 1789).
9. 1 Annals of Cong. 101, 1st Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 2, 1789). The
Assistant Doorkeeper was an elected position as late as 1821,
but was abolished soon thereafter. See 1 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 187 (fn. 1).
10. 1 Annals of Cong. 128, 129, 1st Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 14, 1789).
11. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 270. The first Postmaster was
appointed on April 5, 1838. See Cong. Globe 281, 25th Cong. 2d
Sess. See also 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 269 and 6 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 34.
12. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 275. See also Sec. 16, infra.
13. See Cong. Globe 1178, 36th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 15, 1860). De Alva
Stanwood Alexander, Other Officers and The Whip, in History and
Procedure of the House of Representatives pp. 192-193 (1916).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1990s, several reform efforts aimed at improving House
operations succeeded in modifying these elected officer positions--
abolishing obsolete offices, creating new offices, and consolidating
and transferring duties. In the 102d Congress in 1992, the Office of
the Postmaster was abolished, and the responsibilities of that office
transferred to other officers.(14) At the same time, a new
position of Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services was
created. At the beginning of the 104th Congress in 1995, the position
of Doorkeeper was abolished, and the Director of Non-Legislative and
Financial Services was replaced by a new CAO position.(15)
Since that time, the four elected officers of the House have been
established as: the Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the CAO, and the
Chaplain.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 423, 138 Cong. Rec. 9040, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 9,
1992). See also Sec. 13.3, infra.
15. H. Res. 6, 141 Cong. Rec. 463, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4,
1995). For more information on the former position of
Doorkeeper, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 20. See also
Sec. 13.2, infra.
16. Rule II, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualifications; Terms of Office
Although the Speaker of the House has always been selected from the
sitting membership (despite there being no constitutional requirement
to that effect), sitting Members of the House have never been elected
to any of the other officer positions.(17) All officers of
the House are required to take an oath to support the Constitution of
the United States, which is administered by the Speaker of the House
following their election at the opening of a new
Congress.(18) All officers are required to attest to their
commitment to the ``true and faithful exercise of the duties'' of their
offices.(19) Pursuant to clause 6 of rule
XXV,(20) an individual may not be elected as an officer of
the House if ``acting as an agent for the prosecution of a claim
against the Government or if interested in such claim, except as an
original claimant or in the proper discharge of official duties.'' In
the 116th Congress, the Code of Official Conduct was amended to
prohibit an officer or employee of the House from serving as an officer
or director of any public company.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Parliamentarian's Note: Throughout the 19th century, and even into
the 20th century, it was not uncommon for elected officers of
the House to later take seats as Members of the House (or,
alternatively, for Members who were unsuccessful candidates for
reelection to take officer positions instead). Thus, various
Clerks, Sergeants-at-Arms, Doorkeepers, Postmasters, and even
Chaplains of the House have all served, at one time or another,
as Members of the House. Asher Hinds of Maine and Clarence
Cannon of Missouri, who compiled the first two series of
precedents of the House, were both later elected as Members of
the House. The last individual who served as both a Member of
the House and an elected officer was William Pat Jennings of
Virginia (a Member during the 84th through 89th Congresses, and
Clerk of the House during the 90th through 94th Congresses).
18. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2. The form of the oath is provided by
statute. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331.
19. Rule II, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019). Pursuant
to this clause, all officers of the House are further required
``to keep the secrets of the House.'' This provision of the
standing rules has its origin in the Twelfth Congress in 1811,
when the Doorkeeper and Sergeant-at-Arms were required to
subscribe to an oath of secrecy regarding secret sessions of
the House conducted prior to the War of 1812. See 1 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 187. In the revisions to the House rules
adopted in 1860 and 1880, this requirement was expanded to
include all officers of the House. However, the rule quickly
became obsolete, as no secret sessions of the House were held
between 1830 and 1979. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 29 Sec. 85
and House Rules and Manual Sec. 969 (2019). Although the rule
has remained in place for two centuries, it has been
effectively superseded by clause 13 of rule XXIII (adopted in
the 104th Congress in 1995) which requires all officers to
subscribe to an oath of secrecy regarding access to classified
information. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1095 (2019). In modern
practice, when the House conducts a secret session to discuss
secret or classified information, all officers of the House
attending such session must take the oath provided in clause 13
of rule XXIII. Copies of these executed oaths are retained by
the Sergeant-at-Arms. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2 Sec. 1.
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1102 (2019). This provision was
originally adopted in 1842. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7227.
For an earlier treatment of qualifications for officers of the
House, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 15.
21. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1095 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the Speaker, the elected officers of the House
``continue in office until their successors are chosen and
qualified.''(22) This provision of the standing rules
suggests that the officers elected in one Congress continue to hold
that office until their reelection, or the election of new officers, in
the next Congress. For a time (approximately 1860-1890), a House rule
explicitly stated that ``These rules shall be the rules of the House of
Representatives of the present and succeeding Congresses, unless
otherwise ordered.''(23) This provision thus provided a
basis for considering the officers of the House as having retained
their offices even upon the expiration of a Congress. However, this
provision of the standing rules was consistently questioned during the
years in which it purported to operate, and it was eventually
eliminated from the House rules on February 14, 1890.(24)
Since that time, it has been definitively established that the House,
when a new Congress first convenes, operates under ``general
parliamentary law'' (and not the rules of the prior Congress) until the
standing rules are formally adopted.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Rule II, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
23. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6743.
24. Id.
25. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. Sec. 3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, a tradition dating back to the expiration of the
First Congress in 1791(26) established the procedure whereby
the Clerk of the previous House would preside over the organization of
the new House--primarily to oversee the election of the
Speaker.(27) This mode of proceeding has been the uniform
practice of the House since that time, and has been codified in the
standing rules of the House.(28) Thus, as a practical
matter, the Clerk of one House does continue in office at least until
the House is able to elect its Speaker. Under established House
precedents, the Sergeant-at-Arms would preside over the opening of a
new Congress in the absence of the Clerk, thus suggesting that the
other officers continue in office as well.(29) However, as
clause 1 of rule II is not in operation until after the standing rules
are formally adopted (which generally occurs after the election of
officers), the authority for officers of the prior Congress to take
actions in the new Congress may only be justified as consistent with
long-standing custom--fortified by the consistent adoption of the
provisions of clause 1 of rule II from Congress to Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 235.
27. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 3.
28. Rule II, clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 641 (2019).
Despite the inclusion of this provision in the standing rules,
such rules are not operative until formally adopted by the
House at the opening of a new Congress, with the Clerk's
service as presiding officer preceding the adoption of rules.
See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1. The efficacy of this provision
can thus only be ascribed to immemorial custom.
29. Parliamentarian's Note: For statutory authority for the Sergeant-
at-Arms to continue in office until a successor is chosen and
qualified, see 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5602. For an early example of
officers of the previous Congress taking actions prior to the
election of officers for the current Congress, see 1 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 244. For an example of officers of one Congress
continuing in office in the next Congress due to the failure of
the House to elect new officers, see 1 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election of Officers
The Constitution provides that the House shall choose its officers,
but does not specify the method by which such selections are to be
made.(30) Until 1839, the House elected its officers by
ballot, but the standing rules were amended to provide that such
elections proceed by viva voce vote instead.(31) Although
this provision of the rules was not altered until 1999, the custom
(dating back to the 19th century)(32) has been to elect
officers other than the Speaker via the adoption of a simple House
resolution.(33)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 5.1 and Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 3 Sec. 2. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 16.
31. De Alva Stanwood Alexander, Other Officers and The Whip, in History
and Procedure of the House of Representatives 91 (1916).
32. See, e.g., Cong. Globe 10-11, 42d Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 4, 1871).
33. Parliamentarian's Note: There is a certain inconsistency in the
sequencing of events on opening day of a new Congress with
respect to the election of officers. Since the 19th century,
the election of officers has preceded the adoption of the
standing rules. However, the officer positions do not
technically exist until the adoption of the rules creating
them. This sequence can therefore only be countenanced as
reflecting the independent constitutional mandate to elect
officers (as distinct from the requirement to adopt rules of
proceeding), as well as the unaltered custom of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For well over a century, the resolution electing the officers of
the House has been offered on a partisan basis.(34)
Beginning in the 1870s, a member of the majority party (customarily the
chair of the party caucus) would offer a resolution proposing that
certain named individuals be elected to the various officer positions.
A member of the minority party would then offer a substitute amendment,
recommending a different slate of candidates.(35) Two votes
would then be taken: first, a vote on the minority's substitute (which
would be rejected),(36) and then a vote on the majority
party's original selections (which would be adopted). This procedure
has been used for many decades and is still the method used today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. For a rare instance where the minority did not submit a substitute
amendment, see 111 Cong. Rec. 20, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4,
1965).
35. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 2.
36. Parliamentarian's Note: The losing minority party candidates are
traditionally appointed to certain ``minority employee''
positions created by statute. For more on these ``minority
employees,'' see Sec. 31, infra. See also Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 1 Sec. 5.1 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in the 62nd Congress in 1911,(37) the minority
party began a tradition of requesting a division of the question on the
resolution electing the officers of the House so that a vote could be
taken separately on the Office of the Chaplain.(38) The
impetus for this procedure appears to have been a desire to acknowledge
the nonpartisan nature of the Office of the Chaplain via a unanimous
vote on a previously agreed-upon candidate. This tradition has now been
observed for over a century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. See 47 Cong. Rec. 8, 62d Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 4, 1911).
38. See Sec. 16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal or Resignation of Officers; Vacancies
A proposition to remove an officer of the House (typically taking
the form of a simple House resolution) constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House.(39) Throughout its history, the
House has removed officers for a variety of reasons--most often due to
some alleged misconduct or failure to properly execute the duties of
the office.(40) Pursuant to clause 1 of rule
II,(41) the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and CAOs may be removed
by the House or the Speaker. On one occasion, the Speaker exercised
this authority to remove the CAO.(42) The House has removed
officers on several occasions, although it has not done so in many
years.(43)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 284. For questions of privilege generally,
see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 11 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch.
11.
40. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 284, 288-290; 6 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. Sec. 35-37; and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. 22.
41. House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
42. Parliamentarian's Note: At the time of this writing, Speaker Paul
Ryan's removal of the Chief Administrative Officer has been the
only invocation of the Speaker's authority to remove officers.
The Chief Administrative Officer, Ed Cassidy, had submitted a
letter of resignation that did not specify an effective date
for the resignation. Thus, the Speaker exercised the authority
in clause 1 of rule II to remove Cassidy from the position
prospectively (so that it coincided with the end of the
calendar year). See Sec. 17.5, infra.
43. The last known instance of the House removing an officer appears to
have occurred in 1890. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 292
(declaring the Office of the Postmaster vacant). If there is
controversy over an elected officer of the House continuing in
that position, it is more common for the individual simply to
resign the office. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37
Sec. Sec. 9, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An officer of the House may resign the position at any
time,(44) and such resignation is contingent upon
acceptance(45) by the House.(46) However, under
the precedents, the House does not formally accept the resignation of
the Speaker.(47) Officers of the House have resigned both
prospectively(48) and retroactively.(49)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. For resignations of officers generally, see Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 37 Sec. Sec. 9, 10.
45. Parliamentarian's Note: There does not seem to be any evidence of
the House ever having rejected the resignation of an officer.
In one instance, the Postmaster of the House attempted to
resign his office prior to the consideration of committee
report recommending that the office be declared vacant. The
House did not act upon the resignation, but instead adopted the
resolution declaring the office vacant. See 1 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 292.
46. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 27 Sec. 9.2
47. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 225, 232 and Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 37 Sec. 9.1.
48. See Sec. 17.3, infra.
49. See Sec. 16.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When an elected officer position (other than that of Speaker)
becomes vacant, due to the removal, resignation, or
death(50) of the incumbent, the House will typically move
quickly to fill the vacancy. The most common method is for the House to
elect a new officer to the vacant position via the adoption of a simple
House resolution.(51) However, a provision of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (as amended in 1953 and
1995)(52) authorizes the Speaker of the House to temporarily
fill vacancies in the offices of Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, CAO, or
Chaplain.(53) The individual appointed to the vacant office
exercises all of the same authorities as an individual elected to the
position.(54) In one instance, the Clerk of the House was
elected to fill a vacancy caused by the death of the Sergeant-at-Arms,
and the individual held both offices concurrently (though with no
additional compensation for exercising the duties of Sergeant-at-
Arms).(55) When a vacancy is filled (either by a new
election or through the Speaker's statutory power of appointment), the
newly-elected officer is administered the oath of
office.(56)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 236, 266, and 267; 6 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 32; and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 38
Sec. Sec. 2.13, 2.14. For precedents relating to the death of
the Speaker, see 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 234; Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. Sec. 6.6-6.8; and Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 38 Sec. Sec. 2.2-2.4.
51. See, e.g., Sec. 14.3, infra.
52. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501. The provision regarding the appointment of
officers to fill vacancies was added on August 5, 1953 (P.L.
83-197, 67 Stat. 387). The Act was amended in 1996 to remove
references to abolished positions (Doorkeeper and Postmaster)
and substitute a new position (Chief Administrative Officer).
P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 1718.
53. House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
54. Parliamentarian's Note: The statute prescribes that the individual
chosen to fill the vacancy is ``to act as, and to exercise
temporarily the duties'' of the office, until the House is able
to elect a permanent replacement. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501. Thus, an
individual appointed by the Speaker to temporarily fill such a
vacancy does not need to be formally removed from the position
before the election by the House of an individual to fill the
position on a permanent basis. By contrast, where the House has
elected an officer and subsequently wishes to elect a different
person to that position, it must first create a vacancy in the
office before proceeding to the election of the new officer.
55. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 16.3, 17.1, and 22.
56. The text of the oath may be found at: 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331. See also
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 17.1, 17.2. For oaths
generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 2 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation
Compensation for House officers is a matter of statutory
law.(57) Funding for House operations, including salaries
and expenses for the elected officers of the House, is provided in the
annual Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. Compensation for the
Chaplain of the House is provided by statute(58) and is
linked to the House Employees Schedule.(59) Federal law also
prohibits the Sergeant-at-Arms from receiving additional fees,
compensation, or emoluments relating to the performance of official
duties.(60)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. For more on compensation for officers, officials, and employees of
the House, see Sec. 29, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 6 Sec. 27.
58. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5521.
59. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 293.
60. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Officers: Doorkeeper
Over the course of the House's history, several officer positions
have been eliminated and their duties transferred to other officers or
officials. For over 200 years (between 1789 and 1995), the Doorkeeper
was an elected officer of the House.(61) The Doorkeeper's
duties were primarily concerned with the House Chamber (including the
enforcement of rules relating to the privileges of the Hall of the
House),(62) but ranged to other areas, such as maintaining
furniture, books, and other property of the House and its committees.
The Doorkeeper was responsible for preserving order in the House
galleries (under the direction of the Speaker)(63) and for
making announcements of messengers at the door of the House and
visitors during joint sessions and meetings.(64) The
Doorkeeper was also responsible for overseeing the House document room,
the Publication Distribution System, and the cloakrooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. Former rule V enumerated the duties of the Doorkeeper. House Rules
and Manual Sec. 652 (1993). See also 1 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 260-268; Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 20; and
House Rules and Manual Sec. 663b (2019). The first rule
detailing the duties of the Doorkeeper was adopted in 1838 and
amended in 1880. For several early Congresses, the House also
elected an Assistant Doorkeeper, but the position was abolished
sometime after 1821. 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 187 (fn. 1). For
a list of Doorkeepers of the House, see http://
history.house.gov/People/Office/Doorkeepers/ (last visited Oct.
24, 2019).
62. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 5. The Doorkeeper was also
responsible for closing or locking the doors to the Chamber
under certain circumstances. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. Sec. 20.6, 20.7.
63. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 20.1-20.5.
64. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the abolition of the office in 1995, a statute provided
that the duty of composing the Clerk's roll at the commencement of a
Congress would fall to the Doorkeeper (if the Clerk and Sergeant-at-
Arms were both unable to fulfill this function).(65) The
Doorkeeper of the House has served as presiding officer at the
organization of a new Congress, when the Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms
were both unavailable to assume that duty.(66) Following the
elimination of the office in 1995,(67) most of the duties of
the Doorkeeper were assumed by the CAO of the House(68) and
the Sergeant-at-Arms.(69)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. This provision of law was found at 2 U.S.C. Sec. 26 before it was
amended by P.L. 104-186, 110 Stat. 1718.
66. Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 20.8.
67. See 138 Cong. Rec. 9039-40, 9074-75, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 9,
1992). For proceedings relating to the resignation of a
Doorkeeper, see Sec. 13.2, infra. See also House Rules and
Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
68. For more information on the Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, see Sec. 17, infra.
69. For more information on the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms, see
Sec. 15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Officers: Postmaster
The Postmaster of the House was an elected officer from 1838 until
1992.(70) Originally, the Doorkeeper of the House was
authorized to hire a postmaster to assist in mail delivery duties, but
the position became an elected office soon after. As early as
1802,(71) the House requested that the Postmaster of the
United States establish a post office at or near the Capitol.
Postmasters of the House supervised the operations of the post office
and facilitated the delivery of mail to Members' offices. When the
position was eliminated(72) in the 102d Congress in 1992,
mail duties were transferred to the new Director of Non-Legislative and
Financial Services (who supervised the Director of Postal
Operations).(73) On January 5, 1993, the Chair laid before
the House a communication from the chair of the Committee on House
Administration from the prior Congress, informing the Speaker that all
of the responsibilities of the Office of the Postmaster had been
successfully transferred to other officers. Ultimately, postal
operations were transferred to the Office of the CAO when that position
was created in 1995.(74)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. Former rule VI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 654 (1991). See also 1
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 270 and 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 34.
For a list of Postmasters of the House, see http://
history.house.gov/People/Office/Postmasters/ (last visited Oct.
24, 2019).
71. 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 270.
72. For more on the circumstances leading to the dissolution of the
Office of the Postmaster, see Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 12.
73. House Rules and Manual Sec. 668 (2019). The resolution authorizing
the transfer was House Resolution 423 of the 102d Congress,
adopted on April 9, 1992. See 138 Cong. Rec. 9040, 102d Cong.
2d Sess. See also H. Rept. 102-713, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. On
several occasions, the House by unanimous consent authorized
extensions of the deadline to transfer these authorities. See
138 Cong. Rec. 18307, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (July 8, 1992) and
138 Cong. Rec. 24373-74, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 10, 1992).
See also 138 Cong. Rec. 27726-27, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept.
25, 1992).
74. See Sec. 17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Officers: Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services
The Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services was a short-
lived officer position in the House. It was created in 1992 by the
adoption of House Resolution 423.(75) The Director was not
an elected officer, but was instead to be appointed jointly by the
Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader. The Director
could be removed by the House or the Speaker, and was subject to the
policy direction and oversight of the Committee on House
Administration. Various administrative functions and subsidiary offices
of the House were transferred to the Director by the operation of House
Resolution 423.(76)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. 138 Cong. Rec. 9040, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 9, 1992).
76. See Sec. 13.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services
(Leonard Wishart) was appointed on October 23, 1992, and reappointed to
the position on January 5, 1993.(77) His resignation of the
position was accepted by the House effective January 21,
1994.(78) The second (and last) Director of Non-Legislative
and Financial Services (Randall Medlock) filled the vacancy created by
the resignation of the previous Director, and held the position for the
remainder of the Congress. The office was abolished in the following
Congress and replaced by a new elected officer position: the Chief
Administrative Officer.(79)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. See 139 Cong. Rec. 104, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5, 1993).
78. See 140 Cong. Rec. 1047, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (Feb. 3, 1994).
79. See H. Res. 6, 141 Cong. Rec. 463, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4,
1995). See also Sec. 17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution Electing Officers
Sec. 13.1 At the beginning of a Congress, the House elects the officers
of the House by the adoption of a privileged resolution.
On January 3, 2017,(80) the following privileged
resolution was adopted and the officers-elect were sworn in by the
Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
80. 161 Cong. Rec. H6 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTING OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mrs. [Cathy] McMORRIS RODGERS [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1
Resolved, That Karen L. Haas of the State of Maryland be, and is hereby,
chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives;
That Paul D. Irving of the State of Florida be, and is hereby, chosen
Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives;
That Philip George Kiko of the State of Ohio be, and is hereby, chosen
Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives; and
That Father Patrick J. Conroy of the State of Oregon be, and is hereby,
chosen Chaplain of the House of Representatives.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Crowley) for the purpose of offering an
amendment.
Mr. [Joseph] CROWLEY [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I have an
amendment to the resolution, but before offering the amendment, I
request that there be a division of the question on the resolution
so that we may have a separate vote on the Chaplain.
The SPEAKER.(81) The question will be divided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
81. Paul Ryan (WI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on agreeing to that portion of the resolution
providing for the election of the Chaplain.
That portion of the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
amendment offered by mr. crowley
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the remainder
of the resolution.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Crowley:
That Robert D. Edmonson of the District of Columbia be, and is hereby,
chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives;
That Wyndee Parker of the State of Maryland be, and is hereby, chosen
Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives; and
That James Fleet of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania be, and is hereby,
chosen Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York.
The amendment was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the remainder of the resolution
offered by the gentlewoman from Washington.
The remainder of the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will now swear in the officers of the
House.
The officers presented themselves in the well of the House and
took the oath of office as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which you are about to enter, so help you God.
The SPEAKER. Congratulations.
Former Officers
Sec. 13.2 The Speaker laid before the House the resignation of the
Doorkeeper (a former elected officer of the House).(82)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
82. The Office of the Doorkeeper was eliminated at the beginning of the
104th Congress. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 663b (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 20, 1974,(83) Speaker Carl Albert of
Oklahoma laid before the House the resignation of the Doorkeeper and
appointed a temporary replacement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. 120 Cong. Rec. 41855, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION AS DOORKEEPER
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Doorkeeper:
Washington, DC,
December 18, 1974.
Hon. Carl Albert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to tender my resignation as
Doorkeeper, U.S. House of Representatives at the close of business
December 31, 1974.
It has been my pleasure over the years to be of service to you
and the other illustrious and distinguished Members of Congress.
With kind regards, I remain
Faithfully yours,
William M. Miller,
Doorkeeper,
U.S. House of
Representatives. -------------------
APPOINTMENT AS DOORKEEPER
Pursuant to the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946, as amended by Public Law 197, 83d Congress (67 Stat.
387; 2 USC 75a-1(a)), the Chair appoints, effective at the close of
business on December 31, 1974, James T. Molloy, of New York, to act
as and to exercise temporarily the duties of Doorkeeper of the
House of Representatives.
Sec. 13.3 The Chair laid before the House a communication from the
chair of the Committee on House Administration from the prior
Congress, notifying the House that the functions and duties of the
House Postmaster under former rule VI(84) of that
Congress had been transferred to the newly-established Director of
Non-Legislative and Financial Services.(85)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
84. House Rules and Manual Sec. 668 (2019).
85. The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer supplanted the
Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services in the 104th
Congress. See H. Res. 5, 145 Cong. Rec. 47, 106th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 6, 1999). See also Sec. 17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 5, 1993,(86) the following communication was
laid before the House, informing Members that the functions of the
Postmaster (a former elected officer of the House) had been
successfully transferred (and the position eliminated):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86. 139 Cong. Rec. 104, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE HONORABLE CHARLIE ROSE, CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the chairman of the Committee on House
Administration:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
December 28, 1992.
Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
H-204, the Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This letter is to inform you that, pursuant
to the authority vested in the Committee on House Administration by
House Resolution 423 (102nd Congress), and other laws, rules and
regulations, the Committee has directed the following effective
just prior to noon on January 3, 1993:
1. All functions, entities, duties and responsibilities under
the House Postmaster are transferred to the Director of Non-
legislative and Financial Services.
2. There is established an Office of the Director of Non-
legislative and Financial Services, which office shall be comprised
of the Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services
(Director) appointed pursuant to House Rule 52, an Executive
Assistant to the Director to be appointed by the Director, an
Administrative Assistant to be appointed by the Director, and a
Director of House Postal Operations to be appointed by the
Director, subject to the following requirement: the Committee
directs that the initial appointee to the position of Director of
House Postal Operations shall be the person serving as House
Postmaster immediately prior to the abolition of the position of
House Postmaster by virtue of the transfer made pursuant to
paragraph 1 above.
3. Until otherwise provided by law, the above positions under
the Director, and all positions transferred to, or created for the
Director, are hereby approved by the Committee and the Director
pursuant to the criteria established in the House Employees
Position Classification Act and other applicable laws, rules and
regulations. The Committee will establish the appropriate grade and
level for the positions so transferred or created.
By copy of this letter, the Clerk of the House has been
authorized and directed to disburse from the contingent fund or
other appropriate account, such sums as may be necessary for salary
disbursement for the above personnel, and for supplies and
materials reasonably necessary for the operation of the Office of
the Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services until
otherwise provided by law.
With my very best wishes,
Sincerely,
Charlie Rose,
Chairman.
Sec. 14. The Clerk
Second only to the Speaker, the Clerk of the House is arguably the
most significant of all of the elected officer positions in the House.
The Clerk's responsibilities cover a wide range of areas, both
legislative and administrative in nature. The primary duties of the
Clerk relate to the legislative process and involve: (1) handling
legislative measures introduced by Members and referred to committees
of the House; (2) accepting legislative and other reports following
committee action; (3) executing legislative actions on the floor of the
House (including reading proposals for the body, distributing
legislative text, and conducting votes and quorum calls); (4)
maintaining a record of House legislative activities (including
supervising the production of the House Journal, the Congressional
Record, and the Calendars of the House); and (5) managing the receipt
and transmittal of formal messages between the House and Senate, and
between the House and the executive branch (including the engrossment
and enrollment of legislation, and presentation to the President for
signature or veto).
Additional duties of the Clerk involve a variety of record-keeping
and administrative matters. The Clerk is responsible for maintaining
House documents and records, and (where appropriate) providing public
access to such material. The Clerk's Office also assists with financial
audits and other reviews of House operations, and manages a range of
additional miscellaneous functions related to the organization of the
House.
History; Internal Organization of the Office of the Clerk
The Clerk is the oldest officer position in the House, apart from
the Speaker. After the House first achieved a quorum on April 1, 1789,
its second order of business (after the election of a Speaker) was to
appoint a Clerk of the House.(1) The Office of the Clerk has
been an integral part of House operations since that time, and its role
has gradually expanded to encompass a diverse range of legislative and
administrative services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1 Annals of Cong. 100, 1st Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 1, 1789).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of the Clerk comprises several distinct subentities that
each fulfills a particular role within the administrative framework of
the House.(2) The Office of Legislative Operations provides
support for all aspects of the legislative process, from processing
measures at introduction to guiding Members and staff through
deliberations on the floor of the House. Assisting with these
legislative functions are the Capitol Service Groups (which maintain
the Democratic and Republican cloakrooms and other rooms on the House
side of the Capitol), Legislative Computer Systems (which provides
technical support for the electronic voting system) and the Official
Reporters of Debate (who transcribe House proceedings for the
Congressional Record).(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See http://clerk.house.gov/about/offices.aspx (last visited Oct.
24, 2019).
3. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule VI, the Clerk appoints all Official
Reporters of Debate and oversees their activities, subject to
the direction of the Speaker. House Rules and Manual Sec. 685
(2019). For more on the Congressional Record, see Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 15-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Legislative Resource Center, also under the auspices of the
Clerk, maintains and provides access to a wide variety of House
documents and records.(4) The Office of Art and Archives
works closely with the Office of the Historian(5) to
preserve historical artifacts and art collections in possession of the
House. The Office of House Employment Counsel provides advice and legal
assistance for employing entities in the House,(6) while the
Office of Communications offers a variety of communication and
messaging services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See http://clerk.house.gov/about/offices--aspx (last visited Oct.
24, 2019).
5. See Sec. 23, infra.
6. See Sec. 28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on House Administration provides policy direction and
oversight of the Clerk's Office, pursuant to clause 4(d)(1)(A) of rule
X.(7) Under clause 1 of rule II,(8) the Clerk of
the House is authorized to appoint all employees within the Office of
the Clerk. The Clerk of the House is required to designate a Clerk pro
tempore to act as Clerk and take all necessary official actions in the
absence or disability of the Clerk.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 752 (2019).
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
9. Rule II, clause 2(g), House Rules and Manual Sec. 651 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election, Resignation, and Removal of Clerk
The election of the Clerk proceeds in the same manner as the
election of the other elected officers of the House: by privileged
resolution at the commencement of a Congress.(10) The Clerk
is typically listed as the first officer to be elected in the
resolution electing officers of the House. Upon election, the Clerk is
administered the oath of office, and the Senate(11) and the
President(12) are notified of the Clerk's election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 13, supra.
11. See, e.g., H. Res. 2, 163 Cong. Rec. H6 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong.
1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2017).
12. See, e.g., H. Res. 4, 163 Cong. Rec. H7 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong.
1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the position of Clerk becomes vacant during a Congress, the
House will usually fill that vacancy via the adoption of a simple
resolution electing a new individual to the office.(13) In
addition, the Speaker is authorized by law to appoint a temporary
replacement for the Clerk until the House is able to elect a new Clerk
on a permanent basis.(14) The election or appointment of a
new Clerk may be prospective (i.e., effective at a future
date).(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 14.3, infra.
14. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501.
15. See Sec. 14.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The position of Clerk may become vacant due to the death or
resignation of the individual holding the office. Additionally, the
Speaker and the House are authorized by clause 1 of rule
II(16) to remove the Clerk.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
17. Parliamentarian's Note: Under the precedents, the House has the
inherent authority to remove any of its officers, and a
proposition to remove an officer qualifies as a question of the
privileges of the House. 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 286.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clerk as Presiding Officer
The Clerk is unique among officers of the House in that the
individual serving as Clerk has specific responsibilities that extend
beyond adjournment sine die of the Congress in which he or she was
elected.(18) Prior to the commencement of a new Congress,
the Clerk of the previous Congress composes the ``Clerk's roll'' of
Members-elect, i.e., the list of individuals whose certificates of
election have been properly transmitted to the House.(19) On
opening day, it is the Clerk who presides over the initial quorum call
of Members-elect and the election of Speaker.(20) This
procedure for conducting organizational business at the beginning of a
new Congress has its roots in the early customs and traditions of the
House, but has now been codified in the standing rules of the House as
well.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 13, supra.
19. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2 Sec. 2.
20. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. Sec. 3, 4. There have been
instances where the Clerk was unable to preside on opening day,
and the Sergeant-at-Arms presided instead. See Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 3.3. For an instance of the Doorkeeper of
the House presiding in the absence of both the Clerk and
Sergeant-at-Arms, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 1 Sec. 5.2.
21. Rule II, clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 641 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was formerly the case that the Clerk would preside over the
House whenever the Speaker was absent and no provision had been made to
designate a Speaker pro tempore. For example, Speaker Sam Rayburn of
Texas died between the first and second sessions of the 87th
Congress.(22) When the House convened for the first time
following the Speaker's death, the Clerk of the House presided over the
election of a new Speaker. However, under current practice, the Clerk
does not preside in such circumstances. Rather, a Speaker pro tempore,
designated by the Speaker at the outset of the Congress, would preside,
pursuant to clause 8(b)(3)(B) of rule I.(23) The Clerk is
now merely the custodian of the formal letter establishing such
designation.(24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 6.6-6.8.
23. House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (2019).
24. See Sec. 10.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative Functions--In General
The legislative process necessarily entails the generation of large
quantities of official papers--bills and resolutions, amendments,
committee reports, conference reports, etc. The Office of the Clerk is
the primary entity within the House responsible for coordinating the
production of these documents, distributing them to House Members and
staff, and maintaining repositories where such material can be
accessed.
At the initial stages of the legislative process, the Clerk's
Office handles the introduction and sponsorship of bills and
resolutions, and ensures their proper distribution to the committees of
referral. Pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XII, constitutional authority
statements that accompany legislation are to ``be made publicly
available in electronic form by the Clerk.''(25) After a
committee has considered a measure, it reports this action to the House
via the filing of a committee report with the Clerk.(26)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. House Rules and Manual Sec. 826a (2019).
26. Rule XIII, clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 831-833
(2019). Rule XIII, clause 2(c), provides that ``supplemental,
minority, additional or dissenting views'' with respect to
committee reports are also to be filed with the Clerk. House
Rules and Manual Sec. 836 (2019). Certain privileged reports,
however, are filed directly from the floor pursuant to clause 5
of rule XIII. House Rules and Manual Sec. 853 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to legislative reports, other types of committee
reports are also filed with the Clerk. End-of-session activities
reports of committees are filed with the Clerk pursuant to clause 1(d)
of rule XI.(27) Similarly, investigative and oversight
reports filed after sine die adjournment are delivered to the Clerk
pursuant to clause 1(b)(4) of rule XI.(28)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. House Rules and Manual Sec. 790 (2019).
28. House Rules and Manual Sec. 788 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitions to discharge measures from committees are filed with and
retained by the Clerk of the House.(29) Pursuant to clause
2(c) of rule XV,(30) the Clerk is directed to make the
signatories to a discharge petition a matter of public record via
publication in the Congressional Record. In the 116th Congress, the
``Consensus Calendar'' was established,(31) allowing Members
to file motions to bring legislative measures that had garnered 290
cosponsors to the floor. Under the rule, the Clerk maintains custody of
any such motions that have been properly filed, and makes publicly
available a cumulative list of such motions.(32)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Rule XV, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2019).
30. House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2019).
31. Rule XV, clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 901a (2019).
32. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative Functions--Floor Activity
On the floor of the House, the rostrum(33) where the
Speaker presides is attended by numerous employees of the Clerk's
Office--each with responsibility over a different aspect of the
legislative process. These clerks are known as Bill Clerks, Journal
Clerks, Readings Clerks, Tally Clerks, and Enrolling Clerks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Parliamentarian's Note: The rostrum inside the House Chamber is
comprised of three levels. The Speaker presides at the
uppermost level, while the Reading Clerk's desk is positioned
on the second level. Additional employees of the Clerk's Office
occupy the ground or lowermost level. Several standing rules of
the House concern the ``Clerk's desk'' which refers to areas of
the rostrum where the different clerks carry out their
functions. For example, clause 5 of rule XVII prohibits Members
from lingering near the Clerk's desk ``during the call of the
roll or the counting of ballots.'' House Rules and Manual
Sec. 962 (2019). When a demand is made that a Member's words be
taken down, the words objected to are ``taken down in writing
at the Clerk's desk and read aloud to the House.'' House Rules
and Manual Sec. 960 (2019). See also Deschler's Precedents Ch.
29 Sec. Sec. 48-52. A little-used rule authorizes the Chair to
invite Members to speak ``from the Clerk's desk'' in debate.
House Rules and Manual Sec. 945 (2019). When presidents deliver
addresses before joint sessions of Congress, or foreign leaders
or other dignitaries address Congress during a joint meeting,
they do so from the Clerk's lectern below the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clerks process bills and resolutions introduced by Members and
ensure that these legislative measures are printed for public
availability and distributed to committees of the House (based on the
Speaker's referral,(34) as delegated to the House
Parliamentarian).(35) Bill Clerks also maintain and
regularly update lists of sponsors and cosponsors of
measures.(36) The Clerk's Office is also responsible for
ensuring the proper distribution of amendments offered in the Committee
of the Whole pursuant to clause 5(b) of rule XVIII.(37)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Rule XII, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 816 (2019). See
also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 16.
35. See Sec. 18, infra.
36. Rule XII, clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 825 (2019).
37. House Rules and Manual Sec. 978 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journal Clerks are responsible for recording official House
business in the Journal of the House(38) (as required by the
Constitution).(39) Journal Clerks are also custodians of
discharge petitions filed under clause 2 of rule XV.(40)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 10-14.
39. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 3.
40. Rule XV, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading Clerks are assigned the task of reading messages received
from other branches of government, legislative measures, and other
motions or proposals to be placed before the membership.(41)
Reading Clerks also conduct the call of the Private
Calendar,(42) the call of committees under Calendar
Wednesday procedures,(43) and the morning hour call of
committees.(44) When remarks in debate are objected to as
unparliamentary under clause 4 of rule XVII,(45) it is the
Reading Clerk who reads aloud the language that drew objection prior to
the Chair's ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Rule XVI, clause 2, provides that the Speaker may direct the Clerk
to read any motion aloud to the body before debate thereon.
House Rules and Manual Sec. 904 (2019).
42. Rule XV, clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 895 (2019).
43. Rule XIV, clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 900, 901
(2019).
44. Rule XIV, clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 880, 881
(2019). The morning hour call of committees is an old procedure
that is no longer used in modern practice.
45. House Rules and Manual Sec. 960 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tally Clerks are responsible for the operation of the electronic
voting system within the Chamber. Tally Clerks monitor the progress of
a vote in real time, and enter votes cast by vote card into the
computer system. If the electronic voting system is not or cannot be
used, the Tally Clerks oversee the transaction of the vote by an
alternate method (such as a vote by tellers or a roll call
vote).(46) Additional duties of the Tally Clerks involve
preparation of the Calendar of the House(47) and processing
reports received from committees of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. Rule XX, clause 2(a), provides that the electronic voting system be
used for all votes, unless the Speaker chooses a different
method. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1014 (2019). Rule XX,
clause 2(b), provides that an alternative voting method be used
if the electronic voting system is inoperable. House Rules and
Manual Sec. 1014a (2019). Rule XX, clause 3, provides
procedures for the Clerk to conduct a roll call vote (House
Rules and Manual Sec. 1015 (2019)), while rule XX, clause 4,
provides directions for a vote by tellers (House Rules and
Manual Sec. 1019 (2019)). Additional rules relating to the
Clerk's role in establishing the presence of a quorum are found
in clauses 4(b), 5(b), and 6(b) of rule XX. House Rules and
Manual Sec. Sec. 1020, 1021, and 1025 (2019). Pursuant to
clause 5(c)(4)(C) of rule XX, the Clerk is consulted regarding
the contents of a catastrophic quorum failure report. House
Rules and Manual Sec. 1024a (2019).
47. Parliamentarian's Note: This document, known as the ``Calendar of
the United States House of Representatives and History of
Legislation'' is produced each legislative day and contains a
wide variety of information on House legislative activities,
including: (1) legislative business currently on the House,
Union, Private, Discharge, and Consensus Calendars; (2) a
listing of legislative measures reported by committees of the
House or considered by the House; (3) measures currently being
considered by a conference committee of the House and Senate;
(4) a calendar of days the House has been in session; (5) the
status of major legislation (such as appropriation bills); and
(6) miscellaneous excerpts of rules and orders of the House
affecting the order of business. This document is a cumulative
review of House business as of the date of publication, and a
final Calendar is printed at the end of a Congress (with
statistical analyses and comparisons to prior Congresses).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrolling Clerks are not stationed on the floor of the House, but
are responsible for preparing legislation after it has passed the House
(the engrossment) or after it has passed both Houses (the
enrollment).(48) Pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule
II,(49) the Clerk certifies the passage of all bills and
joint resolutions. Enrolling Clerks also prepare the formal messages to
the Senate regarding House actions.(50)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. For more on the engrossment, enrollment, and presentation of
legislation to the President, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 24
Sec. Sec. 11-16 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 24.
49. House Rules and Manual Sec. 648 (2019).
50. For messages between the Houses generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 32 Sec. Sec. 1-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Reporters of Debate are stenographers and other
employees charged with transcribing the proceedings of the House for
publication in the Congressional Record.(51) These employees
fall under the jurisdiction of the Clerk's Office: pursuant to clause 1
of rule VI,(52) the Clerk appoints the official reporters,
subject to the direction and control of the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 15-24.
52. House Rules and Manual Sec. 685 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messages
Official communications between the House and the Senate, and
between the House and other branches of the Federal government, are
conducted by formal message.(53) For virtually its entire
history, the House's agent for transmitting and receiving these
messages has been the Clerk of the House.(54) It was
formerly the case that the House was required to be in session to
accept messages from the Senate or the executive, and the House would,
on an ad hoc basis, authorize the Clerk to receive messages during
periods of adjournment.(55) However, in the 97th Congress in
1981, the rules of the House were amended to provide standing authority
for the Clerk to receive messages any time that the House was
adjourned.(56) In the 111th Congress in 2009, this authority
was expanded to explicitly cover periods of recess as well as
adjournment.(57)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. For messages between the Houses generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 32 Sec. Sec. 1-6.
54. The Clerk's counterpart in the Senate is the Secretary of the
Senate.
55. See, e.g., Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 18.13.
56. House Rules and Manual Sec. 652 (2019).
57. Id. For a discussion of ``pocket vetoes'' and the ability of the
House to accept presidential messages during periods of
adjournment, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 24 Sec. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk also has a role in transmitting House messages to other
entities. With respect to House-Senate relations, legislative activity
of the House is formally transmitted to the Senate by the Clerk.
Pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule II,(58) the Clerk ``shall
attest and affix the seal of the House to all writs, warrants, and
subpoenas issued by order of the House.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. House Rules and Manual Sec. 648 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other miscellaneous House rules address distribution of information
to or from the executive branch. For example, clause 2(b) of rule
II(59) requires the Clerk to provide each Member with a list
of executive reports required to be submitted to Congress (along with
the statutory authority for each report and the names of executive
officers responsible for producing each report). Official papers
relating to the settlement of government claims are required by clause
7 of rule VII(60) to be transmitted to the relevant
executive officials by the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. House Rules and Manual Sec. 646 (2019).
60. House Rules and Manual Sec. 696 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Records of the House
The Clerk of the House has long been the custodian of official
House documents, papers, and records. The standing rules of the House
contain many provisions related to producing, accepting, maintaining,
and providing access to the records of the House.
As noted elsewhere, the Clerk's duties including recording the
proceedings of the House in various forms.(61) Pursuant to
clause 2(c) of rule II,(62) the constitutional requirement
that the House keep a Journal of its proceedings is fulfilled by the
Clerk of the House (specifically, the Journal Clerks who compose and
publish the Journal of the House). Pursuant to clause 1 of rule
VI,(63) the Clerk (subject to the direction and control of
the Speaker) appoints and supervises the Official Reporters of Debate,
who transcribe House proceedings for the Congressional Record. Clause
2(e) of rule II(64) requires the Clerk to distribute the
calendars of the House each legislative day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. Sec. 10-24.
62. House Rules and Manual Sec. 647 (2019).
63. House Rules and Manual Sec. 685 (2019).
64. House Rules and Manual Sec. 649 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule II,(65) the Clerk
maintains a library of House documents for the use of Members, and
Members may request copies of virtually any document deposited therein.
With respect to noncurrent records of the House, the standing rules
provide procedures for collecting and archiving this
material.(66) Pursuant to clauses 1(a) and 1(b) of rule
VII,(67) committee chairs and officers of the House are to
forward to the Clerk all noncurrent records in their possession at the
end of each Congress. The Clerk then forwards this material to the
Archivist of the United States for appropriate preservation at the
National Archives and Records Administration.(68) Clauses 3
and 4 of rule VII(69) provide procedures by which the Clerk
may authorize the Archivist to make such records accessible to the
public. As provided in clause 7 of rule VII,(70) records of
the House may not typically be withdrawn from the House without its
leave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. House Rules and Manual Sec. 650 (2019).
66. Parliamentarian's Note: The definition of a ``record'' in this
context is provided by clause 6(a) of rule VII. House Rules and
Manual Sec. 695 (2019).
67. House Rules and Manual Sec. 695 (2019).
68. Id.
69. Id.
70. House Rules and Manual Sec. 696 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two types of documents relating to oaths of secrecy are retained by
the Clerk. Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XI,(71) the oath
of secrecy taken by members of the Committee on Ethics with regard to
confidential information of the committee is filed with the Clerk as
part of the records of the House. Members, officers, and employees must
also subscribe to an oath of secrecy in order to access classified
information, pursuant to clause 13 of rule XXIII.(72) The
Clerk retains custody of these oaths executed by Members, Delegates,
and the Resident Commissioner as part of the records of the House
(oaths executed by officers and employees are retained by the Sergeant-
at-Arms).(73)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. House Rules and Manual Sec. 806 (2019).
72. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1095 (2019).
73. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the availability of documents generally, clause 3
of rule XXIX provides that, ``If a measure or matter is publicly
available at an electronic document repository operated by the Clerk,
it shall be considered as having been available to Members, Delegates,
and the Resident Commissioner for purposes of these
rules.''(74) This provision allows the Clerk of the House to
distribute documents to the membership electronically, obviating the
need for physical distribution. Pursuant to a separate order contained
in the resolution adopting rules for the 114th Congress,(75)
the Clerk is required to make publicly available (in electronic form)
any state memorials calling for a convention to propose constitutional
amendments. This separate order has been reiterated in subsequent
Congresses.(76)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
74. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1105a (2019).
75. H. Res. 5, 161 Cong. Rec. 35, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6, 2015).
76. See H. Res. 5, 163 Cong. Rec. H9 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 3, 2017) and 165 Cong. Rec. H20 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong.
1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Functions
The Clerk performs a variety of other administrative and financial
functions. For instance, the Clerk submits semiannual reports to the
Committee on House Administration regarding the ``financial and
operational status of each function under the jurisdiction of the
Clerk.''(77) Pursuant to clause 2(k) of rule II, the Clerk
``shall fully cooperate'' with other offices in the conduct of
performance reviews and audits of House operations.(78)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. Rule II, clause 2(j), House Rules and Manual Sec. 654 (2019).
78. House Rules and Manual Sec. 655 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk also assumes responsibility of the administration of a
Member's office after the death of the Member. This authority ceases
upon the election of a new Member to the seat.(79) Formerly,
it was the case that the Clerk had similar responsibilities upon the
death of a former Speaker of the House under clause 2(i)(2) of rule
II.(80)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 38 Sec. 4 and Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 38.
80. House Rules and Manual Sec. 653 (2019). While this authorization
remains in the standing rules, the statutory requirements were
repealed in the 115th Congress. See P.L. 115-224; 132 Stat.
2897. See also Sec. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other administrative functions of the Clerk involve supervising
compliance with various ethics rules. For example, the Clerk receives
financial disclosure reports from Members, officers, and employees
(pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978) and is directed by
clause 1 of rule XXVI to forward such reports to the Committee on
Ethics.(81) Board members of the Office of Congressional
Ethics are likewise required to file annual financial disclosures
statements, which the Clerk also submits to the Committee on
Ethics.(82) Under rule XXV (``Limitations on Outside Earned
Income and Acceptance of Gifts''),(83) the Clerk processes
travel reimbursements for Members and officers of the House, and also
receives notice when Members donate honoraria to charity. The Clerk
also makes public certain recusal statements regarding conflicts-of-
interest in employment negotiations pursuant to clause 4 of rule
XXVII.(84)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
81. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1103 (2019).
82. Rule XXVI, clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1103 (2019).
83. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1099 (2019).
84. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1103a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election of the Clerk
Sec. 14.1 The House adopted a privileged resolution electing officers
of the House, including the Clerk from the previous
Congress.(85)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
85. Parliamentarian's Note: To ease the transition to the first
Democratic majority in 12 years, the Speaker asked the Clerk,
the Chief Administrative Officer, and the Sergeant-at-Arms from
the previous Congress to continue in office for an interim
period. A new Clerk and a new CAO were prospectively elected on
February 6, 2007, to begin service on February 15, 2007. See
Sec. 14.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 4, 2007,(86) Karen Haas of Maryland was
elected as Clerk at the beginning of the 110th Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86. 153 Cong. Rec. 6, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION OF CLERK OF THE HOUSE, SERGEANT AT ARMS, CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND CHAPLAIN
Mr. [John] LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 1) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1
Resolved, That Karen L. Haas of the State of Maryland, be, and is hereby,
chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives;
That Wilson S. Livingood of the Commonwealth of Virginia be, and is
hereby, chosen Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives;
That James M. Eagen, III, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania be, and is
hereby, chosen Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives; and
That Father Daniel P. Coughlin of the State of Illinois, be, and is
hereby, chosen Chaplain of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER.(87) The question is on the remainder of
the resolution offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Larson).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
87. Nancy Pelosi (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will now swear in the officers of the
House.
The officers presented themselves in the well of the House and
took the oath of office as follows:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.
The SPEAKER. Congratulations.
Sec. 14.2 Officers of the House, including the Clerk, may be elected
prospectively via the adoption of a privileged resolution.
On February 6, 2007,(88) the House adopted a privileged
resolution electing the Clerk of the House (and Chief Administrative
Officer) with a future effective date:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
88. 153 Cong. Rec. 3156, 3160, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTING OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. [Steny] HOYER [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 129) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 129
Resolved, That Lorraine C. Miller of the State of Texas, be, and is
hereby, chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives, effective February
15, 2007; and
That Daniel P. Beard of the State of Maryland be, and is hereby, chosen
Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, effective
February 15, 2007.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an opportunity to
speak on the resolution before its immediate adoption.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(89) The Chair will
distribute the time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
89. Brian Baird (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question on adopting the
resolution is divided.
First, the question is on adopting the first portion of the
question (relating to the election of Clerk).
The first portion of the question was adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Now, the question is on adopting the
second portion of the question (relating to the election of Chief
Administrative Officer).
The second portion of the question was adopted.
A motion to reconsider the adoption of the resolution was laid
on the table.
On February 15, 2007,(90) the Clerk and the Chief
Administrative Officer were sworn in by the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
90. 153 Cong. Rec. 4242, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWEARING OF CLERK OF THE HOUSE AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
The SPEAKER.(91) The Chair will now swear in the new
officers of the House, Lorraine C. Miller as the Clerk of the
House, and Daniel P. Beard as the Chief Administrative Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. Nancy Pelosi (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The officers presented themselves in the well of the House and
took the oath of office as follows:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.
The SPEAKER. Congratulations.
Sec. 14.3 In the event of a vacancy in the Office of the Clerk, the
House adopts a privileged resolution to elect a new Clerk to fill
the vacancy.
On December 6, 2005,(92) Karen Haas was elected as Clerk
of the House, filling a vacancy:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
92. 151 Cong. Rec. 27569, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. For a similar example,
see 121 Cong. Rec. 41324, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 17, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION OF CLERK OF THE HOUSE
Ms. [Deborah] PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 580) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 580
Resolved, That Karen L. Haas of the State of Maryland, be, and is hereby,
chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER.(93) Would the Clerk-designate please
take the well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
93. Dennis Hastert (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk-designate presented herself at the bar of the House
and took the oath of office as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,
and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which you are about to enter. So help you God.
The SPEAKER.
Congratulations. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
There was no
objection. -------------------
NOTIFICATION TO THE SENATE
Mr. [Doc] HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 581) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 581
Resolved, That the Senate be informed that Karen L. Haas, a citizen of
the State of Maryland, has been elected Clerk of the House of
Representatives of the One Hundred Ninth Congress.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. -------------------
AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO INFORM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF THE ELECTION OF THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 582) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 582
Resolved, That the Clerk be instructed to inform the President of the
United States that the House of Representatives has elected Karen L. Haas,
a citizen of the State of Maryland, Clerk of the House of Representatives
of the One Hundred Ninth Congress.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Appointment of the Clerk
Sec. 14.4 In the event of a vacancy in the Office of the Clerk, the
Speaker may, pursuant to statute, appoint a new Clerk on a
temporary basis.(94)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
94. Parliamentarian's Note: In the case of a vacancy among the elected
officers of the House, the Speaker is authorized to appoint a
person ``to act as, and to exercise temporarily the duties of''
the vacant office until a successor is elected. 2 U.S.C.
Sec. 5501. Ms. Haas was subsequently elected by the House as
Clerk on December 6, 2005. See Sec. 14.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 18, 2005,(95) the following appointment of
Karen Haas of Maryland to be Clerk of the House occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
95. 151 Cong. Rec. 27489, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. For another example of
the Speaker's appointment of a Clerk, see 121 Cong. Rec. 36901,
94th Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov. 17, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT AS CLERK OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(96) Pursuant to section 208
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. Sec. 75a-
1), and the order of the House of January 4, 2005, the Chair
announces the Speaker's appointment as Clerk of the House of
Representatives Mrs. Karen L. Haas of Maryland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
96. Daniel Lungren (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resignation of the Clerk
Sec. 14.5 The resignation of an elected officer of the House, including
the Clerk, is subject to acceptance by the House.
On November 18, 2005,(97) the Speaker pro tempore laid
before the House the following resignation, which was accepted by the
House:
97. 151 Cong. Rec. 27489, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. For the Speaker's
appointment of Karen Haas as Clerk, see Sec. 14.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION AS CLERK OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 18, 2005.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to tender my resignation as
Clerk effective upon the appointment of my successor November 18,
2005.
It has been an honor to serve this Institution, its people and
the Nation for more than 20 years. I leave knowing the incredible
ability of the people who serve here and their commitment to the
people they represent.
I will especially depart with a deep sense of admiration and
respect for the individuals working in and with the Office of the
Clerk. I wish to thank them for their efforts over the last seven
years during my tenure as Clerk of the House.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Jeff Trandahl.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(98) Without objection, the
resignation is accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
98. Daniel Lungren (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 14.6 The Clerk may resign following adjournment sine die of the
House, and the Speaker may, pursuant to statute, appoint a new
Clerk during such adjournment.(99)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
99. Parliamentarian's Note: Robin Carle, who was elected as Clerk of
the House in the 104th and 105th Congresses, resigned that
office by letter to the Speaker on December 21, 1998, effective
January 1, 1999. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501, the Speaker
then appointed Jeff Trandahl (formerly the Assistant Clerk) to
fill the vacancy. Mr. Trandahl presided over the convening of
the 106th Congress as an appointed Clerk from the previous
Congress and subsequently was elected as Clerk for the 106th
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 1999,(100) the Chair laid before the House
communications regarding events that had occurred following sine die
adjournment of the prior Congress, including the resignation of the
Clerk of the House and the Speaker's appointment of a temporary
replacement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
100. 145 Cong. Rec. 257-58, 106th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE AFTER SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT OF THE
105TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION AND FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL EDITION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF THE 105TH CONGRESS
communication from the clerk of the house after sine die
adjournment
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 21, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I write today to inform you of my decision to
end my service as Clerk of the House effective January 1, 1999.
Because of your vision and support, many of the goals you set
at the dawn of the 104th Congress have already been achieved, the
most significant among them being the amount of immediate
legislative information now available to all citizens via the
Internet. Many others are well underway and when fully implemented
will position this Office to support the efforts of the House in
even more dramatic ways as we approach the millennium.
Thank you for providing such a magnificent opportunity for me
to be a part of this unique institution.
With warm regards,
Robin H. Carle. -------------------
appointment by the speaker after sine die adjournment
Pursuant to the provisions of section 208(a) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 75a-1(a)), and section 5 of
House Resolution 594, 105th Congress, the Speaker on Monday,
December 21, 1998, appointed Jeffrey J. Trandahl of Virginia to act
and to exercise temporarily the duties of Clerk of the House of
Representatives effective Friday, January 1,
1999. -------------------
communication from the speaker after sine die adjournment
Office of Speaker,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 21, 1998.
Re temporary appointment of Clerk.
Hon. William M. Thomas,
Chairman, Committee on House Oversight, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Bill: In accordance with 2 U.S.C. 75a-1, I hereby appoint
Mr. Jeffrey J. Trandahl to fill the vacancy in the Office of the
Clerk of the House of Representatives, effective January 1, 1999.
Mr. Trandahl shall exercise all the duties, shall have all the
powers, and shall be subject to all the requirements and
limitations applicable to the position of Clerk until his successor
is chosen by the House and duly qualifies as Clerk.
Plese contact Dan Crowley, General Counsel in the Office of
Speaker, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Newt Gingrich,
Speaker.
Designation of Clerks Pro Tempore
Sec. 14.7 Pursuant to clause 2(g) of rule II,(101) the Clerk
is required to designate other individuals to act in the Clerk's
stead during any temporary absence or disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
101. House Rules and Manual Sec. 651 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2015,(102) the following designations
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
102. 161 Cong. Rec. 146, 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
communication from the clerk of the house
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ted] Poe of Texas) laid before
the House the following communication from the Clerk of the House
of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Under Clause 2(g) of Rule II of the Rules of
the U.S. House of Representatives, I herewith designate Mr. Robert
Reeves, Deputy Clerk, and Mr. Kirk D. Boyle, Legal Counsel, to sign
any and all papers and do all other acts for me under the name of
the Clerk of the House which they would be authorized to do by
virtue of this designation, except such as are provided by statute,
in case of my temporary absence or disability.
This designation shall remain in effect for the 114th Congress
or until modified by me.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Karen L. Haas,
Clerk of the House.
Processing Enrollments and Engrossments
Sec. 14.8 Where official legislative papers have been lost, the House
may, by privileged concurrent resolution, direct the Clerk of the
House and Secretary of the Senate to produce official duplicates.
On October 5, 1992,(103) the following concurrent
resolution was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
103. 138 Cong. Rec. 32064, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. The Senate agreed to
this concurrent resolution later the same day. See 138 Cong.
Rec. 31520, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR PREPARATION OF OFFICIAL DUPLICATES OF CERTAIN
LEGISLATIVE PAPERS
Mr. [John Joseph] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I
send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution, House
Concurrent Resolution 376, providing for the preparation of
official duplicates of certain legislative papers, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 376
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That
the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate
each shall prepare, sign, and furnish to the other as appropriate, official
duplicates of the papers of the two Houses on the following bills and
resolutions of the One Hundred Second Congress: H.R. 5400, H.R. 5194, H.R.
5427, S. 2532, S. 1985, S. 1002, S. 893, S. 1569, S. 225, S. 758, S. 759,
S. 1146, and S. 2661. Each official duplicate shall be in a form certified
by the Clerk or the Secretary to be true. An official duplicate certified
as true shall be considered for all purposes as original.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(104) Without objection the
concurrent resolution is adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
104. Romano Mazzoli (KY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, let me ask the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley] to explain the purpose of the resolution.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield,
evidently 13 bills were misplaced or lost. This is just an official
resolution so they can be rewritten and processed.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, are these bills that have been rumored
to be headed for a trash dump somewhere on the east coast which we
are not able to retrieve?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, we do not have a lock jack on that.
We do not know where they are headed. We know they are not where
they are supposed to be.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object,
the gentleman will acknowledge that the suspicion is that these are
items that were picked up by the trash men last night and they may
well in fact be headed for a landfill, is that correct?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not know who picked them up.
Maybe if our mail got the same service, we would all be better off.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, some people would think that maybe
they did us a favor. But my understanding is that the resolution
will allow us to engross these bills a second time, is that
correct?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the concurrent
resolution is agreed to.
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 14.9 By unanimous consent, the House considered and agreed to a
Senate concurrent resolution rescinding the signature of the
Speaker on an enrolled bill and directing the Clerk of the House to
correct the enrollment.(105)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
105. Parliamentarian's Note: The enrollment of S. 2367 was signed by
the Speaker and laid before the House on December 7, 2012.
However, an error was discovered that necessitated correction.
The House used Senate Concurrent Resolution 114 of the 99th
Congress as a model for how to proceed in correcting an
enrollment that had already been signed by the Speaker. See 132
Cong. Rec. 4240-41, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 11, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 19, 2012,(106) the following occurred:
106. 158 Cong. Rec. 17752, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORRECTING THE ENROLLMENT OF S. 2367
Mr. [Pete] OLSON [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to take from the Speaker's table Senate Concurrent
Resolution 63 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER.(107) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
107. John Boehner (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
S. Con. Res. 63
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That
the Secretary of the Senate is requested to return to the House of
Representatives the enrolled bill (S. 2367, an Act to strike the word
``lunatic'' from Federal law, and for other purposes). Upon the return of
such bill, the action of the Speaker of the House of Representatives in
signing it shall be rescinded. The Secretary of the Senate shall reenroll
the bill with the following correction: In section 2(b)(1)(B), strike ``in
subsection (b)'' and insert ``in subsection (j)''.
The concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Receipt of Messages
Sec. 14.10 The House may instruct the Clerk to transmit certain
messages to the Senate upon receipt of a particular Senate message,
and the Clerk notifies the House when such communications have been
transacted.
On March 23, 1983,(108) the following unanimous-consent
request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
108. See 129 Cong. Rec. 6824, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 40 Sec. 10.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that if and when the clerk receives a message
from the Senate indicating that that body has passed the bill (H.R.
1900) to assure the solvency of the social security trust funds, to
reform the medicare reimbursement of hospitals, to extend the
Federal supplemental compensation program, and for other purposes,
with an amendment or amendments, insisted upon its amendment or
amendments and requested a conference with the House, that the
House be deemed to have disagreed to the Senate amendment or
amendments and agreed to the conference requested by the Senate,
and that the Speaker be deemed to have appointed conferees without
intervening motion.
The SPEAKER.(109) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Illinois? The Chair hears none, and appoints
the following conferees: . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
109. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
On March 24, 1983,(110) the Speaker laid before the
House a communication from the Clerk advising that the requisite Senate
message has been received, and that House actions in response (pursuant
to the previous order) had been communicated to the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
110. 129 Cong. Rec. 7300, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 33 Sec. 2.25 and 128 Cong. Rec. 32137, 97th
Cong. 2d Sess. (Dec. 18, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Washington, DC, March 24, 1983.
Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in Clause
5, Rule III of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, the
Clerk received at 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 23, 1983, the
following message from the Secretary of the Senate: That the Senate
passed with an amendment H.R. 1900 and requested a conference
thereon.
In accordance with action taken by the House on Wednesday,
March 23, 1983, the Clerk has notified the Senate that the House
disagreed to the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 1900 and agreed to
a conference thereon.
With kind regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Benjamin J. Guthrie,
Clerk, House of Representatives.
Sec. 14.11 Under prior practice, the standing rules did not permit the
Clerk to receive messages during an adjournment of the House,
though such authorization could be granted by unanimous
consent.(111)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
111. Parliamentarian's Note: At the beginning of the 97th Congress in
1981, the standing rules were amended to allow the Clerk to
receive messages from the President or the Senate when the
House was not in session. This authority was expanded in the
111th Congress to specifically apply to recesses as well as
adjournments. See rule II, clause 2(h), House Rules and Manual
Sec. 652 (2019). For a discussion of ``pocket vetoes,'' which
relate to the ability of the House to receive messages from the
President, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 24 Sec. Sec. 17-23 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 1980,(112) the following unanimous-
consent request was transacted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
112. 126 Cong. Rec. 34309, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] BRADEMAS [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that notwithstanding the sine die adjournment of the House,
the Clerk be authorized to receive messages from the Senate and
that the Speaker or the Speaker pro tempore be authorized to sign
any enrolled bills and joint resolutions duly passed by the two
Houses and found truly enrolled.
The SPEAKER.(113) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Indiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
113. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 15. The Sergeant-at-Arms
The Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives is an elected
officer whose duties fall primarily within the spheres of security and
the enforcement of rules relating to proper conduct and decorum in the
House Chamber. Pursuant to House rule,(1) the Sergeant-at-
Arms attends all sittings of the House. At the beginning of each
legislative day, the Sergeant-at-Arms (or an employee of the office)
leads the procession of officers as they enter the Chamber, bearing the
mace of the House of Representatives(2) (the symbol of the
Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms).(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule II, clause 3(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (2019).
2. Parliamentarian's Note: The current mace, a symbol of the House's
authority, has been used in the Chamber since 1841. A previous
mace was destroyed when the British burned the Capitol during
the War of 1812. See http://history.house.gov/Collection/
Listing/2006/2006-162-000/ (last visited Oct. 24, 2019).
3. See rule II, clause 3(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 657 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sergeant-at-Arms is one of the oldest officer positions in the
House. When the House first ordered that a committee be formed to draft
standing rules for the House, it simultaneously ordered that ``they
also report the duty and services of a sergeant-at-arms, or other
proper officer for enforcing the orders of the House.''(4)
Provisions establishing the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms were
thereafter incorporated into the standing rules on April 14,
1789.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 1 Annals of Cong. 101, 1st Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 2, 1789).
5. 1 Annals of Cong. 128-29, 1st Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 14, 1789).
These original provisions regarding the Sergeant-at-Arms have
remained remarkably stable over the course of the history of
the House, and form the basis of current clauses 3(a) and 3(b)
of rule II. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 656, 657 (2019).
Prior to the advent of statutory contempt procedures in 1857,
the Sergeant-at-Arms was responsible for arresting those cited
by the House for contempt of Congress (see, e.g., 3 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 1714) but this authority has not been used in
many decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was formerly the case that the Sergeant-at-Arms had additional
duties relating to the financial operations of the House, including
handling payroll for Members.(6) However, virtually all of
these financial responsibilities were transferred to other officers
during the administrative reforms of the mid-1990s. Conversely, the
Sergeant-at-Arms assumed various duties previously undertaken by the
Doorkeeper of the House when that officer position was eliminated at
the outset of the 104th Congress in 1995.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 13, supra and Sec. 17, infra.
7. See Sec. 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election, Resignation, or Removal
The Sergeant-at-Arms is elected at the beginning of a Congress by
the resolution(8) electing all officers of the House (other
than the Speaker). Upon election, the Sergeant-at-Arms is administered
the oath of office(9) by the Speaker.(10) The
Sergeant-at-Arms is subject to removal by the House or by the Speaker,
pursuant to clause 1 of rule II.(11) If the Office of the
Sergeant-at-Arms becomes vacant during a Congress (due to the
resignation,(12) removal, death, or incapacity of the
Sergeant-at-Arms), the House will typically fill the vacancy by
adopting a new resolution electing an individual to that
position.(13) However, the Speaker has the statutory
authority(14) to appoint a temporary replacement until the
House is ready to elect a new Sergeant-at-Arms. The oath of office is
administered to a new Sergeant-at-Arms upon election or appointment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. 13, supra. See also rule II, clause 1, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 640 (2019). The Sergeant-at-Arms continues in
office until a successor is chosen and qualified. 2 U.S.C.
Sec. 5602.
9. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331. See Sec. 15.2, infra. See also Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 2.
10. If the Sergeant-at-Arms is absent on opening day, the oath will be
administered on a later date. See Sec. 15.2, infra.
11. Rule II, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
12. See Sec. 15.3, infra. In one instance, the Sergeant-at-Arms
resigned from the office and was subsequently appointed to
exercise temporarily the duties of that office for the purpose
of allowing the individual to qualify for certain retirement
benefits. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 22.3.
13. See Sec. 15.1, infra.
14. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duties of the Sergeant-at-Arms
The duties of the Sergeant-at-Arms are found in the rules of the
House,(15) and in statute.(16) The primary duty
of the Sergeant-at-Arms is to maintain order in the House Chamber.
Pursuant to clause 3(a) of rule II, the Sergeant-at-Arms shall,
``maintain order under the direction of the Speaker or other presiding
officer.''(17) The Speaker may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms
to present the mace (the symbol of the authority of the Sergeant-at-
Arms) to enforce order in the Chamber.(18) The Sergeant-at-
Arms is tasked with strictly enforcing the rules of decorum listed in
clause 5 of rule XVII,(19) which include prohibitions on:
trafficking the well of the House while another Member is speaking;
wearing a hat(20) in the Chamber; remaining near the Clerk's
desk during certain votes; smoking in the Chamber; and using an
electronic device on the floor of the House that impairs decorum. If a
Member uses an electronic device to engage in still photography or
audio-visual recording within the House Chamber (in contravention of
clause 5 of rule XVII or any applicable policy promulgated by the
Speaker), the Sergeant-at-Arms is authorized under clause 3(g) of rule
II(21) to impose a fine on such Member. The Sergeant-at-Arms
assists the Speaker in maintaining order in the House
galleries.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule II, clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 656-660 (2019).
See also 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 257 and 6 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 29.
16. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5604.
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (2019).
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 657 (2019). The use of the mace prior
to the adoption of rules has been acknowledged as part of
general parliamentary law. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1
Sec. 6.5.
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 962 (2019). See Sec. Sec. 15.7, 15.8,
infra. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 19.
20. In the 116th Congress, the rule was amended to specifically exclude
religious headdress from this prohibition.
21. House Rules and Manual Sec. 660a (2019).
22. See Sec. 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sergeant-at-Arms strictly enforces the rule regarding
admittance to the floor of the House of Representatives.(23)
Pursuant to clause 2(a) of rule IV,(24) only certain
individuals are accorded floor privileges and staff of the Sergeant-at-
Arms' Office will prevent those who do not qualify from entering the
Chamber. Clause 3(d) of rule II(25) also requires the
Sergeant-at-Arms to clear the floor of the House directly before and
after any session of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Rule II, clause 3(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 658 (2019).
Pursuant to clause 2(a)(11) of rule IV, the Sergeant-at-Arms of
the Senate has House floor privileges. House Rules and Manual
Sec. 678 (2019). For floor privileges generally, see Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. Sec. 5, 6.
24. House Rules and Manual Sec. 678 (2019).
25. House Rules and Manual Sec. 658 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, the Sergeant-at-Arms has played a critical role in
assisting the House in securing a quorum.(26) The
Constitution provides that a majority of the House constitutes a
quorum, and that ``a smaller number . . . may be authorized to compel
the attendance of absent Members.''(27) Pursuant to clause
5(a) of rule XX,(28) in the absence of a quorum, a majority
comprising at least 15 Members may compel the attendance of absent
Members. In such cases, the Sergeant-at-Arms is directed by the House
to send officers to arrest missing Members and ``shall secure and
retain their attendance.''(29) When a quorum fails to vote
on a question, and objection is made, a call of the House is ordered
pursuant to clause 6 of rule XX,(30) and the Sergeant-at-
Arms ``shall proceed forthwith to bring in absent
Members.''(31) As part of its continuity of operations
provisions, House rules provide that a ``provisional'' quorum may be
established when catastrophic circumstances prevent a regular quorum
from being secured.(32) In such circumstances, the Sergeant-
at-Arms (or a designee) is responsible for the production of a
``catastrophic quorum failure report,'' detailing the nature of the
emergency and the inability of Members to attend proceedings of the
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Parliamentarian's Note: The authority for the Sergeant-at-Arms to
arrest Members for this purpose has been rarely invoked in
modern times. For quorums generally, Deschler's Precedents Ch.
20 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 20.
27. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 1. See House Rules and Manual
Sec. 52 (2019).
28. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1021 (2019). See 4 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 3015-3021, and 3036. See also 6 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 687.
29. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1021 (2019).
30. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1025 (2019). See also 4 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 3045-3049.
31. The rule also requires the Sergeant-at-Arms to detain those present
in the Chamber. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 1026 (2019).
32. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1024a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In rare circumstances, the Sergeant-at-Arms may be called upon to
preside over a session of the House. Pursuant to
statute,(33) if the Clerk of the House is unable to
discharge his or her duties regarding the composition of the roll of
Members-elect, or other organizational preparations at the beginning of
a Congress, those duties devolve to the Sergeant-at-Arms. At the
commencement of the 97th and 98th Congresses, the Clerk of the prior
Congress was unable to preside over the initial quorum call and
election of Speaker. The Sergeant-at-Arms therefore presided over these
organizational activities.(34)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 26. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2 Sec. 2.
34. See Sec. 15.4, infra. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 13 of rule XXIII (the Code of Official
Conduct),(35) the Sergeant-at-Arms is responsible for
maintaining custody of oaths of secrecy executed by officers and
employees of the House in order to access classified information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. House Rules and Manual Sec. 659 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sergeant-at-Arms maintains a close relationship with the
Capitol Police,(36) as part of the office's general security
responsibilities. The Sergeant-at-Arms sits on the Capitol Police
Board, which oversees the Capitol Police ``to advance coordination
between the Capitol Police and the Sergeant-at-Arms . . . in their law
enforcement capacities.''(37) By law, the Sergeant-at-Arms
has the same law enforcement authority as the Capitol Police, including
the authority to carry firearms.(38) The Sergeant-at-Arms
has conducted closed security briefings for Members in the House
Chamber.(39) In the 108th Congress, clause 12(c) was added
to rule I,(40) authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to notify
the Speaker of an imminent impairment of the place of convening (for
example, an adverse weather event) in order to allow for alternate
convening arrangements to be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. For more on the Capitol Police, see Sec. 25, infra.
37. P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11.
38. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5605.
39. See, e.g., Sec. 15.11, infra. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1
Sec. 10 (fn. 23).
40. House Rules and Manual Sec. 639 (2019). See Sec. 15.5, infra. See
also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. Sec. 11.14-11.18 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 1.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on House Administration exercises oversight of the
Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and provides policy direction, pursuant
to clause 4(d)(1)(A) of rule X.(41) Pursuant to clause 3(e)
of rule II,(42) the Sergeant-at-Arms reports to the
Committee on House Administration semi-annually on the ``financial and
operational status of each function under the jurisdiction of the
Sergeant-at-Arms.'' Clause 3(f) of rule II(43) requires the
Sergeant-at-Arms to cooperate with any review or audit of financial or
administrative operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. House Rules and Manual Sec. 752 (2019).
42. House Rules and Manual Sec. 659 (2019).
43. House Rules and Manual Sec. 660 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sergeant-at-Arms supervises employees of the office and is
responsible for their official conduct.(44) The Office of
the Sergeant-at-Arms is subdivided into numerous sub-offices, each of
which has jurisdiction over a different area of the Sergeant-at-Arms'
purview. These subdivisions include the Office of House Security (which
provides security training and assists staff in obtaining security
clearances) and the Office of Emergency Management (which ensures
continuity of operations via comprehensive emergency planning).
Additional subdivisions address areas such as identification and
information services, special events and protocols, garage and parking
security, and Member support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Rule II, clause 3(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 658 (2019). By
law, the Sergeant-at-Arms also reports to the House Committee
on Oversight and Reform descriptions of the duties and
responsibilities of each employee under the jurisdiction of the
Sergeant-at-Arms. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election of the Sergeant-at-Arms Mid-Congress
Sec. 15.1 When the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms becomes vacant, the
House fills the vacancy by the adoption of a privileged resolution
electing a new Sergeant-at-Arms.
On January 17, 2012,(45) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. 158 Cong. Rec. 28, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWEARING IN OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following resignation
from the House of Representatives:
House of Representatives,
Office of the Sergeant at Arms,
Washington, DC, January 17, 2012.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I hereby offer my resignation as Sergeant at
Arms of the House of Representatives, effective January 17, 2012.
It has been a privilege and honor to serve this institution as
Sergeant at Arms since the 104th Congress.
If I can ever be of service to the House of Representatives in
the future, please do not hesitate to call upon me.
Sincerely,
Wilson Livingood,
Sergeant at Arms.
The SPEAKER.(46) Without objection, the resignation
is accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. John Boehner (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Eric] CANTOR [of Virginia]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 511
Resolved, That Paul D. Irving of the State of Florida, be, and is hereby,
chosen Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Oath
Sec. 15.2 Officers of the House are normally administered the oath of
office at the time of their election, but if absent, may be sworn
on a subsequent day.
On January 19, 1999,(47) the Sergeant-at-Arms, who was
not administered the oath of office at the time of his
election,(48) appeared in the well and was sworn in by the
Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. 145 Cong. Rec. 602, 106th Cong. 1st Sess.
48. See 145 Cong. Rec. 46, 106th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWEARING IN OF SERGEANT AT ARMS
The SPEAKER.(49) Will the Sergeant at Arms come to
the well of the House and take the oath of office at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. Dennis Hastert (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sergeant at Arms, Wilson Livingood, appeared at the bar of
the House and took the oath of office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of
which you are about to enter. So help you God.
The SPEAKER. Congratulations.
Resignation of the Sergeant-at-Arms
Sec. 15.3 The resignation of an elected officer of the House is subject
to acceptance by the House and, if accepted, creates a vacancy in
the office.
On February 28, 1980,(50) the Chair laid before the
House the resignation of the Sergeant-at-Arms, which was accepted by
the House as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. 126 Cong. Rec. 4349-50, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 37 Sec. 9.2 (resignation of Jack Russ as
Sergeant-at-Arms and appointment of Werner W. Brandt). See also
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 22.3 and Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 37 Sec. 9.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION AS SERGEANT AT ARMS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
resignation as Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives:
Washington, DC,
February 28, 1980.
Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: It is with deep personal regret that I submit
herewith my resignation as Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of
Representatives, effective at the close of business February 29,
1980.
The decision to resign at this time has been most difficult,
and it is done with a feeling of sincere appreciation for having
had the privilege of serving the House for more than thirty years.
My thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, to all Members, and to my fellow
employees for the many personal courtesies and acts of assistance
that have enabled me to perform my assigned duties.
With kind personal regards, I remain,
Sincerely,
Kenneth R. Harding,
Sergeant at Arms.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(51) Without objection, the
resignation is accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. James Wright (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
Presiding on Opening Day
Sec. 15.4 At the commencement of a Congress, the Clerk of the prior
Congress presides over the initial quorum call and election of
Speaker, and where the Clerk is absent,(52) these duties
fall to the Sergeant-at-Arms pursuant to statute.(53)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. Parliamentarian's Note: The Clerk of the House for the previous
Congress had suffered a stroke during his term of office and
had been incapacitated to the extent that he was not able to
preside on opening day of the 97th Congress.
53. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 5, 1981,(54) the Sergeant-at-Arms of the
previous Congress served as presiding officer during organization of
the 97th Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. 127 Cong. Rec. 93-96, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. See also Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 3.3 and House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 982, 986 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This being the day fixed by the 20th amendment of the
Constitution and by Public Law 566 of the 96th Congress for the
annual meeting of the Congress of the United States, the Members-
elect of the 97th Congress met in their Hall, and at 12 o'clock
noon, were called to order by the Sergeant at Arms of the House of
Representatives, Hon. Benjamin J. Guthrie.
The Chaplain, Rev. James David Ford, D.D., offered the
following prayer: . . .
The Sergeant at Arms. Representatives-elect to the 97th
Congress, this being the day fixed by the 20th amendment of the
Constitution and Public Law 566 of the 96th Congress for the
meeting of the 97th Congress, the Clerk of the 96th Congress has
prepared the official roll of the Representatives-elect. Pursuant
to 2 U.S.C. 26, the Sergeant at Arms of the 96th Congress will make
the following announcement:
Certificates of election covering the 435 seats in the 97th
Congress have been received by the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, and the names of those persons whose credentials
show that they were regularly elected as Representatives in
accordance with the laws of their respective States and of the
United States will be called.
Without objection, the Representatives-elect will record their
presence by electronic device, and their names will be reported in
alphabetical order by States, beginning with the State of Alabama,
to determine whether a quorum is present.
There was no objection.
The call was taken by electronic device, and the following
Representatives-elect responded to their names:
[Roll No. 1] . . .
alabama . . .
The Sergeant at Arms. The quorum call discloses that 417
Representatives-elect have answered to their names. A quorum is
present. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SERGEANT AT ARMS
The Sergeant at Arms. The Chair will state the credentials
regular in form have been received showing the elections of the
Honorable Baltasar Corrada as Resident Commissioner from the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for a term of 4 years beginning January
3, 1981; the election of the Honorable Walter E. Fauntroy as
Delegate from the District of Columbia; the election of the
Honorable Antonio Won Pat as Delegate from Guam; the election of
the Honorable Ron de Lugo as Delegate from the Virgin Islands; and
the election of the Honorable Fofo I. F. Sunia, as Delegate from
American Samoa. -------------------
ELECTION OF SPEAKER
The Sergeant at Arms. The next order of business is the
election of the Speaker of the House of Representatives for the
97th Congress.
Nominations are now in order.
The Sergeant at Arms recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Long).
Mr. [Gillis] LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Sergeant at Arms, as
chairman of the Democratic Caucus, I am directed by the unanimous
vote of that caucus to present for election to the Office of
Speaker of the House of Representatives of the 97th Congress the
name of the Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., a Representative-
elect from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Sergeant at Arms. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Kemp).
Mr. [Jack] KEMP [of New York]. Mr. Sergeant at Arms, as
chairman of the Republican Conference and by the authority and
direction and unanimous vote of the Republican Conference, it is my
honor to nominate for Speaker of the House of Representatives the
Honorable Robert H. Michel, a Representative-elect from the State
of Illinois to the 97th Congress.
The Sergeant at Arms. The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., a
Representative-elect from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the
Honorable Robert H. Michel, a Representative-elect from the State
of Illinois, have been placed in nomination.
There being no further nominations, the Sergeant at Arms will
appoint tellers.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. Hawkins),
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson), the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Chisholm), the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs.
Heckler).
The tellers will come forward and take their seats at the desk
in front of the Speaker's rostrum.
The roll will now be called, and those responding to their
names will indicate by surname the nominee of their choice.
The reading clerk will now call the roll.
The tellers having taken their places, the House proceeded to
vote for the Speaker.
The following is the result of the vote: . . .
The Sergeant at Arms. The tellers agree in their tallies that
the total number of votes cast is 419, of which the Honorable
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, has received 234, and the
Honorable Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, has received 182, with 2
voting ``present.''
Therefore, the Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts, is duly elected Speaker of the House of
Representatives for the 97th Congress, having received a majority
of the votes cast.
The Sergeant at Arms appoints the following committee to escort
the Speaker-elect to the chair: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long),
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland), and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
The committee will retire from the Chamber to escort the
Speaker-elect to the chair.
The Doorkeeper announced the Speaker-elect of the House of
Representatives of the 97th Congress, who was escorted to the chair
by the Committee of Escort.
Notification of Impairment
Sec. 15.5 If there is an imminent impairment to reconvening the House
at the appointed time (due to weather, for example), the Sergeant-
at-Arms notifies the Speaker that such emergency circumstances
exist, and the Speaker is authorized to change the convening time
pursuant to clause 12(c) of rule I.(55)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. House Rules and Manual Sec. 639 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 2014,(56) due to inclement weather, the
Speaker in consultation with the Minority Leader, postponed the time of
reconvening:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. 160 Cong. Rec. 3677, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. Sec. 11.14-11.18 and Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 4 Sec. 1.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 2 p.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Denham). . .
. -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Sergeant at Arms of the House of
Representatives:
House of Representatives,
Office of the Sergeant at Arms,
Washington, DC, March 2, 2014.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, As you are aware, the time previously
appointed for the next meeting of the House is noon on Monday,
March 3, 2014. This is to notify you, pursuant to clause 12(c) of
rule I, of an imminent impairment of the place of reconvening at
that time. The impairment is due to the weather.
Sincerely,
Paul D. Irving,
Sergeant at Arms.
-------------------ANNOUNCEMENT BY
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(57) Under clause 12(c) of
rule I, the Speaker established this time for reconvening and
notified Members accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. Jeff Denham (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disturbances in Gallery
Sec. 15.6 Pursuant to clause 2 of rule I,(58) in response to
disruptive demonstrations in the gallery, the Speaker may enlist
the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the offending parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 2011,(59) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. 157 Cong. Rec. 144, 112th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] GOODLATTE [of Virginia]. I now yield to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. [Frank] PALLONE [of New Jersey]. ``No person except a
natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time
of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
office of President.''
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(60) The Chair would remind
all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the
House and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of the
proceedings is in violation of the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. Michael Simpson (ID).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention
of the law and rules of the House. The Sergeant at Arms will remove
those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order in
the gallery.
The gentleman from New Jersey.
Enforcing Protocol on Floor
Sec. 15.7 The Speaker may enlist the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce the
prohibition on breaches of decorum in the House Chamber.
On March 28, 2012,(61) the Chair reminded Members that
the donning of hats or hoods on the floor of the House constitutes a
breach of decorum under clause 5 of rule XVII:(62)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. 158 Cong. Rec. 4361-62, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
62. House Rules and Manual Sec. 962 (2019). In the 116th Congress, the
rule was clarified to specifically allow religious headdress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DEATH OF TRAYVON MARTIN IS AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(63) The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. Gregg Harper (MS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bobby] RUSH [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, the death of
Trayvon Martin is, indeed, an American tragedy. Too often this
violent act that resulted in the murder of Trayvon Martin is
repeated in the streets of our Nation.
I applaud the young people all across the land who are making a
statement about hoodies, about the real hoodlums in this Nation,
particularly those who tread on our laws wearing official or quasi-
official clothes.
Racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker. Just because someone
wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum.
The Bible teaches us, Mr. Speaker, in the book of Micah 6:68--
--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. RUSH. These words:
He has shown you, O man----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair
must remind Members of clause 5 of rule XVII. The gentleman is out
of order.
Mr. RUSH. What is good. What does the Lord require of you? To
do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
In the New Testament, Luke 4:18 20 teaches us these words:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because He has anointed me to
proclaim the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim
freedom for the prisoners----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not in order.
Mr. RUSH. And to recover sight to the blind, to set the
oppressed free.
I urge all who hear these words to heed these lessons.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is no longer recognized.
* * *
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will ask the Sergeant at
Arms to enforce the prohibition on breaches of
decorum. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must remind Members that
clause 5 of rule XVII prohibits the wearing of hats in the Chamber
when the House is in session. The Chair finds that the donning of a
hood is not consistent with this rule. Members need to remove their
hoods or leave the floor.
Sec. 15.8 Pursuant to clause 3 of rule II,(64) the Sergeant-
at-Arms may be directed by the Speaker to enforce the rules
relating to the admission of individuals to the floor of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. House Rules and Manual Sec. 658 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 25, 1983,(65) the Speaker announced that the
Sergeant-at-Arms (and Doorkeeper)(66) had been instructed to
strictly enforce the provisions of former rule XXXII (now clause 2(a)
of rule IV)(67) which specified those persons having the
privileges of the floor during sessions of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. 129 Cong. Rec. 224, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
66. The Office of the Doorkeeper was eliminated in the 104th Congress
and most of its duties transferred to the Sergeant-at-Arms.
House Rules and Manual Sec. 663b (2019).
67. House Rules and Manual Sec. 678 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER.(68) The Chair wishes to make the
following announcement concerning privileges of the floor for House
staff during the 98th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XXXII strictly limits those persons to whom the privileges
of the floor during sessions of the House are extended, and that
rule prohibits the Chair from entertaining requests for suspension
or waiver of that rule. As reiterated as recently as August 22,
1974, by Speaker Albert under the principle stated in Deschler's
Procedure, chapter 4, section 3.4, the rule strictly limits the
number of committee staff permitted on the floor at one time during
the consideration of measures reported from their committees. This
permission does not extend to Members' personal staff except when a
Member has an amendment actually pending during the 5-minute rule.
To this end, the Chair requests all Members and committee staff to
cooperate to assure that not more than the proper number of staff
are on the proper number of staff are on the floor, and then only
during the actual consideration of measures reported from their
committees.
The Chair again extended this admonition to all properly
admitted majority and minority staff by insisting that their
presence on the floor, including the areas behind the rail, be
restricted to those periods during which their supervisors have
specifically requested their presence. The Chair stated this policy
in the 97th Congress, and an increasing number of Members have
insisted on strict enforcement of the rule. The Chair has consulted
with and has the concurrence of the minority leader with respect to
this policy and has directed the Doorkeeper and the Sergeant at
Arms to assure proper enforcement of the rule.
Sec. 15.9 The Speaker may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce proper
decorum anywhere in the House Chamber, including the cloakrooms.
On November 20, 1993,(69) the following announcement was
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. 139 Cong. Rec. 31355, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Kweisi] Mfume [of Maryland]). The
gentleman will suspend for just a moment.
The Sergeant at Arms will instruct those Members in the
cloakroom to control their noise, that we might be able to
continue. That noise is making its way on to the floor of the House
of Representatives.
Announcements
Sec. 15.10 At the commencement of a joint session, a member of the
Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms(70) announces the arrival
of various dignitaries and other government officials, including
the President of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 104th Congress, the Doorkeeper
announced the various dignitaries for joint sessions. The
Office of the Doorkeeper was abolished in the 104th Congress.
See House Rules and Manual Sec. 663b (2019). This was the
inaugural announcement by the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff following
the abolition of the Office of the Doorkeeper. For an instance
where the announcement of the arrival of the President was
performed by both the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Majority Floor
Services Chief, see 154 Cong. Rec. 967, 110th Cong. 2d Sess.
(Jan. 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 24, 1995,(71) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. 141 Cong. Rec. 2248, 2255, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Larry] Combest [of Texas]). The
Chair declares the House in recess until approximately 8:40 p.m.
for the purpose of a joint session to receive a communication from
the President of the United States.
Accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), the House stood
in recess until approximately 8:40
p.m. -------------------
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at 8 o'clock and 40 minutes
p.m. -------------------
JOINT SESSION OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE HELD PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 16 TO HEAR AN ADDRESS
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The Speaker of the House presided.
The Assistant to the Sergeant at Arms, Mr. Richard Wilson,
announced the Vice President and Members of the U.S. Senate, who
entered the Hall of the House of Representatives, the Vice
President taking the chair at the right of the Speaker, and the
Members of the Senate the seats reserved for them. . . .
At 9 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m., the Sergeant at Arms, Hon.
Bill Livingood, announced the President of the United States.
The President of the United States, escorted by the committee
of Senators and Representatives, entered the Hall of the House of
Representatives, and stood at the Clerk's desk.
[Applause, the Members rising].
Briefing Members in Closed Session
Sec. 15.11 The House may conduct closed briefings in the Chamber in
order for Members to receive security information from the
Sergeant-at-Arms.
On July 27, 1998,(72) the following announcement was
made concerning a security briefing by the Sergeant-at-Arms and Chief
of the Capitol Police(73) relating to the shooting of
Capitol police officers the previous week:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. 144 Cong. Rec. 17467, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
73. For more on the Capitol Police, see Sec. 25, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER.(74) The Chair desires to announce that
following adjournment tonight, Members are invited to attend a
joint party conference caucus for a briefing here in the Chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
74. Newt Gingrich (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationship to Speaker
Sec. 15.12 Pursuant to clause 3(a) of rule II,(75) the
Sergeant-at-Arms maintains order under the direction of the Speaker
or other presiding officer and not individual Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (2019)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 24, 2003,(76) a Member attempted to direct the
Sergeant-at-Arms to remove another Member from the floor (an authority
that lies only with the Speaker):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. 149 Cong. Rec. 15883, 108th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2544, THE MEDICAL INDEPENDENCE, PRIVACY AND INNOVATION ACT
OF 2003
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Scott] Garrett [of New Jersey]).
Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is recognized for the
remaining time until midnight as the designee of the majority
leader.
Mr. [Dana] ROHRABACHER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, before my
colleagues leave, let me just note that that quote from Newt
Gingrich that was bandied around earlier, we have seen that quote
used many times, and those of us who have been who have seen the
full quote know that that quote was taken out of context and often
Mr. Gingrich pointed that out as an example of the abuse of the
public trust by presenting something that was totally
misrepresented.
Mr. [Max] SANDLIN [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, I would not.
Mr. Speaker, I think I control the body. I have the floor.
Mr. SANDLIN. I am just asking if the gentleman would yield.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not yielded for a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would ask that the gentleman be removed from
the floor.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, Parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am reclaiming my time. I would
ask that the Sergeant at Arms remove the gentleman from the floor
if he insists on taking my time.
Mr. SANDLIN. I do not want the gentleman's time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would ask the Sergeant at Arms to remove him
from the floor if he continues to interrupt.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has not
yielded. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Custody of the Mace
Sec. 15.13 By unanimous consent, the House considered and adopted a
resolution authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to deliver the mace of
the House to the Smithsonian Institution for repairs during a
period of adjournment.
On July 27, 2006,(77) the following resolution was
considered and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. 152 Cong. Rec. 16167, 109th Cong. 2d Sess. For similar examples,
see 120 Cong. Rec. 35740, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 16, 1974);
130 Cong. Rec. 9514, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 12, 1984); 137
Cong. Rec. 21444, 102d Cong. 1st Sess. (Aug. 2, 1991); 138
Cong. Rec. 687-88, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Jan. 28, 1992); and 147
Cong. Rec. 15759, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. (Aug. 2, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] BOEHNER [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution
(H. Res. 957) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved,
SECTION 1. REPAIR OF MACE OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) Delivery for Repair.--The Sergeant at Arms of the House of
Representatives is authorized and directed, on behalf of the House of
Representatives, to deliver the mace of the House of Representatives,
following an adjournment of the House pursuant to concurrent resolution, to
the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution only for the purpose of having
necessary repairs made to the mace and under such circumstances as will
assure that the mace is properly safeguarded.
(b) Return.--The mace shall be returned to the House of Representatives
before noon on the day before the House next reconvenes pursuant to
concurrent resolution or at any sooner time when so directed by the Speaker
of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(78) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. Thomas Feeney (FL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 16. The Chaplain
The Chaplain of the House is a unique position within the House of
Representatives. The Chaplain is an elected officer of the House, but
unlike other officers, the Chaplain is chosen on a nonpartisan basis.
The Chaplain is also the only officer of the House mentioned in the
standing rule regarding the daily order of business: pursuant to clause
1 of rule XIV,(1) the first item of business on any
legislative day is the prayer offered by the Chaplain.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 869 (2019).
2. For the precedence of the prayer with respect to other matters, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 21 Sec. Sec. 2.1-2.3. See also
Sec. 16.8, infra and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. Sec. 21.1-21.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The role of the Chaplain is not specifically addressed by House
rules. Unlike other officers of the House, whose responsibilities are
addressed at length in the standing rules, the Chaplain has but one
duty: pursuant to clause 5 of rule II,(3) the Chaplain
``shall offer a prayer at the commencement of each day's sitting of the
House.'' While the rules are silent with respect to other
responsibilities, the Chaplain of the House is available to offer
spiritual and pastoral guidance to Members and staff, participates in a
variety of ceremonial functions,(4) and arranges for guest
chaplains to offer the opening prayer on certain days. The Chaplain is
considered a full-time employee of the House and thus receives a full-
time salary.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 665 (2019).
4. See, e.g., Deschler's Precedents Ch. 36 Sec. 6.1.
5. See Sec. 16.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
History
The House first appointed a ``Chaplain to Congress on the part of
the House'' on May 1, 1789.(6) The early practice of
Congress was for the House and Senate to each appoint a chaplain, and
the two chaplains would then rotate between the two
chambers.(7) During the 1850s, this tradition was
discontinued,(8) and by 1857 the practice of appointing a
chaplain at all was suspended.(9) In the 1860s, the House
once again established the position of Chaplain--this time as an
elected officer of the House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 1 Annals of Cong. 242, 1st Cong. 1st Sess.
7. Even by 1817, this weekly interchange of chaplains was described as
``in accordance with old custom.'' 1 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 275.
8. 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 277-279.
9. 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 274.
10. 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 273 (election of the Chaplain presents a
question of privilege).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election and Resignation
For over a century, the Chaplain has been chosen on a nonpartisan
basis. As described elsewhere,(11) the majority and minority
parties will each advance a slate of nominees for the various officer
positions of the House. The only exception is the position of Chaplain,
which is negotiated by the parties in advance so that the House can
express a unanimous choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 13, supra. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedurally, this unanimous nonpartisan vote on the Chaplain is
accomplished via a division of the question. A Member requests that the
resolution electing officers of the House be divided between the
Chaplain and the other officers. A vote is then taken on the election
of the Chaplain only (typically a voice vote, with no Member objecting
to the election). The remaining officers are then elected on a partisan
basis, with the minority party's slate of candidates (embodied in an
amendment in the nature of a substitute) rejected and the majority
party's slate of candidates chosen instead. Following his or her
election, the Chaplain is administered the oath of
office(12) taken by all officers of the
House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 3331.
13. But see 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 280 (early practice where the
Chaplain did not take the oath).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of the Chaplain may become vacant at any point during a
Congress, most often due to the resignation (or death) of the
Chaplain.(14) If the office becomes vacant, House leadership
will generally begin the process of selecting a new Chaplain, which
typically involves consultation with the minority party. The House then
elects a Chaplain to fill the vacancy via a simple House
resolution.(15) Pursuant to statute,(16) the
Speaker of the House may appoint a temporary Chaplain if the office
becomes vacant,(17) but only the House may fill the vacancy
on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 16.5, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37
Sec. 10.2.
15. See 157 Cong. Rec. 7885, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (May 25, 2011).
16. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501.
17. See Sec. 16.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resignation of the Chaplain is subject to acceptance by the
House, and, once accepted, the resignation cannot be
withdrawn.(18) The House has voted to give retiring
Chaplains the title of ``Chaplain Emeritus''--a unique designation
among elected House officers.(19) The House has authorized
compilations of the Chaplain's prayers to be printed for the
public.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Parliamentarian's Note: On one occasion, the Speaker prospectively
appointed the person who had resigned as Chaplain to fill the
vacancy caused by that person's prospective resignation. See
Sec. 16.3, infra. For a similar situation involving the
Sergeant-at-Arms, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 22.3.
19. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 31. For tributes to a retiring House
Chaplain, see Sec. 16.21, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 38 Sec. Sec. 5.18, 5.20.
20. See Sec. 16.20, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6
Sec. 21.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although other officers may be removed unilaterally by the Speaker
pursuant to clause 1 of rule II,(21) the Chaplain may not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest Chaplains
The Chaplain of the House frequently invites other religious
figures to offer the daily prayer at the commencement of a legislative
day. Often, it is a Member of the House who suggests and sponsors a
guest chaplain to perform this duty. The sponsoring Member is typically
recognized after the prayer to introduce the guest chaplain to the
House. A guest chaplain has accompanied the Chaplain on opening day of
a new Congress.(22) In the temporary absence of the
Chaplain, others have delivered the prayer, including Members and House
staff.(23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. See Sec. 16.13, infra. A Member-elect has also given the prayer on
opening day of a new Congress in lieu of the Chaplain. See
Sec. 16.15, infra.
23. See, e.g., Sec. Sec. 16.14-16.19, infra. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 21.7-21.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation
The constitutionality of legislative bodies employing a chaplain
has been the subject of litigation over the years, including litigation
involving the House Chaplain. In a 1983 Court of Appeals case, a
challenge was raised regarding the employment of a House Chaplain, but
the court held that such employment did not violate the Establishment
Clause of the first amendment to the Constitution.(24) In
response to the litigation, the House adopted a privileged resolution
articulating its position on the constitutionality of the Office of the
Chaplain.(25) A subsequent case involved an atheist who was
denied an opportunity to offer a secular invocation as guest chaplain.
The Federal court dismissed the lawsuit, stating that ``the legislative
prayer practice of the House is consistent'' with court decisions and
the rules of the House, and that the individual failed to state a
claim.(26)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Murray v. Buchanan, 720 F.2d 689 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The court cited
an earlier case regarding the legislature of Nebraska as
controlling authority. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783
(1983).
25. See H. Res. 413, 128 Cong. Rec. 5890, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 30,
1982).
26. Barker v. Conroy, 282 F. Supp. 3d 346 (D.D.C. 2017). This ruling
was affirmed at the appellate level. Barker v. Conroy, 921 F.3d
1118 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of the Chaplain
Sec. 16.1 The privileged resolution electing the officers of the House
is customarily divided so that the House may conduct a separate
vote on the election of the Chaplain.
On January 15, 1979,(27) there being no minority party
candidate for the position of Chaplain and the Chaplain having been
recommended by a bipartisan committee informally appointed by the
Speaker in the prior Congress, the following resolution was considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. 125 Cong. Rec. 6-7, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. For a typical resolution
electing House officers, see Sec. 13.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION OF CLERK OF THE HOUSE, SERGEANT AT ARMS, DOORKEEPER,
POSTMASTER, AND CHAPLAIN
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 1) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1
Resolved, That Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr., of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
be, and he is hereby, chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives;
That Kenneth R. Harding, of the Commonwealth of Virginia, be, and he is
hereby, chosen Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives;
That James T. Molloy, of the State of New York, be, and he is hereby,
chosen Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives;
That Robert V. Rota, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, be, and he is
hereby, chosen Postmaster of the House of Representatives.
That Reverend James David Ford, of the State of New York, be, and he is
hereby, chosen Chaplain of the House of Representatives.
Mr. [John] ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I shall offer a
substitute for the resolution just offered by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Foley), but before offering the substitute, I
request that there be a division of the question on the resolution
so that we may have a separate vote on the Office of Chaplain.
The SPEAKER.(28) The question is on agreeing to the
portion of the resolution providing for the election of the
Chaplain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That portion of the resolution was agreed
to. -------------------
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. EDWARDS OF ALABAMA AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR
THE REMAINDER OF THE RESOLUTION
Mr. [Jack] EDWARDS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the remainder of the resolution.
The Clerk read the substitute amendment, as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards of Alabama as a substitute for the
remainder of House Resolution 1:
Resolved, That Joe Bartlett, of the Commonwealth of Virginia, be, and he
is hereby, chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives;
That Walter P. Kennedy, of the State of New Jersey, be, and he is hereby,
chosen Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives;
That Tommy Lee Winebrenner, of the State of Indiana, be, and he is
hereby, chosen Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives;
That Ronald W. Lasch, of the State of New Jersey, be, and he is hereby,
chosen Postmaster of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the substitute amendment
offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Edwards).
The substitute amendment was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley).
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER. Will the officers elected present themselves in
the well of the House?
The officers-elect presented themselves at the bar of the House
and took the oath of office.
Sec. 16.2 The Speaker has risen from the floor to a question of
personal privilege under rule IX(29) in order to address
concerns regarding the process for selecting a new Chaplain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 23, 2000,(30) Speaker Dennis Hastert of
Illinois rose to a question of personal privilege regarding the
selection of a new Chaplain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. 146 Cong. Rec. 3478-82, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 146 Cong.
Rec. 1838, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 1, 2000) and 146 Cong.
Rec. 5460, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 12, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONAL PRIVILEGE--SELECTION OF HOUSE CHAPLAIN
Mr. [Dennis] HASTERT [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(31) Based on press accounts
examined by the Chair, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) is
recognized for 1 hour on a question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I come to this well today following a
long period of prayerful consideration. I want to talk to you about
the choice of our next Chaplain, a man whose job it is to ask God's
blessing on our work. . . .
Daniel Coughlin is a Catholic. That does not make him more nor
less qualified for the job. But I am proud of his historic
appointment. I hope his appointment will help us to heal and that
it will bring a sense of pride to the millions of Catholic men and
women around this country who have had legitimate feelings of past
discrimination which some in this House have sought to manipulate.
I urge all of my colleagues to get to know Father Coughlin. He
is a good man who will provide this House with spiritual guidance
and counseling support necessary to bring us together again. Let me
say to every leader of this House and to every Member of this
House: let us embrace our new Chaplain, put this episode behind us,
and move forward to do the people's business.
Prospective Appointment of the Chaplain
Sec. 16.3 The Chaplain may resign the position prospectively, and where
a vacancy exists in the Office of the Chaplain, the Speaker may,
pursuant to statute,(32) appoint a temporary replacement
prospectively.(33)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501.
33. Parliamentarian's Note: On April 16, 2018, a letter of prospective
resignation of Chaplain Patrick Conroy was laid before the
House and accepted by unanimous consent. Once the House has
accepted the letter of resignation of an officer, it cannot be
withdrawn. The letter stated a date of May 24, 2018 as the last
day of service by Chaplain Conroy, thus creating a prospective
vacancy in the Office of the Chaplain. On May 3, 2018, Chaplain
Conroy sent a letter directly to Speaker Paul Ryan of
Wisconsin, rescinding his resignation. Speaker Ryan then
announced that he would restore Chaplain Conroy to his post.
For resolutions presented as questions of privilege under rule
IX, calling for the creation of a select committee to
investigate the actions of the Speaker regarding the
resignation of the Chaplain, see H. Res. 856, 164 Cong. Rec.
H3726, H3727 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 27, 2018)
and H. Res. 878, 164 Cong. Rec. H3823, H3824 [Daily Ed.], 115th
Cong. 2d Sess. (May 8, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2018,(34) a letter of prospective
resignation from the Chaplain was laid before the House and accepted by
unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. See 164 Cong. Rec. H3329 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr.
16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION AS CHAPLAIN OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Clay] HIGGINS of Louisiana) laid
before the House the following resignation from the House of
Representatives:
Office of the Chaplain
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 15, 2018.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker, U.S. Capitol.
Dear Paul, the Peace of Christ! As you have requested, I hereby
offer my resignation as the 60th Chaplain of the United States
House of Representatives. It has been an honor to serve the
People's House for these nearly seven years. After mutual
consideration, it is determined my final day will be 24 May 2018.
The position is one which I did not seek nor strive to assume,
but I have seen it as a blessing and I have considered it one of
the great privileges of my life.
I wish all the best for the House of Representatives, and for
your upcoming search for a worthy successor in the Office of the
Chaplain.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Conroy, S.J.,
Chaplain.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.
Then on May 8, 2018,(35) pursuant to law,(36)
Speaker Paul Ryan prospectively appointed Father Patrick Conroy to
temporarily fill the vacancy of Chaplain of the House of
Representatives, effective Friday, May 25, 2018:(37)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. 164 Cong. Rec. 3787, 115th Cong. 2d Sess.
36. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501.
37. Parliamentarian's Note: The act of appointing a person to fill the
vacancy in the office of an elected officer created by that
person's resignation is documented in the precedents. On June
30, 1972, Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma appointed Zeake W.
Johnson, Jr. to fill the vacancy in the Office of the Sergeant-
at-Arms caused by Mr. Johnson's own resignation. See Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 22.3 and Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37
Sec. 9.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF CHAPLAIN OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER.(38) Pursuant to the provisions of
section 208(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2
U.S.C. 5501(a)), the Chair appoints Father Patrick J. Conroy of the
State of Oregon to act as and to exercise temporarily the duties of
Chaplain of the House of Representatives, effective Friday, May 25,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Paul Ryan (WI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Father Conroy please come forward and take the oath of
office.
Father Conroy appeared at the bar of the House and took the
oath of office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which you are about to enter, so help you God.
Retirement of the Chaplain
Sec. 16.4 The Speaker and the Minority Leader announced to the House
the retirement of the House Chaplain at the end of a Congress.
On October 14, 1978,(39) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. 124 Cong. Rec. 38090, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 12 o'clock noon.
The Chaplain, Rev. Edward O. Latch, D.D., offered the following
prayer:
Well done, good and faithful servant * * * enter into the joy
of your Lord.--Matthew 25:21. . .
. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER REGARDING RETIREMENT OF THE
CHAPLAIN, REV. EDWARD G. LATCH, D.D.
The SPEAKER.(40) May the Chair make reference to the
fact that Rev. Edward Latch, who has been the Chaplain of the House
for many years, and whose talents we have all appreciated, is
retiring at the end of the Congress and this very well may be his
last day here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of his colleagues and himself, the Chair wants to
state to Dr. Latch that we have enjoyed his beautiful prayers and
the manner in which he has conducted himself as an officer of the
House of Representatives and that our undying thanks, love, and
affection go with him as he leaves to take up a new life in
retirement. We hope that his retirement will be a period of great
happiness and contentment.
Without objection, all Members may revise and extend their
remarks on the subject of the retirement of Dr. Latch.
The Chair now recognizes the minority leader, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes).
Mr. [John] RHODES [of Arizona]. I appreciate the Speaker
yielding to me and I, too, want to join the Speaker and the other
Members of the House in extending our respects, our thanks, and our
best wishes to our well-beloved Chaplain. Dr. Latch. He has served
this House and its Members beyond the real capabilities of any
ordinary human being. We will miss him terribly but we wish him and
his good wife the best of everything as they go into their
retirement and assure them that they leave many friends behind in
the House of Representatives who hope to see them often in the
future.
So, God bless you, Dr.
Latch. -------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. May the Chair make the following announcement:
The leadership has known of Dr. Latch's retirement for some
time and about 4 or 5 months ago the Chair appointed a committee,
headed by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Mahon, as chairman, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright, and the gentleman from Arizona,
Mr. Rhodes, as members of that committee. The committee has been
diligent and yesterday they made their recommendation as to whom
they thought the incoming Chaplain should be, and their
recommendation will be presented at the caucuses on both sides when
they meet in December, to take effect the first of the year.
Resignation of the Chaplain
Sec. 16.5 The House may retroactively accept the resignation of the
Chaplain.
On May 25, 2011,(41) the following resignation of Fr.
Daniel Coughlin was retroactively accepted by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. 157 Cong. Rec. 7884-85, 112th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION AS CHAPLAIN OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
resignation from the House of Representatives:
Office of the Chaplain,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 15, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: During the past eleven years, it has been my
distinct honor to serve as Chaplain of the House of
Representatives. It has been a true blessing for me to come to know
you, Members of Congress through the years, and so many dedicated
Staff personnel who have come to the Capital to serve this nation
with their daily labor and sincerity of heart.
In my duties as Chaplain I have tried to be present to all and
listen to their needs. Hopefully I have offered them guidance when
sought, counsel when requested and strength in difficult times. I
have learned compassion for them and their families. My greatest
joy has been to lead people in the Chamber and across the nation in
prayer.
It is now time for me to retire. I hope you will accept my
resignation as Chaplain to be effective on Saturday, April 30,
2011.
I trust you will convey to all the Members of the House my
continued esteem for their efforts to shape laws and policies for
the common good of the American people and for a better and
peaceful world. I thank you and all for the kindness, patience and
friendship extended to me. Certainly I do remember all of you in my
daily prayer until the end of my days.
With gratitude to you and Almighty God,
Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin,
Chaplain.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(42) Without objection, the
resignation of Father Daniel P. Coughlin as Chaplain, effective
April 30, 2011, is accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. John Campbell (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Salary, Compensation
Sec. 16.6 By unanimous consent, the House considered and agreed to a
resolution establishing the salary of the Chaplain.
On January 15, 1979,(43) the following resolution was
adopted:(44)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. 125 Cong. Rec. 17, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. For statutory authority
regarding the compensation of the Chaplain, see 2 U.S.C.
Sec. 5521.
44. Parliamentarian's Note: This represented the first time that the
Chaplain of the House was to be compensated as a full-time
employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPENSATION OF CHAPLAIN OP THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. [James] WRIGHT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 7) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 7
Resolved, The compensation of the Chaplain of the House of
Representatives shall be equivalent to the highest rate of basic pay as in
effect from time to time of level IV of the Executive Schedule in section
5315 of title V, United States Code.
The SPEAKER.(45) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Offering of Prayer After Overnight Recess
Sec. 16.7 Pursuant to clause 5 of rule II,(46) the Chaplain
offers the prayer daily at the beginning of each legislative day,
and may also offer a prayer following an overnight recess of the
House.(47)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. Parliamentarian's Note: On returning from a recess of an overnight
duration or longer, the House sometimes resumes its proceedings
with a prayer and the pledge of allegiance. See, e.g., 141
Cong. Rec. 37310, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 18, 1995).
47. House Rules and Manual Sec. 665 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 20, 1974,(48) the Chaplain offered a prayer
at the expiration of an overnight recess:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. 120 Cong. Rec. 41772, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at 9 o'clock a.m., Friday, December 20, 1974.
The Chaplain, Rev. Edward G. Latch, D.D., offered the following
prayer:
Glory to God in the highest and on Earth peace, good will
toward men.--Luke 2:14.
O God, to whom glory is sung in the highest, while on Earth
peace is proclaimed to men of good will, grant that good will to us
that we may make a worthy contribution to the life of our day.
Sec. 16.8 Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
House stood in recess for over 24 hours, and upon reconvening to
continue the same legislative day, the Chaplain offered another
prayer.
On September 11, 2001,(49) the House convened as the
Capitol was being evacuated, and following the Chaplain's prayer, the
Chair declared the House in recess:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. 147 Cong. Rec. 16752, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 9
a.m. -------------------
AFTER RECESS
The House was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Goss) at 9 o'clock and 52 minutes a.m., thereby terminating the
recess.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(50) Due to the
circumstances of today, the Chair calls the House to order at this
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. Porter Goss (FL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The prayer will be offered by the guest
chaplain. -------------------
PRAYER
The Reverend Gerard Creedon, St. Charles Borromeo Catholic
Church, offered the following prayer:
God of peace and life, send Your spirit to heal our country;
bring consolation to all injured in today's tragedy in New York and
Washington. Protect us and help our leaders to lead us out of this
moment of crisis to a new day of peace.
Amen. -------------------
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will stand in recess subject
to the call of the Chair, pursuant to clause 12 of rule I.
Accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 53 minutes a.m.), the House stood
in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
On the calendar day of September 12, 2001,(51) the House
resumed its proceedings of the legislative day of September 11, 2001
with a prayer:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. 147 Cong. Rec. 16752, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order at 10
o'clock and 3 minutes
a.m. -------------------
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the
following prayer:
O God, come to our assistance.
O Lord, make haste to help us.
Yesterday we were stunned, angry and violated. Today, Lord, we
stand strong and together. Yesterday changed our world. Today we
are changed.
We have humbly prayed to You, O Lord God of Heaven and Earth,
yesterday and through the night. Now we turn to You for Your
guidance and sense of eternal truths which built this Nation as we
begin a new day of building security and peace through justice.
We mourn our dead and reach out with prayer and acts of
compassion to all those families splattered with blood and
exhausted by tears. Heal the wounded. Strengthen all civil
servants, medical and religious leaders as they attempt to fill the
gaping holes left in the fabric of our Nation.
Send forth Your Holy Spirit, Lord, upon all the Members of
Congress, the President, and all government leaders across this
Nation. Free them of fear, any prejudice whatsoever, remove all
doubt and confusion from their minds. With clear insight which
comes from You and You alone, reveal all that is unholy, and renew
the desire of Your people to lives of deepening faith, unbounding
commitment, and lasting freedom here where liberty has made her
home.
We place our trust in You now and forever. Amen.
Sec. 16.9 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated that
under the rules and precedents, the prayer is offered only at the
commencement of the legislative day or following a recess of the
House, and that the Chair would decline to recognize a unanimous-
consent request to conduct a prayer where the House remained in
continuous session.
On April 22, 1985,(52) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. 131 Cong. Rec. 8751, 8753-54, 8756, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE INDIANA ELECTION DISPUTE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(53) Without objection, the
gentleman from Florida is recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. Theodore Weiss (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Eugene] SHAW [of Florida]. I yield back to the gentleman
from Maine to continue his very fine statement.
Mr. [John] McKERNAN [of Maine]. I thank the gentleman from
Florida. I think it is important that we realize that we are not .
. .
Mr. [Andrew] JACOBS [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
I simply want the record to show that the opening prayer for
April 23, 1985, was scheduled to be given by the dean of Indiana
ministers, the Reverend Andrew Brown of Indianapolis. But because
of the all-night session, there will be historically no opening
prayer for the first day, and I am sure that particularly my House
of Representatives colleagues hope that Reverend Brown will return
on a subsequent date.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman that
I believe that the parliamentary situation would be that the
opening prayer could be called for at the opening of the session.
Mr. JACOBS. Unfortunately, that is not true. The
Parliamentarian has just ruled that it is impossible to have an
opening prayer unless there is an adjournment and then a convening
of the House.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. SHAW. Then, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair if he would
entertain a parliamentary inquiry. I think that by unanimous
consent I could yield to the gentleman from Indiana who is going to
give us the prayer. We certainly need that at this particular time,
and I can certainly say that the people of Indiana would be
grateful for that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. [Mr. Weiss]. The Chair will state that
if the House were to adjourn or recess by unanimous consent, then
there could be the opportunity and the occasion for prayer under
the rules and precedents, but as the situation prevails right now,
the House is in continuing session. This is still the same session
without interruption that commenced yesterday afternoon.
Mr. SHAW. Then, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that the
gentleman who is scheduled to give the opening prayer today would
be able to stay with us until the appropriate time when we could
adjourn.
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, then I have a further parliamentary
inquiry. I do not understand the difference between theory and
practice here. The fact is that we can modify our procedures by
unanimous consent, and I would assume that we would not have
objections.
Is the Chair ruling that if a unanimous-consent, request is
made, in fact the prayer could be delivered, and that we would not
have a problem then in proceeding forward from there? . . .
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would at this time ask unanimous
consent that the House recess for a period of 2 minutes for the
purpose of hearing the prayer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair really is under an
obligation to consult with the Speaker before that kind of decision
can be made, and the Chair would again repeat what was stated in
the dialog with the gentleman from Pennsylvania. There has been no
indication from the gentleman that this is in fact the termination
of non legislative business, and in order for the prayer request
even to be considered, the House should know that in fact it was
about to begin the normal legislative business process of the day.
Mr. SHAW. Then, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my unanimous-
consent request until the Chair asks permission of the Speaker for
the House to pray. . . .
Guest Chaplains
Sec. 16.10 The former House Chaplain has offered the opening prayer as
guest chaplain.
On April 27, 2015,(54) the following prayer was offered
by the former House Chaplain, Father Daniel Coughlin:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. 161 Cong. Rec. 5598, 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAYER
Reverend Daniel Coughlin, Archdiocese of Chicago, Chicago,
Illinois, offered the following prayer:
At the end of the day, God of the heavens and Earth You bid us
lay our worries, concerns, and responsibilities to rest.
While we sleep, You continue to care and provide for us. Your
creation, renewal of energy, and evolution of beauty and peace
continue without us.
Let it be, now and forever.
Amen.
Sec. 16.11 Where the invited guest chaplain had unexpectedly died, the
Speaker indicated that the prayer that was to be offered by the
guest chaplain would be given instead by the Chaplain.
On June 25, 1981,(55) the Speaker made the following
announcement regarding the prayer:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. 127 Cong. Rec. 14050, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 10 a.m.
The SPEAKER.(56) The opening prayer today was to be
given by Dr. Carroll Hubbard, Sr., father of our Congressman,
Carroll Hubbard of Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hubbard died in Louisville, Ky., on June 11. The prayers
and the solaces of the Members of the House go to our colleague,
Carroll Hubbard, and his family.
The prayer that Dr. Hubbard was to offer on this day will be
read by our own Chaplain.
Sec. 16.12 The Senate Chaplain has appeared as guest chaplain in the
House to offer the opening prayer.
On May 3, 2001,(57) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. 147 Cong. Rec. 7085, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAYER
Dr. Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Chaplain, U.S. Senate, offered the
following prayer:
Almighty God, on this National Day of Prayer, we join with
millions across our land in intercession and supplication to You,
the Sovereign Lord of the United States of America. As we sound
that sacred word Sovereign, we echo Washington, Jefferson, Madison
and Lincoln along with other leaders through the years, in
declaring that You are our ultimate ruler. We make a new commitment
to be one Nation under You, Dear God, and we place our trust in
You.
Sec. 16.13 At the beginning of a new Congress, the returning Chaplain
was accompanied by a guest chaplain at the behest of the incoming
Speaker.
On January 4, 2007,(58) the following two prayers were
offered at the commencement of the 110th Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. 153 Cong. Rec. 1, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This being the day fixed by the 20th amendment to the
Constitution of the United States and Public Law 109-447 for the
meeting of the Congress of the United States, the Members-elect of
the 110th Congress met in their Hall, and at noon were called to
order by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Hon. Karen L.
Haas.
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the
following prayer:
Today is built upon all the yesterdays and contains the promise
of all the tomorrows.
Lord God, You are the eternal author of all creation and every
age. You are the same yesterday, today and forever. Be present to
us now. Be gracious and bless all those duly elected by their
districts who gather today to form the House of the people as the
110th Congress of the United States of America for the governance
of our beloved Nation.
Together, may they know forthright debate and civil discourse,
enact quality legislation and persevere in representing the
diversity and the will of the people in addressing the priority
issues facing the Nation today.
Bless the families of these Representatives, granting them
forbearance and understanding of the public service implied by this
undertaking.
Lord, may the 110th Congress of the United States read the
signs of the times and seize this moment to create a history that
will reflect the values of Your kingdom here on Earth and thereby
unite this Nation and reveal to peoples around the world the
dignity and the glory of being the free children of God. For to You
be the honor, the glory and the power, now and forever. Amen.
At the request of the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, I am pleased to
introduce the Reverend Stephen A. Privett, President of the
University of San Francisco, for an additional prayer.
The Reverend Stephen A. Privett, President, University of San
Francisco, San Francisco, California, offered the following prayer:
I recall this morning the story of a poor mother of five
children. When she was asked which of her children she loved the
most, she did not answer the expected, ``I love them all the
same.'' Rather, she bent down and scooped up into her arms a young
child with obviously crippling disabilities. ``This one,'' she
said, ``because he needs me the most.''
Let us pray:
God of compassion and mercy, we pray that the new leadership of
this Congress and all of its Members will write into law the story
of a country that measures its success by God's standard; by how
well it cares for the weakest and most vulnerable among us.
We pray for the legislators of this 110th Congress, that they
may challenge, inspire and lead us to put aside self-interest and
pursue the common good of all the people of this great Nation of
ours, especially of those ``who need us the most.'' Amen.
Prayer Offered by Members or Staff
Sec. 16.14 A Member, who was an ordained minister, has offered the
opening prayer in the unexpected absence of the Chaplain.
On May 31, 1973,(59) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. 119 Cong. Rec. 17441, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 12 o'clock noon.
The Honorable William H. Hudnut III, of Indiana, offered the
following prayer:
This is the day which the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be
glad in it.
Let us pray.
Sec. 16.15 A Member-elect, who was an ordained minister, has offered
the prayer in lieu of the returning Chaplain on opening day of a
new Congress.
On January 3, 2019,(60) at the outset of the 116th
Congress, the prayer was offered by Emanuel Cleaver, a Member-elect
from Missouri:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. 165 Cong. Rec. H1 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This being the day fixed by the 20th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, for the meeting of the 116th
Congress of the United States, the Representatives-elect met in
their Hall, and at noon were called to order by the Clerk of the
House of Representatives, Hon. Karen L. Haas.
Reverend Emanuel Cleaver, St. James United Methodist Church,
Kansas City, Missouri, offered the following prayer:
Almighty and endearing God, whose Lordship is just and true, we
bow in recognition of that Godship in this hallowed and
consequential moment of inaugurating a Speaker to preside over and
provide leadership to the House of Representatives of the United
States.
May we temporarily hush our preoccupation with vexing
considerations that deplete our energy and consume our hours to
seek now favor from Thou whose immaculate voting record
demonstrates our need of Thy guidance.
We pray, O Lord, for wisdom sufficient to lean not on our
unaided privilege and power to embrace our summons to address the
great challenges of this day that are fraught with tribalism at
home and turbulence abroad.
Thou who has the whole world in His hand, to Thee we pray for
inner resources to rise as a legislative body above political
selfishness and then shrink to a level of humility and penitence
that would be in harmony with Your will.
When we leave this place, we will, with Your blessing, launch a
bold attempt to become the architects of a kindlier Nation that is
purging itself of any and all prejudices which degrade the
unmatched blessings You have awarded the people of this great
Nation.
Inspire us, the Members of this august body, to dedicate
ourselves to the healing of open sores in a land where there is far
too much mistrust and enmity of those who are different.
Led now in this temple of governance by the Speaker and leaders
of both sides of the political aisle, we pray for Your presence in
this place.
We need Thee every hour. O Lord, how we need thee. When we are
puzzled, guide us with Your hand of direction. When we are worn and
wearied, grant us light to find a just and fair way, and when we
are confused, anoint our priorities and pet projects so that any
diminutive success may give You the glory.
Receive now this prayer, O Lord.
Amen.
Sec. 16.16 An employee of the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms has
offered the daily prayer as a guest chaplain.
On November 11, 1977,(61) the guest chaplain (a member
of the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and ordained minister) referred
in his opening prayer the value of House rules and precedents:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. 123 Cong. Rec. 37512-13, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. Mr. Mallon also
offered the prayer on April 3, 1974. See 119 Cong. Rec. 9560,
93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAYER
Rev. Charles Mallon, St. Matthias Church, Lanham, Md., offered
the following prayer:
Happy are they whose way is blameless, who walk in the way of
the Lord. Happy are they who observe His decrees, who seek Him with
all their hearts.--Psalms 119:1, 2.
Father, you have given us authority to make rules and establish
precedents. This prayer is offered by virtue of these same rules
and precedents. Happily, our Government permits us to walk in your
ways and to seek you with all our hearts. Therefore, we ask you to
grant harmonious continuity to this Government.
Bless those national leaders who observe Your decrees and who
make blameless decisions. Keep them close to your heart.
Father, give us the wisdom to use the wealth of this Nation
wisely. Protect us from selfish and greedy acquisition of material
wealth. Intercede in our lives with gentle chastisement and bring
happiness into our lives.
We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Sec. 16.17 On a day when the Chaplain was unable to attend the
convening of the House, a Member who was not an ordained minister
was recognized by the Speaker to offer the prayer.
On January 26, 1987,(62) because the Chaplain was unable
to attend the session of the House due to inclement weather, the
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. 133 Cong. Rec. 1918, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 12 noon.
The gentleman from Georgia, the Honorable Doug Barnard, Jr.,
offered the following prayer:
Almighty God, source of wisdom and power, we give thanks for
Your blessing to us as individuals and as a nation.
We are grateful for the high and holy traditions of generations
past, for those eternal values that have given us purpose and
direction in spite of confusion and doubt. We are conscious that
Your creative handiwork is the basis of all we hold dear, that our
Nation from the beginning has professed that we are a people under
Your divine guidance and in Your Word we could trust. May we
continue that awareness as we seek to serve You and our Nation in
our time and day. Amen.
Sec. 16.18 A committee staffer who was an ordained minister has offered
the prayer as guest chaplain.
On July 2, 1992,(63) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. 138 Cong. Rec. 17551, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 10:30 a.m.
Rev. Ronald C. Willis, Southern Baptist minister, Washington,
DC, offered the following prayer:
Our Father, all of us who serve and work here do so with a deep
sense of our need for divine guidance and direction. And so we ask
that You keep us from demanding of others that which we ourselves
would be unwilling to give. Keep us from the pride that leads to
self-deceit. Give us the strength to do that which transcends our
own temporal concerns. Help us to understand that none of this
exists without Your will as the guiding force. And most of all, O
Holy Father, forgive us when we fail to recognize how much we
depend on Your spirit to lead us in the direction that brings
justice and righteousness to all our Nation's people. We pray these
things, this day. Amen. . . .
Mr. [Ronald] DELLUMS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, since March
1979, Reverend Willis has served on the staff of the District of
Columbia Committee and presently holds the position of senior staff
associate. During his tenure on the District of Columbia Committee,
he has been the principle staff person for legislation transferring
St. Elizabeth's Hospital from Federal control to that of the
government of the District of Columbia; the 1989 Omnibus Drug
Program, which resulted in an increase of 700 additional police
officers for the Metropolitan Police Department, as well as eight
additional superior court judges; and most recently, legislation
which amended the 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act to
establish a fair and equitable Federal payment formula for
determining the annual Federal payment to the District of Columbia.
Prior to his appointment to the District of Columbia Committee
staff, Reverend Willis served as adult supervisor for the Southwest
Mental Health Care in San Antonio, TX.
Reverend Willis was ordained in 1967 and served as senior
pastor of Golden Gate Baptist Church in Oakland, CA; senior pastor
of Immanuel Baptist Church, Bangor, ME; and associate pastor of
First Baptist Church of San Antonio, TX, which had a membership of
8,900.
A native Californian, Reverend Willis is married and the father
of four children.
Sec. 16.19 In the absence of the Chaplain, the Deputy Parliamentarian
has offered the daily prayer at the beginning of the legislative
day.
On August 5, 2011,(64) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. 157 Cong. Rec. 12891, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. For another instance of
the Deputy Parliamentarian offering the prayer, see 164 Cong.
Rec. H9513 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 2d Sess. (Nov. 14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAYER
The Deputy Parliamentarian, Thomas J. Wickham, offered the
following prayer:
Almighty God, who has given us this good land for our heritage,
we humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people
mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with
honorable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Amen.
Printing of Prayers
Sec. 16.20 The House has authorized the printing of the prayers of the
Chaplain as an official House document.
On December 18, 1974,(65) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. 120 Cong. Rec. 40864, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. See also H. Doc. 93-417,
93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRINTING AS A HOUSE DOCUMENT THE PRAYERS OF THE CHAPLAIN
Mr. [Leslie] ARENDS [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I call up the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 693) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:
H. Con. Res. 693
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That
the prayers offered by the Chaplain, the Reverend Edward Gardiner Latch,
D.D., L.H.D., at the opening of the daily sessions of the House of
Representatives of the United States during the Ninety-second and Ninety-
third Congresses, be printed, with appropriate illustration, as a House
document, and that three thousand additional copies be printed and bound
for the use of the House of Representatives, to be distributed by the
Chaplain of the House of Representatives.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
``Chaplain Emeritus'' Designations
Sec. 16.21 By unanimous consent, the House considered and adopted a
resolution conferring the title of ``Chaplain Emeritus'' upon the
retiring House Chaplain.(66)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. Parliamentarian's Note: Reverend Ford served the House as Chaplain
for 20 years. For previous instances where the House conferred
the title of ``Chaplain Emeritus'' to retiring Chaplains, see 6
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 31 and 96 Cong. Rec. 1095, 81st Cong.
2d Sess. (Jan. 30, 1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 1999,(67) the following appointment of
Reverend James David Ford as ``Chaplain Emeritus'' occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. 145 Cong. Rec. 29493-96, 106th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTING REVEREND DR. JAMES DAVID FORD AS CHAPLAIN EMERITUS
OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. [Thomas] PETRI [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, I call up the
resolution, (H. Res. 373) that immediately following his
resignation as Chaplain of the House of Representatives and in
recognition of the length of his devoted service to the House,
Reverend James David Ford be, and he is hereby, appointed Chaplain
Emeritus of the House of Representatives, and ask unanimous consent
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution. . . .
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is offered in
appreciation and thanks for the 20 years of service to the House,
its Members, and its employees by our colleague and friend, the
Chaplain of the House, the Reverend James David Ford; and I urge
its adoption. . . .
Mr. [Dennis] HASTERT [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Dr. Ford and his devoted
service to this House. He is a man of this House. He is a
colleague. He is a friend. He is a counselor.
He has touched the lives of many Members in countless ways. He
has married us. He has kept marriages together. He has baptized our
children. He has visited us in the hospital. He has been with our
families as we bid farewell to our beloved colleagues. And, very
simply, he has been there when we needed him. He has made us laugh
when we did not think we could, and he has made us introspective
when we wanted to look elsewhere.
For me personally and the entire House, he was there that
tragic day a little over a year ago when a gunman changed our lives
in this House forever. He was there for the fallen heroes. He was
there for their families. He was there for those of us who knew
them well and whose lives were saved by their heroic actions. For
that, I will be forever grateful.
Dr. Ford is not allowed to speak on the House floor, and we are
not about to break that tradition, even for an emeritus chaplain.
But I think it fitting on this occasion to quote him from his
charge to the Chaplain Search Committee.
I have been honored to have served you as Chaplain for nearly
20 years, and I leave with deep appreciation for the vital work of
the Congress and the people who serve this place so faithfully. I
continue with enthusiastic support for this institution, our
democracy, and with a sense of thanksgiving for the opportunities
that I have been given.
Thank you, Dr. Ford, and may God bless you in the years ahead.
Mrs. [Lois] CAPPS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, further
reserving the right to object, I am very happy to yield to my
colleague the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior). . . .
Mr. [James] TRAFICANT [of Ohio]. I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
I did not plan to say a few words. We all love Dr. Ford, but I
am worried for him. As the gentleman from Minnesota talked about,
that just is not a one-man plane; that is a small plane with a lawn
mower engine. He puts on his helmet, looks like he is right out of
Buck Rogers, gets on a Harley Davidson motorcycle, revs it up so
you could hear those exhausts, and passes people up speeding down
the road.
I am concerned about him with all this free time.
So I think we all better say a collective prayer for a man
whose collective prayers have helped an awful lot of us. Godspeed.
. . .
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time for allowing us
to celebrate the life of our Chaplain, Jim Ford, and I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]). Is
there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 373
Resolved, That immediately following his resignation as Chaplain of the
House of Representatives and in recognition of the length of his devoted
service to the House, Reverend James David Ford be, and he is hereby,
appointed Chaplain Emeritus of the House of Representatives.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 16.22 The Chaplain has offered a prayer mourning the death of the
Chaplain Emeritus of the House.
On September 5, 2001,(68) the Chaplain's prayer
referenced the death of both a former Member of the House and a former
Chaplain of the House who had been designated ``Chaplain Emeritus:''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. 147 Cong. Rec. 16380, 107th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House met at 2 p.m.
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the
following prayer:
God of our forebears in faith, and ever-present Lord of life,
Be with us as we begin this fall session of the 107th Congress.
. . .
Grant eternal peace to former Member, The Honorable Floyd
Davidson Spence, and former Chaplain, Dr. James David Ford, who
died since our last gathering. May their families and friends be
surrounded with the consolation and peace which You alone can
offer.
May all Americans catch a glimpse of Your glory that they may
risk everything to bring about Your Kingdom of truth, justice and
love now and forever.
Amen.
Sec. 17. The Chief Administrative Officer
The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is an elected officer of the
House. The position was created at the beginning of the 104th Congress,
replacing a similar, non-elective position known as the Director of
Non-Legislative and Financial Services.(1) As indicated by
the position's title, the CAO is primarily an administrative position,
and, pursuant to clause 4(a) of rule II,(2) is responsible
for ``operational and financial functions of the House'' as assigned by
the Committee on House Administration.(3) The duties of the
CAO encompass a variety of managerial tasks, including: administering
payroll and benefits for Members and employees of the House; providing
furniture and equipment for offices; acquiring goods and services;
managing information technology; supervising the media galleries for
coverage of House proceedings; and overseeing the House Recording
Studio. The CAO is ``subject to the policy direction and oversight of
the Committee on House Administration.''(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 664 (2019). Prior to the creation of
the Office of the CAO, administrative duties of the House were
undertaken by variety of different officers at different times
in the House's history. The new office consolidated various
functions previously performed by the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms,
Postmaster, or Doorkeeper. For more on these positions see
Sec. Sec. 13-16, supra.
2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 661 (2019).
3. Id.
4. The ``policy direction'' facet of the rule was eliminated in the
107th Congress, but reinstated in the 114th Congress. See House
Rules and Manual Sec. 661 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 4(b) of rule II,(5) the CAO is
required to submit semi-annual reports to the Committee on House
Administration regarding the ``financial and operational status'' of
each function that falls within the CAO's jurisdiction. Administrative
and financial records of House offices are reviewed and audited by the
CAO pursuant to clause 4(c) of rule II.(6) Further, clause
4(d) of rule II(7) authorizes the CAO to deduct certain
fines levied by the Sergeant-at-Arms from the salary of Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 662 (2019).
6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 663 (2019).
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 663a (2019). Under clause 3(g) of rule
II, the Sergeant-at-Arms is authorized to levy fines against
Members who use electronic devices on the House floor for
improper audio or visual recording or broadcasting of House
proceedings. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 660a (2019). For
more on this authority, see Sec. 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAO is elected on opening day of a new Congress via the
resolution electing all of the officers of the House.(8) As
an officer of the House, the CAO takes the oath of office(9)
upon election.(10) In the case of a vacancy in the Office of
the CAO (due to the death, removal, or resignation of the individual
holding the office), the Speaker is authorized by
statute(11) to appoint a temporary
replacement.(12) In one instance, the House created a
vacancy in the Office of the CAO on opening day of the 105th Congress
by adopting a resolution electing officers of the House but not naming
an individual to the position of CAO.(13) The CAO may be
removed from office by the Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule
II,(14) and such removal may be prospective.(15)
To fill a vacancy in the Office of the CAO on a permanent basis, the
House must adopt a resolution electing a new individual to the
position.(16) The CAO may resign from the
position,(17) and such resignation may be
prospective.(18) Pursuant to statute,(19) the CAO
designates deputy CAOs to perform the duties of the office in the
temporary absence of the CAO.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. 13, supra. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 1 Sec. 5.1
and Sec. 17.1, infra. The House may also elect a CAO
prospectively. See Sec. 17.2, infra.
9. See Sec. 13, supra. See also Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 2 Sec. 1 and
Sec. Sec. 17.1, 17.2, infra.
10. Parliamentarian's Note: Normally, the oath of office is
administered immediately following the officer's election by
the House. However, the oath may be administered prospectively
if the effective date of the election is in the future. See
Sec. 17.2, infra. For a similar example, where the oath of
office was administered to the Postmaster in advance of the
electing resolution's effective date, see 118 Cong. Rec. 22387,
92d Cong. 2d Sess. (June 26, 1972). The oath of office is also
administered to a temporary CAO appointed by the Speaker
pursuant to statute. See Sec. Sec. 17.3, 17.7, infra.
11. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501.
12. See Sec. Sec. 17.3, 17.7, infra.
13. See Sec. 17.7, infra.
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
15. See Sec. 17.5, infra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 17.1, 17.2, infra.
17. See Sec. 17.3, infra.
18. See Sec. 17.4, infra.
19. P.L. 110-5, 120 Stat. 1311.
20. See Sec. 17.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election of the CAO
Sec. 17.1 The Chief Administrative Officer of the House is an elected
officer whose election proceeds by the adoption of a privileged
resolution naming an individual to the position.
The Chief Administrative Officer is typically elected on opening
day of a new Congress along with the other elected officers of the
House. However, if a vacancy occurs during a Congress,(21)
the House adopts a privileged resolution to fill the vacancy, as
occurred on July 31, 1997:(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker may also fill such a vacancy on
a temporary basis pursuant to statute. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501. See
Sec. Sec. 17.3, 17.7, infra.
22. 143 Cong. Rec. 17021, 17023, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Mr. [John] BOEHNER [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 207) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(23) The resolution
constitutes a question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 207
Resolved, That James M. Eagen, III, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
be, and he is hereby, chosen Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner]
and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. . . .
Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me close this
discussion by also congratulating the Acting CAO, Jeff Trandahl.
Jeff is a valued employee of the House, and he worked for Pat
Roberts for many years, and he worked for the Committee on
Agriculture and then worked in the Clerk's office over the last 2
years before taking over this temporary assignment. And I think the
best tribute to Jeff over the last 6 months, 7 months or so, is
that we have not heard one word about the Acting CAO for this
period of time that he has been there, and he has done, I think, a
marvelous job running the organization, and with that I look
forward to the dawning of our new CAO, Jay Eagen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 17.2 The Chief Administrative Officer may be elected
prospectively.(24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Parliamentarian's Note: The previous Chief Administrative Officer,
Will Plaster was appointed to act as CAO on December 16, 2015
(see Sec. 17.5, infra) and was set to resign on August 1, 2016.
The House was not expected to be in session that day, hence the
need for this prospective election to fill the vacancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 13, 2016,(25) the House adopted a privileged
resolution electing Philip George Kiko to the position of Chief
Administrative Officer on a future date:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 162 Cong. Rec. H4843 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 2d Sess. For another
prospective election of a CAO, see 153 Cong. Rec. 3156-60,
110th Cong. 1st Sess. (Feb. 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTING THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Mrs. [Cathy] McMORRIS RODGERS [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 826
Resolved, That Philip George Kiko of the State of Ohio, be, and is
hereby, chosen Chief Administrative Officer of the House Representatives,
effective August 1, 2016.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER.(26) Will the Chief Administrative
Officer-designate please take the well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Paul Ryan (WI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will now administer the oath of office to the Chief
Administrative Officer.
Mr. Kiko appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath of
office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.
The SPEAKER. Congratulations, Mr. Kiko.
Resignation of the CAO
Sec. 17.3 An individual serving as Chief Administrative Officer may
resign the position, and such resignation is subject to acceptance
by the House.
On July 15, 2010,(27) the House accepted the resignation
of Daniel P. Beard, Chief Administrative Officer:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. 156 Cong. Rec. 13110-11, 111th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives:
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 1, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: I'm writing to tender my resignation as
Chief Administrative Officer for the U.S. House of Representatives
effective July 18, 2010.
It has been a distinct honor and privilege to serve you and
House in this position over the past three and one-half years. I
believe we have made substantial strides to make House operations
more sustainable, provide Members and staff with improved benefits,
and provide the House community with a safer and more secure
information technology system.
I will always be grateful to you for giving me this opportunity
to serve this wonderful institution. I also want to thank you for
your personal support.
With warmest best regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Daniel P. Beard.
The SPEAKER.(28) Without objection, the resignation
is accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Nancy Pelosi (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 17.4 An individual serving as Chief Administrative Officer may
resign the office prospectively.(29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Parliamentarian's Note: The resignation of the CAO occurred between
sessions of Congress. Although Mr. Strodel's letter was dated
November 1, 2013, it was not laid down until after its
effective date (Jan. 6, 2014). This was the first legislative
day after that date. For an example of a resignation of a CAO
that was accepted by the House prospectively, see Sec. 17.3,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2014,(30) the following resignation was
accepted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. 160 Cong. Rec. 91, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. For a similar prospective
resignation of a CAO, see 153 Cong. Rec. 3156, 110th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Feb. 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives:
Chief Administrative Officer,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 1, 2013.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you of my intent
to resign as Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) effective at the
close of business on January 6, 2014.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve you and the U.S. House
of Representatives. Over the course of my 28 years as a staff
member, I have developed a deep respect and reverence for the
institution and, in particular, the Members and staff whose
dedication and commitment to service make it an exciting, vibrant,
and interactive community.
Additionally, I want to thank Ed Cassidy of your staff for his
leadership, direction and support as Director of House Operations.
He has done a tremendous job instilling and fostering a culture of
collaboration and coordination within and among the institutional
entities that support the House.
Finally, I want to thank my colleagues in the Office of the CAO
and all the other institutional offices whose non-partisan
professionalism serve as a model of excellence for other
legislative bodies.
I will work with my successor as needed to ensure a smooth
transition.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Strodel.
The SPEAKER.(31) Without objection, the resignation
is accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. John Boehner (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Removal of the CAO
Sec. 17.5 Pursuant to clause 1 of rule II,(32) the Speaker
may remove the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, and such
removal may be prospective.(33)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. House Rules and Manual Sec. 640 (2019).
33. Parliamentarian's Note: This was the first exercise of removal
authority by the Speaker of an elected officer of the House
under clause 1 of rule II. House Rules and Manual Sec. 640
(2019). The Speaker may remove an elected officer
prospectively. As depicted below, the CAO (Ed Cassidy)
indicated an intention to resign, but did not provide an
effective date of the resignation. In order to establish a
specific date on which Mr. Cassidy would no longer be CAO, the
Speaker utilized his removal authority to declare the office
vacant on a particular date, and appoint a replacement on the
same day. For the eventual election of Philip Kiko as CAO, see
Sec. 17.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 2015,(34) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. 161 Cong. Rec. H9332 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REMOVAL AND APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 2, 2015.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan: I am writing to advise you of my intention
to retire from federal service in early 2016. Accordingly, I hereby
resign as Chief Administrative Officer of the House effective upon
the election of my successor, or as you otherwise direct.
It has been a high honor and distinct privilege to serve you
and your colleagues, past and present, since the 1970's; and
especially so, to serve alongside the extraordinarily dedicated men
and women in the Office of the CAO during the 113th and 114th
Congresses.
In order to ensure a seamless transition, I am pleased that
Clerk of the House Karen Haas has graciously detailed to my office
Mr. Will Plaster, a senior member of her staff, to serve on an
interim basis as Deputy Chief Administrative Officer.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate more than words can adequately convey
the priceless opportunities afforded me throughout my career to
serve this magnificent--and uniquely American--institution we call
the people's House.
I congratulate you on your election as Speaker, and wish you
all the best in the challenging days ahead.
Sincerely,
Ed Cassidy.
Appointment of the CAO
Sec. 17.6 Pursuant to statute,(35) the Speaker may appoint a
Chief Administrative Officer of the House on a temporary
basis(36) if there occurs a vacancy in the office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501.
36. Parliamentarian's Note: An individual appointed under statute may
``exercise temporarily the duties'' of the Office of the CAO. 2
U.S.C. Sec. 5501. In order to fill the vacancy on a permanent
basis, the House must adopt a resolution electing the CAO. In
this instance, the temporary appointed CAO served for the
remainder of the Congress, and was elected to the position by
resolution on opening day of the following Congress. See H.
Res. 1, 157 Cong. Rec. 79, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 15, 2010,(37) following the resignation of the
CAO, the Speaker exercised statutory authority to appoint a temporary
CAO:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. 156 Cong. Rec. 13111, 111th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
The SPEAKER.(38) Pursuant to the provisions of
section 208(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the
Chair appoints Daniel J. Strodel of the District of Columbia to act
as and to exercise temporarily the duties of Chief Administrative
Officer of the House of Representatives, effective July 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Nancy Pelosi (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Strodel appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath
of office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.
The SPEAKER. Congratulations.
Vacancy at the Beginning of a Congress
Sec. 17.7 The House has created a vacancy in the Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer (CAO) by adopting a resolution on the
opening day of a new Congress electing officers of the House, but
not naming an individual to the position of CAO.(39)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Parliamentarian's Note: The majority party caucus did not recommend
an individual for the position of CAO, allowing the position to
be filled temporarily by the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 1997,(40) the resolution electing officers
of the House did not include a named individual to the position of CAO,
thus creating a vacancy in the office:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. 143 Cong. Rec. 120, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION OF CLERK OF THE HOUSE, SERGEANT AT ARMS, AND CHAPLAIN
Mr. [John] BOEHNER [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 1) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1
Resolved, That Robin H. Carle, of the Commonwealth of Virginia, be, and
she is hereby chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives:
That Wilson S. Livingood, of the Commonwealth of Virginia, be, and he is
hereby, chosen Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives; and
That Reverend James David Ford of the Commonwealth of Virginia, be, and
he is hereby, chosen Chaplain of the House of Representatives.
Mr. [Victor] FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I have an
amendment to the resolution, but before offering the amendment, I
request that there be a division of the question on the resolution
so that we may have a separate vote on the Chaplain.
The SPEAKER.(41) The question will be divided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Newt Gingrich (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on agreeing to that portion of the resolution
providing for the election of the Chaplain.
That portion of the resolution was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. fazio of california
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to
the remainder of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Boehner].
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio of California:
That Marti Thomas, of the District of Columbia, be, and she is hereby,
chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives;
That Sharon Daniels, of the State of Maryland, be, and she is hereby,
chosen Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives; and
That Steve Elmendorf, of the District of Columbia, be, and he is hereby,
chosen Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
The amendment was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the remainder of the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
The remainder of the resolution was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. Will the officers-elect present themselves in the
well of the House?
The officers-elect presented themselves at the bar of the House
and took the oath of office as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,
and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which you are about to enter. So help you God.
The SPEAKER. Congratulations. You have been sworn in as
officers of the House.
On January 9, 1997,(42) the Speaker temporarily filled
the vacancy in the Office of the CAO by exercising statutory
appointment authority:(43)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. 143 Cong. Rec. 279, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. On July 31, 1997, the
House adopted a resolution to fill the vacancy on a permanent
basis. See Sec. 17.1, supra.
43. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501. At the time of these proceedings, this
statutory provision was found at 2 U.S.C. Sec. 75a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER.(44) Pursuant to the provisions of
section 208(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2
U.S.C. Sec. 75a-1), the Chair appoints Jeff Trandahl of Virginia to
act as and to exercise temporarily the duties of Chief
Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Newt Gingrich (GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Trandahl appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath
of office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,
and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which you are about to enter. So help you God.
Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
Sec. 17.8 Pursuant to law,(45) the Chief Administrative
Officer (CAO) designates deputies to act in the CAO's stead in the
event of the CAO's death, resignation, separation from office, or
disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. P.L. 110-5, 121 Stat. 8. In the 110th Congress, section 20702(b) of
House Joint Resolution 20 enacted by reference section 103 of
H.R. 5521 (passed by the House in the 109th Congress). See 152
Cong. Rec. 10203, 10230-31, 109th Cong. 2d Sess. (June 7, 2006)
and 153 Cong. Rec. 2729, 2763-64, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan.
31, 2007)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 10, 2008,(46) the following communication was
laid before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. 154 Cong. Rec. 12034, 110th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE
HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives:
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Sec. 20702(b) of H.J. Res. 20,
P.L. 110-5, I am notifying the House that I am designating Ali
Qureshi, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Operations and
Walter Edwards, Deputy CAO for Customer Solutions to act in my
stead in the event of my death, resignation, separation from office
or disability until a Chief Administrative Officer is appointed
pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5501.
Sincerely,
Daniel P. Beard.
D. Other House Officials and Capitol Employees
Sec. 18. The Parliamentarian
The Parliamentarian of the House is a nonpartisan official
appointed by the Speaker to provide impartial guidance on House rules,
precedents, and customs. Prior to the advent of the position of
Parliamentarian, a ``Clerk at the Speaker's table'' performed a similar
role, advising the presiding officer as to proper parliamentary
procedure.(1) In the 69th Congress in 1927, the official
became formally known as the Parliamentarian of the
House.(2) In the 95th Congress, the House formally
established an Office of the Parliamentarian in law.(3) The
office consists of the Parliamentarian, the Deputy Parliamentarian, and
other attorneys, clerks, and IT support professionals. The Office of
the Parliamentarian provides procedural guidance to the Speaker, House
leadership, Members, committees, and staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An even earlier position, known as the ``Messenger to the Speaker''
dates back to at least the 34th Congress in 1857. See https://
history.house.gov/People/Office/Parliamentarians/ (last visited
Oct. 24, 2019).
2. 68 Cong. Rec. 2622-23, 69th Cong. 2d Sess. (Jan. 31, 1927). Since
the 69th Congress, there have been six individuals appointed as
Parliamentarian of the House: Lehr Fess (1919-1928), Lewis
Deschler (1928-1974), William Holmes Brown (1974-1994), Charles
W. Johnson, III (1994-2004), John V. Sullivan (2004-2012), and
Thomas J. Wickham, Jr. (2012- ).
3. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 287. See Sec. 18.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Parliamentarian has a wide variety of duties both on and off
the floor of the House. Whenever the House is in session, the
Parliamentarian is present on the floor and sits or stands to the right
of the Chair. From that position, the Parliamentarian advises the
presiding officer in real time as to the current parliamentary
situation and provides guidance for the orderly conduct of
deliberations. The Parliamentarian also assists the various employees
of the Clerk's Office at the rostrum with such tasks as: conducting
votes; processing bills for referral to committee; filing committee
reports; etc. The Parliamentarian works with the Official Reporters of
Debate and Journal Clerks to ensure that procedural statements issued
by the Chair and other proceedings are correctly depicted in the
Congressional Record and Journal. Clerks to the Parliamentarian are
positioned to the left of the Chair, and are primarily charged with
timekeeping duties and other administrative tasks.
The Speaker's authority to refer bills and resolutions to committee
has traditionally been delegated to the Parliamentarian, who researches
prior referrals and arbitrates jurisdictional disputes among committees
of the House.(4) The Parliamentarian's Office works closely
with the Committee on Rules on special orders of business and reviews
possible amendments for compliance with House rules (such as
germaneness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. For the referral process generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
16 Sec. 3 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 16. The Office of the
Parliamentarian is also tasked with referring executive
communications, petitions, and memorials to the appropriate
committees of jurisdiction. See Rule XII, clause 8, House Rules
and Manual Sec. 827 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of the Parliamentarian publishes a number of
parliamentary texts for use by the House. The primary text is the House
Rules and Manual, which contains the annotated standing rules of the
House, as well as Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice and the
Constitution.(5) A secondary text, known as House Practice:
A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House, provides
an overview of parliamentary practice in the House, divided by subject
matter.(6) A subsidiary Office of the Parliamentarian, known
as the Office of Compilation of the Precedents, analyzes and compiles
the procedural rulings of the House of Representatives for publication.
This office was initially authorized in the 93d Congress by the
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974.(7) The printing and the
distribution of these volumes of precedents has also been authorized by
law.(8) In 2013, the office completed publication of the
Deschler's Precedents series. An updated series, known as the
Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives series began in
2018.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 5 Sec. 2.1.
6. The publication of this volume is authorized by statute. See 2
U.S.C. Sec. 29.
7. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 28a.
8. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 28, 28b-e, 29.
9. Since 1907, the House has published four precedents series. Hinds'
Precedents covers precedents from 1789-1907. Cannon's
Precedents covers precedents from 1907-1936. Deschler's
Precedents, and its subsequent mastheads of Deschler-Brown,
Deschler-Brown-Johnson, and Deschler-Brown-Johnson-Sullivan
Precedents, cover precedents from 1936-2013 (depending on the
volume's date of publication). The fourth series, Precedents of
the U.S. House of Representatives (cited as Precedents
(Wickham)), saw its first volume published in 2018, and covers
precedents from 1973 to opening day of the 115th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a Parliamentarian resigns the position,(10) the
Speaker appoints a new Parliamentarian without regard to political
affiliation.(11) Since 1927, every retiring Parliamentarian
has been succeeded by another member of the office, thus ensuring the
retention of institutional knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 18.2, infra. See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37
Sec. 10.
11. See Sec. 18.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creation of Office
Sec. 18.1 By unanimous consent, the House considered and adopted a
resolution formally establishing in the House an Office of the
Parliamentarian.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The resolution was enacted into permanent law by P.L. 95-94, 91
Stat. 653. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 287.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 1977,(13) a resolution establishing the
Office of the Parliamentarian (to be supervised by a nonpartisan
Parliamentarian appointed by the Speaker) was considered and adopted as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 11415, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. See also House Rules and
Manual Sec. 1122 (2019) and 2 U.S.C. Sec. 287.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF PARLIAMENTARIAN OF HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. [James] WRIGHT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk
a resolution (H. Res. 502) and ask unanimous consent for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER.(14) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 502
Resolved,
ESTABLISHMENT
Section 1. There is hereby established in the House of Representatives an
office to be known as the Office of the Parliamentarian, hereinafter in the
resolution referred to as the ``Office''.
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Sec. 2. The management, supervision, and administration of the Office
shall be vested in the Parliamentarian, who shall be appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives without regard to political
affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of the
position. Any person so appointed shall serve at the pleasure of the
Speaker.
STAFF
Sec. 3. (a) With the approval of the Speaker or in accordance with
policies and procedures approved by the Speaker, the Parliamentarian shall
appoint such attorneys and other employees as may be necessary for the
prompt and efficient performance of the functions of the Office. Any such
appointment shall be made without regard to political affiliation and
solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of the position. Any
person so appointed may be removed by the Parliamentarian with the approval
of the Speaker, or in accordance with policies and procedures approved by
the Speaker.
(b) (1) One of the attorneys appointed under subsection (a) shall be
designated by the Parliamentarian as Deputy Parliamentarian. During the
absence or disability of the Parliamentarian, or when the office is vacant,
the Deputy Parliamentarian shall perform the functions of the
Parliamentarian.
(2) The Parliamentarian may delegate to the Deputy Parliamentarian and to
other employees appointed under subsection (a) such of the functions of the
Parliamentarian as the Parliamentarian considers necessary or appropriate.
COMPENSATION
Sec. 4. (a) The Parliamentarian shall be paid at a per annum gross rate
established by the Speaker but not in excess of the rate of basic pay
determined from time to time under subsection (b) of section 3 of the
Speaker's salary directive of June 11, 1968 (2 U.S.C. 60a note).
(b) Members of the staff of the Office other than the Parliamentarian
shall be paid at per annum gross rates fixed by the Parliamentarian with
the approval of the Speaker or in accordance with policies approved by the
Speaker, but not in excess of the rate of basic pay set forth in subsection
(a).
EXPENDITURES
Sec. 5. In accordance with policies and procedures approved by the
Speaker, the Parliamentarian may make such expenditures as may be necessary
or appropriate for the functioning of the Office.
EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 6. This resolution shall take effect as of March 1, 1977, and shall
continue in effect until otherwise provided by law.
Mr. WRIGHT (during the reading).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution may be
considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, this resolution establishes an office
of Parliamentarian. While the duties of the Parliamentarian are set
forth in law, the existence of the office has heretofore been
recognized only in annual appropriation measures. This resolution,
when made permanent law, will constitute the authorization for
future appropriations.
The resolution does not change the present nature, size, or
duties of the office. All functions prescribed in existing law
remain the same. Appointment of the Parliamentarian by the Speaker
and the nonpartisan nature of the office will continue as before.
Present practices regarding employment of personnel in the
office will continue. All employees in the office have
traditionally been appointed with approval of Speaker. The
resolution also permits a deputy to sign vouchers and other
necessary papers in absence of the Parliamentarian.
In 1968 the pay of the Parliamentarian was fixed at a rate
which was specifically limited in application to the incumbent,
Lewis Deschler. Presently there is no authority in law for the
Speaker to raise pay above that amount which existed at time of the
resignation of the former Parliamentarian in 1974. This resolution
would rectify that situation.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Resignation of the Parliamentarian
Sec. 18.2 The resignation of the Parliamentarian is laid before the
House for the information of Members.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Parliamentarian's Note: The resignation of a nonelected officer
such as the Parliamentarian is not subject to acceptance by the
House, but is laid before the House as a matter of information.
See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37 Sec. 9.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 28, 2012,(16) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 158 Cong. Rec. 2360-61, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION AS PARLIAMENTARIAN OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Office of the Parliamentarian,
Washington, DC, February 28, 2012.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: As you know, the skill and dedication of the
team with whom I serve in the Office of the Parliamentarian and the
Office of Compilation of Precedents are unsurpassed. In my judgment
they are ready to continue their commitment to excellence in the
procedural practice of the House without me. I appreciate your
allowing me to lead the office to this juncture. Please now accept
my resignation effective March 31, 2012.
I am grateful to you and your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, for
supporting the exercise of independent professional judgment by
your parliamentarians. It is a credit to the House that its
presiding officers shed their partisan cloaks and follow our
considered advice.
It has been my honor to serve in the Office of the
Parliamentarian for 25 years. To whatever extent I have made good
of the opportunity, I credit the steady support of my wife, Nancy
Sands Sullivan, and the inspiration of our children, Michael,
Margaret, and Matthew.
Sincerely,
John V. Sullivan,
Parliamentarian.
On June 27, 1974,(17) the following resignation was laid
before the House:(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 21590-92, 21595, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. See also
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37 Sec. 10.4 (resignation of
Parliamentarian William Holmes Brown) and Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 37 Sec. 10.5 (resignation of Parliamentarian Charles W.
Johnson III).
18. Parliamentarian's Note: The resignation of a nonelected officer
such as the Parliamentarian is not subject to acceptance by the
House, but is laid before the House as a matter of information.
See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37 Sec. 9.3. For the appointment
of William Holmes Brown as Parliamentarian, see 120 Cong. Rec.
21847-48, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. (July 1, 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives:
Washington, DC,
June 27, 1974.
Hon. Carl Albert,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I hereby submit my resignation as
Parliamentarian of the United States House of Representatives
effective at the close of June 30, 1974.
I am in my fiftieth year of service for the House of
Representatives, having come originally to this body as an employee
in 1925. In 1927 I became Assistant Parliamentarian and in January,
1928, I began my service as Parliamentarian of the House of
Representatives, service which has covered a period of more than
forty-six years.
This has been a wonderful experience, and I consider it to be
one of the great privileges which God has granted me that I have
served with nine Speakers: Honorable Nicholas Longworth, Honorable
John Garner, Honorable Henry Rainey, Honorable Joseph Byrns,
Honorable William Bankhead, Honorable Sam Rayburn, Honorable Joseph
Martin, Honorable John McCormack, Honorable Carl Albert.
No one ever becomes Speaker of the House of Representatives
unless he has great intelligence and ability and high probity, and
unless he commands the respect of his colleagues. All of these nine
Speakers were eminently qualified to follow and enhance the
traditions of the House of Representatives. Their wisdom, fairness,
and non-partisanship in filling the high post of Speaker is shown
by the fact that from the beginning of the 70th Congress, in 1927,
there have been only eight appeals from decisions of the Speaker,
and in seven of these eight cases the decision of the Speaker was
sustained by the House of Representatives. On the one occasion when
the Speaker was overruled (on February 21, 1931), the House was
actually following the wishes of Speaker Longworth, for he in
effect appealed to the House to overrule him in order to correct
what he regarded as an erroneous precedent.
The challenges presented by my work as Parliamentarian have
been heightened by the caliber of the men and women who have served
in the House of Representatives while I have been associated with
it. Truly representing all parts of the country and all their
constituents, their individual and collective wisdom and their
unceasing dedication to this country and its Constitution have
always been a source of inspiration to me. I shall always treasure
the many deep and abiding friendships which have developed through
my associations with the Members over these years.
Along the way too it has been a pleasure to associate with the
talented and loyal officers and employees of this body, and I am
deeply grateful for the close friendships and wonderful working
relationships which we have had.
I shall cherish the firm and lasting friendships I have had,
Mr. Speaker, with the ladies and gentlemen of the media. In my
almost daily associations with them over many years, I have come to
know and respect their diligent efforts to report the news. I am
particularly grateful for the way in which they honored my requests
to protect my anonymity on those many occasions when they discussed
with me some of the complicated legislative problems which
confronted us from time to time.
The time comes in each man's life when he must determine what
his future may be under God's guidance and direction. I am
approaching my seventieth year, and my doctors have strongly
suggested that I retire from my duties as Parliamentarian. It is my
hope, Mr. Speaker, that in your good judgment you will find a
position where I may continue to advise and consult with you and
with the new Parliamentarian, as well as continuing the important
work in which I am presently engaged of compiling the Precedents of
the House of Representatives.
I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you all the
Members of this great body present and past, for your many
kindnesses and considerations.
Most respectfully submitted.
Lewis Deschler,
Parliamentarian, U.S. House of
Representatives. -------------------
RETIREMENT OF LEWIS DESCHLER AS PARLIAMENTARIAN
Mr. [Thomas] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the minority leader, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes) and
myself, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 1202) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1202
Resolved, That the House of Representatives hereby tenders its gratitude
and expresses its abiding affection to Lewis Deschler upon his retirement
after more than 46 years as its Parliamentarian, and recognizes that his
unsurpassed service and dedication to the House, his impartial counsel to
Speakers and Members, and his exceptional contribution to the operation of
its rules have immeasurably benefited this institution of government.
The SPEAKER.(19) If the Chair did not stop it, this
applause and standing ovation would continue all day. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Appointment of Parliamentarian
Sec. 18.3 Pursuant to law,(20) the Speaker appoints the
Parliamentarian of the House, and such appointment is announced to
the House for the information of Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 287(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 28, 2012,(21) the Speaker appointed Thomas
J. Wickham, Jr., as Parliamentarian to succeed John V. Sullivan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 158 Cong. Rec. 2360-61, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT AS PARLIAMENTARIAN OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER.(22) Pursuant to section 287(a) of title
2, United States Code, the Chair appoints Thomas J. Wickham, Jr.,
as Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives to succeed John
V. Sullivan, resigned.
22. John Boehner (OH).
On July 1, 1974,(23) the Speaker appointed William
Holmes Brown as Parliamentarian to succeed Lewis Deschler:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 120 Cong. Rec. 21847-48, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER.(24) The Chair desires to announce that
he has on this date appointed William Holmes Brown as
Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives to succeed Lewis
Deschler, resigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Floor Privileges
Sec. 18.4 By unanimous consent, the Senate granted to the House
Parliamentarian and five Assistant Parliamentarians privileges of
the Senate floor for the duration of a Congress.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Parliamentarian's Note: Although these types of unanimous-consent
requests granting Senate floor privileges to House
parliamentarians were once routine, they have not occurred in
recent Congresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 2009,(26) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. 155 Cong. Rec. 43, 111th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. [Harry] REID [of Nevada]. Mr. President, I send to the desk
en bloc 12 unanimous consent requests and I ask for their immediate
consideration en bloc; that the requests be agreed to en bloc, that
the motion to reconsider the adoption of these requests be laid
upon the table and that they appear separately in the record.
Before the Chair rules, I would like to point out these
requests are routine, done at the beginning of each new Congress,
and they entail issues such as authority for the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct to meet, authorizing the Secretary to
receive reports at the desk, establishing leader time each day, and
floor privileges for House Parliamentarians.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.(27) Without objection, it is
so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Jon Tester (MT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requests read as follows: . . .
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Parliamentarian
of the House of Representatives and his five assistants be given
the privileges of the floor during the 111th Congress.
Sec. 19. General Counsel; Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
The Office of General Counsel is established pursuant to clause
8(a) of rule II.(1) The purpose of the office is to provide
``legal assistance and representation to the House . . . without regard
to political affiliation.''(2) The General Counsel is
appointed by the Speaker,(3) and functions under the
direction of the Speaker (who consults with the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group).(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 670 (2019).
2. Id.
3. See, e.g., Sec. 19.1, infra. For an announcement of the resignation
of the House General Counsel, see Sec. 19.2, infra.
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 670a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of General Counsel was first established in the 103d
Congress in 1993.(5) Prior to this time, an official in the
Clerk's Office (known as the Counsel to the Clerk) performed a similar
function to that of the modern General Counsel.(6) The House
Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992(7) provided that
the Committee on House Administration establish an Office of General
Counsel--a directive that was executed when the House established the
office in the standing rules at the outset of the 103d Congress. The
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) was formally established at the
same time, and, pursuant to clause 8(b) of rule II, is composed of
``the Speaker and the majority and minority
leaderships.''(8) The mandate of the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group is to articulate the institutional position of the House
in all litigation matters.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See H. Res. 5, 139 Cong. Rec. 49, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5,
1993). For more on the office, see House Office of General
Counsel, CRS Report RS22890 (May 21, 2014).
6. For a discussion of Speaker O'Neill's role in expanding the Counsel
to the Clerk position to address broader institutional matters,
see Rebecca Mae Salokar, Legal Counsel for Congress: Protecting
Institutional Interests, Congress & the Presidency 137-138
(1993). For examples of questions of privilege relating to the
conduct of the former Counsel to the Clerk, see H. Res. 362,
136 Cong. Rec. 4996-97, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 22, 1990)
and H. Res. 434, 138 Cong. Rec. 9076-77, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
(Apr. 9, 1992).
7. See H. Res. 423, 138 Cong. Rec. 9040, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 9,
1992). See Sec. 30, infra. Section 12 of the resolution
provided that: ``The Committee on House Administration--shall
provide for an Office of General Counsel to the House in a
manner which shall insure appropriate coordination with and
participation by both the majority and minority leaderships and
representational and litigation matters.''
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 670a (2019). In the 114th Congress in
2015, provisions regarding BLAG were moved to clause 8(b) of
rule II, its composition modified to formally include the
Speaker, and its purpose clarified to underscore its
institutional responsibilities.
9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 670a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House General Counsel provides legal advice to Members,
officers, and employees of the House. The General Counsel advises on
matters of constitutional privilege, including issues involving Speech
or Debate immunity(10) and immunity from
arrest,(11) as well as executive, Fifth Amendment, and
attorney-client privileges.(12) The General Counsel also
advises committees of the House in preparing and serving congressional
subpoenas.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 6, cl. 1. See also House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 92-95 (2019).
11. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 6, cl. 1. See also House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 90-91 (2019).
12. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 7.
13. For more information regarding the House's investigatory powers,
see 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1597-1640; 3 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 1666-1826; 6 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 332-393; Deschler's Precedents Ch. 15; and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When judicial subpoenas or other court orders are received by
Members, officers, or employees of the House, the General Counsel will
advise the affected party whether compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the institutional rights and privileges of the
House.(14) If requested, the General Counsel may represent
the House, its committees, Members, officers, or employees in
litigation on matters involving official acts or duties. By law, the
General Counsel is entitled to enter an appearance ``in any proceeding
before any court of the United States or of any State or political
subdivision thereof.''(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 26, infra.
15. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5571.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House has authorized the General Counsel to represent the House
(or its committees) in litigation, or to initiate or to intervene in
judicial proceedings.(16) The House has authorized the
General Counsel to employ outside counsel in furtherance of its
representational responsibilities.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Such authorization has typically been provided by simple
resolution. See, e.g., H. Res. 639, 162 Cong. Rec. H1434-H1446
[Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 17, 2016) and H. Res.
980, 154 Cong. Rec. 2190-91, 110th Cong. 2d Sess. (Feb. 14,
2008). Such resolutions constitute questions of privilege under
rule IX. House Rules and Manual Sec. 291b (2019). For more on
these types of questions of privilege, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 11 Sec. Sec. 18, 19, and Precedents (Wickham)
Ch. 11. This type of authorization has also been provided by a
separate order contained in the resolution adopting the
standing rules at the beginning of a Congress. See, e.g., H.
Res. 5, 161 Cong. Rec. 36, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6,
2015).
17. See Sec. 19.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 115th Congress, clause 8(c) of rule II(18) was
established to provide standing authorization to continue litigation
commenced in a prior Congress. This rule permits the House, the
Speaker, committees, or committee chairs ``to act as the successor in
interest'' to the ongoing litigation and ``to take such steps as may be
appropriate to ensure continuation'' of the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 670b (2019). See also H. Res. 5, 159
Cong. Rec. 27, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appointment of the General Counsel
Sec. 19.1 Pursuant to clause 8 of rule II,(19) the Speaker
appoints the General Counsel of the House and such appointment is
announced to the House for the information of Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 670 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 9, 2007,(20) the Speaker appointed Irvin
Nathan as General Counsel to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 153 Cong. Rec. 30825, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar
appointments, see 139 Cong. Rec. 2512, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
(Feb. 4, 1993); 140 Cong. Rec. 7148, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr.
12, 1994); and 143 Cong. Rec. 26537, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Nov. 14, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Ed] Perlmutter [of Colorado]).
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule II, and the order of House of January
4, 2007, the Chair announces the Speaker's appointment of Mr. Irvin
B. Nathan as General Counsel of the United States House of
Representatives, effective November 12, 2007.
Resignation of the General Counsel
Sec. 19.2 The resignation of the General Counsel is laid before the
House for the information of Members.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Parliamentarian's Note: As the General Counsel is not an elected
officer of the House, the resignation of such official is not
subject to acceptance by the House. See Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 37 Sec. 9.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 9, 2007,(22) the Speaker pro tempore laid
before the House a letter of resignation from Geraldine Gennet, General
Counsel to the House of Representatives, effective November 12, 2007:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 153 Cong. Rec. 30739, 110th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the General Counsel of the House of
Representatives:
House of Representatives,
Office of the General Counsel,
Washington, DC, November 9, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker,
House of Representatives.
Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing to tender my resignation as
General Counsel to the House of Representatives, effective the
close of business on November 12, 2007. It has been an honor and a
pleasure to serve under three Speakers, including yourself, for the
past twelve years. Over that time, I have tried to maintain a
nonpartisan office that, both by reputation and in practice,
provides thoughtful and effective legal advice and representation
to all Members of the House, without regard to political
affiliation, and whose highest obligation is to the long-term
interests of the House. I believe the other attorneys in the office
and I have succeeded in meeting these objectives. We have worked
very closely with Members and staffers from both sides of the aisle
on many matters, as well as with the House Officers and the many
institutional offices in the legislative branch. I expect that the
Office of General Counsel will continue to fulfill this role for
the House, and that the Office will maintain the respect and trust
it has enjoyed all these years.
I would like to recognize and thank the staff of the Office:
first, my very good friend and colleague who came with me to the
House over twelve years ago--Deputy General Counsel Kerry Kircher,
who will continue in that capacity and provide excellent service to
the House as he has always done. I would also like to recognize the
other attorneys, Assistant Counsels David Plotinsky, Christine
Davenport, and John Filamor, who have all been with the Office for
a long time and who are well known to and respected by so many
Members, Officers and staff of the House. Finally, I would like to
recognize our Office Administrator, Czesia Constantine, who has
taken care of every aspect of the office's functions, including
watching every penny as though it were her own money. Her service,
and that of the many evening law students who have worked as full
time law clerks for the Office over those years, have made it
possible for the attorneys to provide the quality of service for
which the Office is known and appreciated.
I will greatly miss the many friends I have made here. I
congratulate my successor, Irv Nathan, on his appointment and wish
him every success. Thank you again, Madam Speaker, for the
opportunity to serve you.
Sincerely,
Geraldine R. Gennet,
General Counsel.
Employment of Outside Counsel
Sec. 19.3 The House has adopted a resolution authorizing the Speaker to
initiate certain judicial proceedings and authorizing the Office of
General Counsel to employ outside counsel in its representation of
the House in such proceedings.
On July 30, 2014,(23) the House adopted a resolution
authorizing the Speaker to initiate judicial proceedings against the
President and also authorizing the House General Counsel to employ
outside counsel in furtherance of the litigation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 160 Cong. Rec. 13663, 13668-69, 13674, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. See
also 165 Cong. Rec. H24 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 3, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE LITIGATION FOR ACTIONS BY THE
PRESIDENT
Mr. [Pete] SESSIONS [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 694, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 676) providing
for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President
or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties
under the Constitution of the United States, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(24) Pursuant to House
Resolution 694, the amendment recommended by the Committee on Rules
printed in the resolution is adopted, and the resolution, as
amended, is considered read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Doc Hastings (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:
H. Res. 676
Resolved, That the Speaker is authorized to initiate or intervene in one
or more civil actions on behalf of the House of Representatives in a
Federal court of competent jurisdiction to seek any appropriate relief
regarding the failure of the President, the head of any department or
agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive branch, to act in
a manner consistent with that official's duties under the Constitution and
laws of the United States with respect to implementation of any provision
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or subtitle B of
title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,
including any amendment made by such provision, or any other related
provision of law, including a failure to implement any such provision.
Sec. 2. The Speaker shall notify the House of Representatives of a
decision to initiate or intervene in any civil action pursuant to this
resolution.
Sec. 3. (a) The Office [The Office] of the General Counsel of the House
of Representatives, at the direction of the Speaker, shall represent the
House in any civil action initiated, or in which the House intervenes,
pursuant to this resolution, and may employ the services of outside counsel
and other experts for this purpose.
(b) The chair of the Committee on House Administration shall cause to be
printed in the Congressional Record a statement setting forth the aggregate
amounts expended by the Office of General Counsel on outside counsel and
other experts pursuant to subsection (a) on a quarterly basis. Such
statement shall be submitted for printing not more than 30 days after the
expiration of each such period.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the
previous question is ordered on the resolution, as amended.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. [Louise] SLAUGHTER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
225, nays 201, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 468] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 20. Inspector General
The Office of Inspector General is established pursuant to clause
6(a) of rule II.(1) The Inspector General is a nonpartisan
official of the House appointed jointly by the Speaker, the Majority
Leader, and the Minority Leader.(2) The primary function of
the Inspector General is to conduct financial audits of House offices
and perform other administrative reviews consistent with government-
wide standards.(3) As with the Chief Administrative
Officer,(4) the Inspector General is subject to the policy
direction and oversight of the Committee on House
Administration.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 667 (2019). The position of Inspector
General was created in the 102d Congress by the House
Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992. See H. Res. 423, 141
Cong. Rec. 9039-40, 9074-75, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 9,
1992). Section 8 of the resolution amended the standing rules
of the House to provide for an Office of Inspector General. The
duties and reporting requirements of the Inspector General have
gradually expanded in the years since it was first created.
2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 667 (2019). See also Sec. 20.1, infra.
For the resignation of an Inspector General, see Sec. 20.2,
infra.
3. For more on the structure and functioning of the office, see Office
of the House of Representatives Inspector General, CRS Report
R40133 (Jan. 18, 2013).
4. See Sec. 17, supra.
5. Rule II, clause 6(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 667 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Inspector General notifies the Speaker, the Majority Leader,
the Minority Leader, and the chair and the ranking member of the
Committee on House Administration if any financial irregularities are
discovered during the course of an audit.(6) If, in the
performance of an audit or review, the Inspector General discovers
potential violations of laws or ethics rules, the Inspector General is
directed to report such findings to the Committee on
Ethics.(7) The Inspector General submits reports on each
audit to the Speaker, the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, and the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee on House Administration.(8) The House may also
direct the Inspector General to conduct additional
audits.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Rule II, clause 6(c)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 667 (2019).
7. Rule II, clause 6(c)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 667 (2019).
8. Rule II, clause 6(c)(4), House Rules and Manual Sec. 667 (2019).
9. See Sec. 20.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appointment of the Inspector General
Sec. 20.1 Pursuant to clause 6(b) of rule II,(10) the
Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader jointly
appoint the Inspector General of the House, and such appointment is
announced to the House for the information of Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 667 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 2009,(11) the following announcement of
the appointment of James J. Cornell as Inspector General of the House
was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 155 Cong. Rec. 25, 111th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar appointments,
see 143 Cong. Rec. 149, 105th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 7, 1997);
146 Cong. Rec. 2696, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 13, 2000); 147
Cong. Rec. 1038, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 31, 2001); 152
Cong. Rec. 2537, 109th Cong. 2d Sess. (Mar. 2, 2006); and 156
Cong. Rec. 14897, 111th Cong. 2d Sess. (July 30, 2010). For the
first appointment of the Inspector General, see Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 5.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT AS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE HOUSE FOR THE 111TH
CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(12) Pursuant to clause 6(b)
of rule II, and the order of the House of today, the Chair
announces that the Speaker, majority leader and minority leader
jointly appoint Mr. James J. Cornell, Springfield, Virginia, to the
position of Inspector General for the House of Representatives for
the 111th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Michael Ross (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resignation of the Inspector General
Sec. 20.2 The resignation of the Inspector General is laid before the
House for the information of Members.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Parliamentarian's Note: As the Inspector General is not an elected
officer of the House, the resignation of such official is not
subject to acceptance by the House. See Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 37 Sec. 9.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 26, 2005,(14) the following communication of the
resignation of Steven McNamara as Inspector General of the House was
laid before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 151 Cong. Rec. 11441, 109th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM INSPECTOR GENERAL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Kuhl of New York) laid
before the House the following communication from Steven A.
McNamara, Inspector General, House of Representatives:
Office of Inspector General,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
MEMORANDUM
To: Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House.
Hon. Tom DeLay, Majority Leader of the House.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader of the House.
From: Steven A. McNamara, Inspector General.
Subject: Notification of Resignation and Retirement.
Please accept my offer of resignation, as the Inspector General
for the U.S. House of Representatives, effective May 30, 2005. This
date will also be my effective date of retirement from Federal
Service.
It has been an honor to serve the House as the Inspector
General for the last five years. My goal, and that of my staff, has
been to help the House achieve the best use of all the dollars it
spends, increase efficiencies, and ensure the health, safety, and
security of Members, staff, and visitors. Through the combined
support of the House Leadership, the Committee on House
Administration, and the hard work of my staff, I believe we have
helped the House accomplish its administrative goals.
Now, after slightly more than 35 years of Federal Service, I
look forward to a new chapter in my life; the pursuit of a hobby
and business venture as a kayak instructor and kayaking guide.
Once again, it has been a great honor to serve the House of the
Inspector General for the last five years. It has been a fulfilling
and rewarding experience!
Additional Audits
Sec. 20.3 The House may, by resolution, direct the Inspector General to
conduct additional audits not required under the standing rules.
On July 18, 1995,(15) the House by unanimous consent
considered and adopted a resolution offered by the Majority Leader,
with the concurrence of the Minority Leader, directing the Inspector
General of the House to conduct additional auditing of House offices:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 141 Cong. Rec. 19379-80, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL AUDITING BY HOUSE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Mr. [Richard] ARMEY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
unanimous consent resolution (H. Res. 192) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 192
Whereas on January 4, 1995, the House of Representatives voted 430-1,
that ``during the One Hundred Fourth Congress, the Inspector General, in
consultation with the Speaker and the Committee on House Oversight, shall
coordinate, and as needed contract with independent auditing firms to
complete, a comprehensive audit of House financial records and
administrative operations, and report the results in accordance with Rule
VI,'' [House Resolution 6, Section 107];
Whereas on July 18, 1995, the House Inspector General in cooperation with
the independent auditing firm presented the findings of the first-ever
audit of the House of Representatives under the provisions of the House
Resolution;
Whereas this first-ever audit included both the financial and
administrative functions of the House, representing a wide range of
activities;
Whereas the audit does not reach conclusions in all areas due in part to
a ``method of accounting underlying the preparation and dissemination of
financial management information [that] was simplistic and ill-suited for
an organization the size of the House,'' [Report of Independent
Accountants, July 18, 1995];
Whereas ``In addition to the deficiencies in accounting and reporting,
and in information systems, there are other weaknesses in the House's
internal control structure...the severity of these weaknesses affects the
reliability of the financial statements, because in the absence of an
effective internal control structure, there can be no assurance that all
House transactions were properly recorded, accumulated and reported in
accordance with the rules, policies and procedures of the House,'' [Report
of Independent Accountants, July 18, 1995];
Whereas it is the sense of the House, including the leadership of both
parties, that a followup audit should be completed to further examine the
transactions and reports contained therein; and
Whereas the House Inspector General, a nonpartisan appointee who was
selected by the former majority and retained by the current majority, has
requested and should be given resources necessary to complete this followup
audit: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Inspector General is authorized and directed to take
such steps as necessary to carry out any additional auditing required to
ensure the completion of the audit of House financial and administrative
operations authorized during the One Hundred Fourth Congress by House
Resolution 6, Section 107.
Sec. 2. The Inspector General shall complete such additional auditing
expeditiously, but in no case later than November 30, 1995.
Sec. 3. The Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives
shall have the authority to prescribe regulations and to authorize the
expenditure of additional funds from the appropriate House accounts as may
be required to fully ensure the final completion of the comprehensive audit
of House financial and administrative operations.
Sec. 4. The results of such auditing shall be submitted in accordance
with House Rule VI, clause 3(d) which provides ``simultaneously submitting
to the Speaker, the majority leader, the minority leader, and the chairman
and ranking minority party member of the Committee on House Oversight a
report on each audit conducted under this rule.''.
Sec. 5. The results of such auditing, shall to the extent appropriate, be
reported by the Inspector General in accordance with House Rule VI, clause
3(e) which provides ``reporting to the Committee on Standards of Official
conduct information involving possible violations of any Member, officer,
or employee of the House any rule of the House or any law applicable to the
performance of official duties or the discharge of official
responsibilities which may require referral to the appropriate Federal or
State authorities pursuant to clause 4(e)91)(C) [sic](16) of
rule X.''.
16. As in the original. Text should read: 4(e)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. ARMEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(17) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Joel Hefley (CO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey]
is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Richard] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The
Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
414, nays 0, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 525] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 21. Legislative Counsel
The Office of Legislative Counsel is established by
law(1) as a nonpartisan office within the House, headed by
an attorney known as the House Legislative Counsel. The Office of
Legislative Counsel's primary mission is to provide legislative
drafting services to Members and committees of the House. The House
Legislative Counsel is appointed by the Speaker ``without regard to
political affiliation.''(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 281-282e.
2. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An office specifically responsible for drafting legislative text
for Congress was first created in 1919 and was originally known as the
Legislative Drafting Service.(3) Title V of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 created separate drafting entities for both
the House and the Senate.(4) The House Legislative Counsel
is authorized to appoint attorneys and other employees of the office,
with the approval of the Speaker.(5) The Legislative Counsel
is required to designate one attorney as the Deputy Legislative
Counsel, who performs the functions of the Legislative Counsel during
the latter's absence or disability.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. For more on the history and functions of the office, see Office of
Legislative Counsel: House, CRS Report RS20735 (May 21, 2014).
4. P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140. The provisions regarding the House
Office of Legislative Counsel have been codified at 2 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 281-282e.
5. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 282a.
6. Id. These provisions were added by P.L. 92-51, 85 Stat. 125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there is no requirement that Members of the House utilize the
services of the Office of Legislative Counsel in drafting legislation,
most Members will consult with the office prior to introducing measures
or composing amendments. The attorneys who staff the office are experts
in legislative drafting and their specialized expertise is essential to
crafting proper legislative text.(7) In addition to
providing Members' offices with advice on converting legislative
proposals to specific text, the Office of Legislative Counsel similarly
advises committees of the House regarding the preparation of committee
reports, conference reports, and joint explanatory statements to
accompany conference reports. Of particular value is the ability of the
Office of Legislative Counsel to compose comparative prints depicting
the changes that would be made to existing law should the proposed
legislation be enacted.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. For tributes by Members to the Office of Legislative Counsel and
its attorneys, see 132 Cong. Rec. 26305, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
(Sept. 25, 1986); 134 Cong. Rec. 32857, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
(Oct. 21, 1988); 143 Cong. Rec. 19314, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Sept. 18, 1997); and 148 Cong. Rec. 15139, 107th Cong. 2d
Sess. (July 26, 2002). See also Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37
Sec. 10.6.
8. For more on this requirement to produce comparative prints (also
known as ``Ramseyers''), see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 17 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 17. See also House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 846, 848, and 1068k (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appointment of the Legislative Counsel
Sec. 21.1 Pursuant to law,(9) the Speaker appoints the
Legislative Counsel of the House, and such appointment is announced
to the House for the information of Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 1, 2016,(10) the following announcement of the
appointment of Ernest Ballou, Jr. as Legislative Counsel was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 162 Cong. Rec. H4190 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 2d Sess. For similar
appointments, see 155 Cong. Rec. 17493, 111th Cong. 1st Sess.
(July 13, 2009) and 143 Cong. Rec. 17034, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
(July 31, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(11) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Mark Meadows (NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 521 of the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1970 (2 U.S.C. 282), the Speaker appoints Ernest Ballou, Jr.,
Legislative Counsel, to succeed Sandra L. Strokoff, resigned.
Resignation of the Legislative Counsel
Sec. 21.2 The resignation of the House Legislative Counsel is laid
before the House for the information of Members.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Parliamentarian's Note: As the Legislative Counsel is not an
elected officer of the House, the resignation of such official
is not subject to acceptance by the House. See Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 37 Sec. 9.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 1, 2016,(13) the following resignation of Sandra
Strokoff as Legislative Counsel was laid before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 162 Cong. Rec. H4190 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 2d Sess. For similar
resignations, see 155 Cong. Rec. 17493-500, 111th Cong. 1st
Sess. (July 13, 2009) and 143 Cong. Rec. 17033-34, 105th Cong.
1st Sess. (July 31, 1997). See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37
Sec. 9.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION AS LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL AND APPOINTMENT AS
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
resignation as Legislative Counsel of the House of Representatives:
House of Representatives,
Office of the Legislative Counsel,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2016.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I hereby submit my resignation as Legislative
Counsel of the United States House of Representatives, effective at
the close of business August 1, 2016.
It has been a great honor and privilege to serve as Legislative
Counsel.
Sincerely,
Sandra L. Strokoff,
Legislative Counsel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(14) The Speaker accepts the
resignation of Sandra L. Strokoff, Legislative Counsel, effective
August 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Mark Meadows (NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 22. Law Revision Counsel
The Office of Law Revision Counsel is established by
law(1) as a nonpartisan office within the House of
Representatives. The purpose of the office is ``to develop and keep
current an official and positive codification of the laws of the United
States.''(2) An attorney known as the Law Revision Counsel
heads the office, and is appointed by the Speaker ``without regard to
political affiliation.''(3) The Law Revision Counsel
appoints employees to staff the office, with the approval of the
Speaker.(4) One of these employees is designated as the
Deputy Law Revision Counsel, who performs the duties of the office if
the Law Revision Counsel is absent or if the position is
vacant.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 285-285g.
2. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285a.
3. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285c. For appointments of the Law Revision Counsel,
see Sec. 22.1, infra. For resignations, see Sec. 22.2, infra.
4. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285d.
5. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When laws are enacted by Congress, they are first compiled
chronologically by date of enactment in a publication known as Statutes
at Large.(6) The function of the Office of Law Revision
Counsel is to revise and consolidate enacted laws so that they can be
rearranged by subject matter. The newly arranged material is
reclassified as titles of the United States Code. Pursuant to
statute,(7) the Office of Law Revision Counsel submits to
the House Committee on the Judiciary(8) each title as it is
prepared, so that the revised laws may be enacted as positive law. The
Office of Law Revision Counsel has an ongoing responsibility to update
the U.S. Code and to remove any ambiguities or contradictions during
the codification process.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 1 U.S.C. Sec. 112. The Archivist of the United States performs this
initial compilation function.
7. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285b.
8. Pursuant to clause 1(l)(17) of rule X, the Committee on the
Judiciary has jurisdiction over the ``[r]evision and
codification of the Statutes of the United States.'' House
Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (2019).
9. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appointment of the Law Revision Counsel
Sec. 22.1 Pursuant to law,(10) the Speaker appoints the Law
Revision Counsel, and such appointment is announced to the House
for the information of Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 2011,(11) the following announcement of the
appointment of Ralph V. Seep as Law Revision Counsel was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 157 Cong. Rec. 8673, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar
appointments, see 121 Cong. Rec. 4151, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Feb. 25, 1975); 143 Cong. Rec. 189-90, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 9, 1997); 143 Cong. Rec. 26537, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Nov. 13, 1997); and 150 Cong. Rec. 6259, 108th Cong. 2d Sess.
(Apr. 1, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF LAW REVISION COUNSEL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(12) Pursuant to 2 U.S.C.
285c, and the order of the House of January 5, 2011, the Chair
announces the Speaker's appointment of Mr. Ralph V. Seep as Law
Revision Counsel for the House of Representatives, effective June
2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Kevin Yoder (KS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resignation of the Law Revision Counsel
Sec. 22.2 The resignation of the Law Revision Counsel is laid before
the House for the information of Members.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Parliamentarian's Note: The resignation of a nonelected officer
such as the Law Revision Counsel is not subject to acceptance
by the House, but is laid before the House as a matter of
information. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 37 Sec. 9.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 1, 2011,(14) the resignation of Peter LeFevre as
Law Revision Counsel was laid before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 157 Cong. Rec. 8450-51, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar
resignations, see 150 Cong. Rec. 6258-59, 108th Cong. 2d Sess.
(Apr. 1, 2004) and 143 Cong. Rec. 189, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 9, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM LAW REVISION COUNSEL, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from Peter G. LeFevre, Law Revision Counsel:
Office of the Law Revision Counsel,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2011.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: After 30 years of service in the Office of
the Law Revision Counsel and over 34 years with the Federal
Government, I have decided it is time to retire. With your
approval, my last day as Law Revision Counsel will be June 1, 2011.
I started with the Office just seven years after it was
established as part of the Bolling Committee reforms in 1974. The
Office was given the functions of classifying new laws to the
United States Code, preparing and publishing the Code, and drafting
legislation to enact titles of the Code into positive law. Over the
years, I have had the privilege of working on each of these
functions, and my career has given me a unique perspective on the
content and codification of Federal law.
I have had at least a technical familiarity with practically
every law enacted during the past 25 years and have worked my way
through thousands of laws, including countless appropriations,
defense authorizations, tax and health reforms, and omnibus
reconciliation. We, in the Office of the Law Revision Counsel,
regard the text of these laws with a certain reverence. As we
incorporate new laws into the Code, every effort is made to ensure
that each word, each punctuation mark, and each directive they
contain is given the effect intended by Congress. With the systems
and excellent staff we have in place in the Office, I feel
confident that the Code is being maintained with the high degree of
accuracy and reliability that is required for the official Code.
While accuracy has always been our highest priority, we have
also been working on improving the timeliness and usability of the
Code. Since 2005, the time it takes to do an annual update of the
Code has been reduced by more than 18 months, and last year we
introduced the USCprelim on the U.S. Code website to allow even
quicker, albeit preliminary, updates of selected Code titles. As to
usability, the Code is about to get a lot better. In a matter of
days, we will release a new U.S. Code website featuring a new
sophisticated search engine, improved interface, and materials to
help the public understand and use the Code. The release will soon
be followed by further improvements, including hyperlinks to
referenced Code and statute provisions and integration of the
USCprelim and prior versions of the Code into the new website.
Conversion of the Code data into XML is another ongoing project
which should bear fruit in the near future.
The overall organization of the Code remains a concern for me,
but significant progress was made during the last several years.
The codification of title 46, Shipping, was completed with the
enactment of Public Law 109-304, and in just the past six months,
Law Revision Counsel bills to enact title 41, Public Contracts, and
title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs, became law. Each
new positive law title is a major accomplishment, but the time and
effort it took to get these three titles enacted indicates the huge
task that remains before the goal of an entirely enacted Code is
realized.
It has been a pleasure to work for the House of Representatives
throughout my career. I have especially enjoyed my association with
the other staff members in my office and have a deep appreciation
of their expertise and dedication and the fine work they do every
day. I am also grateful for the support and cooperation of your
office, the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations, the
Government Printing Office, and the other officers of the House.
Respectfully Yours,
Peter G. LeFevre,
Law Revision Counsel.
Sec. 23. House Historian
The Office of the Historian of the House of Representatives is
established by clause 7 of rule II.(1) Pursuant to the rule,
the Speaker appoints(2) the House Historian and sets the
rate of pay for employees of the office. The Historian works to
preserve the institutional memory of the House by performing archival
research, conducting oral history interviews, and conserving historical
records and artifacts. The Office of the Historian works closely with
the Office of Art and Archives (located within the Office of the Clerk)
to maintain a variety of House collections, including fine artworks,
statuary, and other items of historical interest.(3) In
addition to standing authority for the office to conduct historical
research, the House may also by resolution direct the Office of the
Historian to undertake particular projects.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 669 (2019).
2. See Sec. 23.2, infra.
3. See Sec. 14, supra.
4. See Sec. 23.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The origins of the Office of the Historian date to the 97th
Congress. In 1982, the House established an Office for the Bicentennial
to commemorate the upcoming 200th anniversary of the House of
Representatives.(5) This office existed for seven years and
employed a professional historian who served under the direction of the
Speaker. A separate Commission on the House of Representatives
Bicentenary was established in the 99th Congress in 1985, and
reestablished in succeeding Congresses until its expiration in
1990.(6) In the 101st Congress in 1989, the Office for the
Bicentennial was converted to the current Office of the Historian and
established once again in the standing rules of the
House.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 23.1, infra. The provisions of the original House rule
creating this office were made permanent law in the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act of 1985 (P.L. 98-367, 98 Stat. 472).
6. See H. Res. 249, 131 Cong. Rec. 22524-25, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Aug. 1, 1985). For the Commission's final report, see H. Rept.
101-815, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
7. H. Res. 5, 135 Cong. Rec. 72-81, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3,
1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office for the Bicentennial of the House of Representatives
Sec. 23.1 The House adopted a privileged resolution establishing an
Office for the Bicentennial of the House of Representatives to
coordinate the planning of the commemoration of the 200th
anniversary of the House of Representatives.
On December 17, 1982,(8) the House adopted the following
privileged resolution amending the standing rules(9) to
provide for an Office for the Bicentennial of the House of
Representatives (the immediate precursor to the current Office of the
Historian).(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 128 Cong. Rec. 31951-52, 31958, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. For appointment
of Raymond W. Smock as the Historian for the Office for the
Bicentennial of the House of Representatives, see 129 Cong.
Rec. 24112, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (Sept. 14, 1983).
9. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1985 made the
provisions of this House rule permanent law and eliminated them
from the standing rules. P.L. 98-367, 98 Stat. 472.
10. Parliamentarian's Note: The House had previously rejected the
creation of a permanent Office of the Historian. See 128 Cong.
Rec. 25029, 25031-32, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 24, 1982). The
current Office of the Historian was established in the standing
rules of the House in 1989. See H. Res. 5, 135 Cong. Rec. 72-
81, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Claude] PEPPER [of Florida]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up a privileged resolution (H. Res.
621) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to
establish an Office for the Bicentennial of the House of
Representatives, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 621
Resolved, That rule I of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended by adding a new clause 10 as follows:
``10. (a) There is hereby established in the House of Representatives an
office to be known as the Office for the Bicentennial of the House of
Representatives. This office will coordinate the planning of the
commemoration of the two-hundredth anniversary of the House of
Representatives.
``(b) The management, supervision, and administration of the Office shall
be under the direction of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
shall be staffed by a professional historian. The Historian shall be
appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives without regard to
political affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the
duties of the position. Any person so appointed shall serve at the pleasure
to the Speaker.
``(c) All expenses of such office may be paid from the contingent fund of
the House on vouchers solely approved and signed by the Speaker, until
otherwise provided by law or resolution.
``(d) The Office shall cease to exist not later than September 30, 1989,
unless otherwise provided by law or resolution.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [George] Brown of California). The
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Pepper) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution. The
question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore, announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [William] FRENZEL [of Minnesota]. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on ground that a quorum is not present and make the point
of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
230, nays 97, not voting 106, as follows:
[Roll No. 479] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Appointment of the House Historian
Sec. 23.2 Pursuant to clause 7 of rule II,(11) the Historian
of the House is appointed by the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 669 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2005,(12) the following appointment of Dr.
Robert V. Remini(13) as Historian of the House was
announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 151 Cong. Rec. 8388, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. Such announcements of
appointments of the Historian to the House are not always made.
For the announcement of the appointment of Dr. Matthew
Wasniewski as Historian, see H. Rept. 111-715, 111th Cong. 2d
Sess. Christina Jeffrey was appointed by Speaker Newt Gingrich
at the outset of the 105th Congress to serve as House
Historian, but was dismissed from the post several days later
after controversial remarks were reported in the press. For
remarks by Members concerning this appointment, see 141 Cong.
Rec. 1007-1008, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4, 1995).
13. Parliamentarian's Note: Dr. Remini had previously researched and
written the historical compilation: The House: The History of
the House of Representatives (Harper Collins 2006). The
project, authorized by the House Awareness and Preservation Act
(P.L. 106-99, 113 Stat. 1330) directed the Library of Congress
to prepare the history of the House of Representatives. Dr.
Remini was appointed by the Library of Congress to oversee the
project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT AS HISTORIAN OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(14) Pursuant to clause 7 of
rule II and the order of the House of January 4, 2005, the Chair
announces that on Thursday, April 28, 2005, the Speaker appointed
Dr. Robert V. Remeni [sic](15) as Historian of the
United States House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Tim Murphy (PA).
15. As in the original. Text should read: Remini.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution Directing Compilation of Oral Histories
Sec. 23.3 The House may, by resolution, direct the Office of the
Historian to undertake specific projects.
On March 1, 2012,(16) the House adopted the following
resolution, directing the Office of the Historian to compile oral
histories of current and former Members involved in the civil rights
movement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 158 Cong. Rec. 2587, 2596, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTING OFFICE OF HISTORIAN TO COMPILE ORAL HISTORIES FROM
MEMBERS INVOLVED IN ALABAMA CIVIL RIGHTS MARCHES
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the order of the House of February 29, 2012, I call up House
Resolution 562 directing the Office of the Historian to compile
oral histories from current and former Members of the House of
Representatives involved in the historic and annual Selma to
Montgomery, Alabama, marches, as well as the civil rights movement
in general, for the purposes of expanding or augmenting the
historic record and for public dissemination and education, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H. Res. 562
Whereas in 1965, civil rights advocates participated in three marches
from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, marking a watershed moment of the civil
rights movement;
Whereas the first march took place on March 7, 1965, during which 600
civil rights activists, led by now-Representative John Lewis and Reverend
Hosea Williams, began a march to protest unfair voter registration
practices and the shooting death of Jimmie Lee Jackson during a voter
registration drive;
Whereas marchers progressed only six blocks from the Brown Chapel A.M.E.
Church to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where many were tear-gassed and beaten;
Whereas two days later, on March 9, 1965, Reverend Martin Luther King,
Jr., led a symbolic march of 2,000 people to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, all
kneeling there to pray;
Whereas, on March 21, 1965, with protection from the Alabama National
Guard, more than 3,000 people set out from Selma again led by Rev. King,
marching an average of 12 miles a day along Route 80 and sleeping in farm
fields;
Whereas that group grew to 25,000 participants by the time it reached
Montgomery on March 25, 1965, where Rev. King delivered one of his most
venerated speeches;
Whereas as a result of this historic three-week period, Congress passed
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, five months after the third march, as a
recognition of the right of all United States citizens to fully participate
in the electoral process;
Whereas in 1996, Congress created the 54-mile long Selma-to-Montgomery
National Historic Trail along the route of this third march, starting at
the Brown Chapel A.M.E. Church in Selma, crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge,
and ending at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery;
Whereas beginning in 1998, Members of Congress have participated in an
annual civil rights pilgrimage to the Selma-to-Montgomery National Historic
Trail, to visit the historic sites, participate in fellowship, and
recognize the achievements of the civil rights movement;
Whereas the Office of the Historian, first established in 1983,
researches, preserves, and interprets the rich institutional history of the
House of Representatives in order to share it with Members, staff, and the
public, and serves as the institutional memory to inspire greater
understanding of the House of Representatives' central role in United
States history;
Whereas Members of the House of Representatives have included
participants in the historic 1965 marches and in the annual pilgrimages
thereafter; and
Whereas the collection of oral memories of march participants who have
served in the House of Representatives, and will continue to serve in the
House of Representatives, is essential to the preservation of the history
of the institution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives directs the Office of the
Historian to compile oral histories from current and former Members of the
House of Representatives involved in the historic and annual Selma to
Montgomery, Alabama, marches, as well as the civil rights movement in
general, for the purposes of expanding or augmenting the historic record
and for public dissemination and education. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(17) The question is on the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Kevin Yoder (KS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [John] LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 562 will be followed
by 5-minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on S. 1134 and
House Resolution 556.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
418, nays 0, not voting 15, as follows: . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 24. House Pages
The House Page program was a longstanding program within the House
of Representatives that employed high school students to perform a
variety of administrative and clerical tasks.(1) The Page
program had its origins in the early 19th century, continued throughout
the 20th century, and was terminated in 2011.(2) From 1982
until 2011, the House Page program was overseen by a House Page Board,
composed of two Members appointed by the Speaker and two Members
appointed by the Minority Leader.(3) The Clerk of the House,
as well as the Sergeant-at-Arms, also served on the House Page
Board.(4) In 2007, the Page Board was expanded to include
one former Page, and one parent of a current or former
Page.(5) The purpose of the House Page Board was to ``ensure
that the page program is conducted in a manner that is consistent with
the efficient functioning of the House and the welfare of the
pages.''(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Senate administers its own page program, which continues to the
present day.
2. For remarks on the termination of the program, see Sec. 24.4,
infra. For more on the history of the Page program, see http://
history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/Page-History/
House-Page-History/ (last visited Oct. 24, 2019).
3. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4912.
4. Id.
5. P.L. 110-2, 121 Stat. 4.
6. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Pages performed a variety of functions for the House and its
Members, ranging from messenger duties and document delivery, to
housekeeping and other maintenance tasks. Due to advances in
technology, Page responsibilities shifted considerably over time. For
example, before the advent of the legislative call system (which uses
signal bells to announce votes throughout House offices), Pages would
be dispatched to alert Members of upcoming votes. Similarly, with the
expansion of electronic document availability, the need for physical
distribution of legislative documents by House Pages gradually
decreased.
The House Page program has been the subject of several inquiries
conducted by the House. In the 98th Congress, following an
investigation, two Members were censured for an improper relationship
with a House Page.(7) In the 109th Congress, a resolution
calling for an investigation into a former Member's misconduct with
House Pages was raised as a question of privilege and referred to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now the Committee on
Ethics).(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See H. Res. 266, 129 Cong. Rec. 20020, 20022, 20024, 20027-30, 98th
Cong. 1st Sess. (July 20, 1983) and H. Res. 265, 129 Cong. Rec.
20030, 20035-37, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (July 20, 1983). For a
full discussion of House ethics rules and disciplinary matters
generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 12 and Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 12.
8. See Sec. 24.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House Page Board
Sec. 24.1 By unanimous consent, the House considered and agreed to a
resolution establishing a House Page Board consisting of Members
and officers of the House to oversee the House Page program.
On November 30, 1982,(9) the following resolution was
considered and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 128 Cong. Rec. 28031, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTABLISHING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PAGE BOARD FOR
SUPERVISION AND EDUCATION OF PAGES
Mr. [James] WRIGHT [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 611), and I ask unanimous consent for its
immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER.(10) The Clerk will report the
resolution,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 611
Resolved, That until otherwise provided by law, there is hereby
established a board to be known as the House of Representatives Page Board
to insure that the page program is conducted in a manner that is consistent
with the efficient functioning of the House and the welfare of the pages.
Sec. 2. (a) The Page Board shall consist of--
(1) two Members of the House appointed by the Speaker and one Member of
the House appointed by the minority leader;
(2) the Clerk, Doorkeeper, and Sergeant at Arms of the House; and
(3) the Architect of the Capitol.
(b) As used in this resolution, the term ``Member of the House'' means a
Representative in, and a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the
Congress.
Sec. 3. The Page Board shall have authority to prescribe such regulations
as may be necessary to carry out this resolution.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 24.2 Pursuant to law,(11) the Speaker and the Minority
Leader each appoint two Members to the House Page
Board.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4912.
12. Parliamentarian's Note: The House Page Board was enacted into
permanent law by P.L. 97-377, 96 Stat. 1830. The composition of
the board was expanded in 2007. See 153 Cong. Rec. 1745-46,
110th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 19, 2007). See also 2 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 4911-4913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2009,(13) the following appointments to the
House Page Board were announced to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 155 Cong. Rec. 17136, 111th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PAGE BOARD
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(14) Pursuant to 2 U.S.C.
88b-3, and the order of the House of January 6, 2009, the Chair
announces the Speaker's appointment of the following Members of the
House to the House of Representatives Page Board:
14. Jason Altmire (PA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kildee, Michigan
Ms. Degette,
Colorado -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE REPUBLICAN LEADER
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Honorable John A. Boehner, Republican
Leader:
Congress of The United States,
House of Representatives,
June 2, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 88b-3, amended by
section 2 of the House Page Board Revision Act of 2007, I am
pleased to re-appoint the Honorable Rob Bishop of Utah and the
Honorable Virginia Foxx of North Carolina to the Page Board. Both
Mr. Bishop and Mrs. Foxx have expressed interest in serving in this
capacity and I am pleased to fulfill their requests.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner,
Republican Leader. -------------------
REAPPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PAGE BOARD
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 88b-3, amended by
section 2 of the House Page Board Revision Act of 2007, and the
order of the House of January 6, 2009, the Chair announces the
Speaker's and minority leader's joint reappointment of the
following individuals to the House of Representatives Page Board
for a term of 1 year, effective July 8, 2009:
Ms. Lynn Silversmith Klein of Maryland
Mr. Adam Jones of Michigan
Allegations of Improper Conduct
Sec. 24.3 A resolution alleging improper conduct by a former Member
with respect to House Pages and directing the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now the Committee on Ethics) to
investigate the circumstances surrounding the former Member's
misconduct and responses thereto, presents a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 29, 2006,(16) the following resolution was
referred to committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 152 Cong. Rec. 21334-35, 109th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--PRIVILEGED RESOLUTION REQUIRING
INVESTIGATION OF KNOWLEDGE OF OFFENSES OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK
FOLEY
Ms. [Nancy] PELOSI [of California]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
rule IX, I rise in regard to a question of the privileges of the
House and I send to the desk a privileged resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(17) The Clerk will report
the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Whereas for more than 150 years, parents from across the country have
sent their children to be pages in the U.S. Capitol, the Page School is a
national treasure, and the children who attend it and work in the Congress
are our special trust;
Whereas, according to press reports, Representative Mark Foley (R-FL)
reportedly engaged in highly inappropriate and explicit communications with
a former underage page;
Whereas these allegations were so severe that Representative Foley
immediately resigned his seat;
Whereas the page worked for Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-FL) and,
according to press reports, Representative Alexander learned of the e-mails
``10 to 11 months ago''; (AP, September 29, 2006)
Whereas Rep. Alexander has said, ``We also notified the House leadership
that there might be a potential problem'', and the Democratic leadership
was not informed; (AP, September 29, 2006)
Whereas all Members of Congress have a responsibility to protect their
employees, especially young pages who serve this institution;
Whereas these charges demand immediate investigation, including when the
e-mails were sent, who knew of the e-mails, whether there was a pattern of
inappropriate activity by Mr. Foley involving e-mail or other contacts with
pages, when the Republican leadership was notified, and what corrective
action was taken once officials learned of any improper activity;
Whereas given the serious nature of these charges, the pages, their
parents, the public, and our colleagues must be assured that such egregious
behavior is not tolerated and will never happen again;
Therefore be it resolved;
That the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct are directed to immediately appoint a Subcommittee,
pursuant to Rule 19 of the Rules of the Committee, to fully and
expeditiously determine the facts connected with Representative Foley's
conduct and the response thereto; and
That the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on
Standards are further directed to make a preliminary report within 10 days.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution presents a question of
the privileges of the House.
motion to refer the resolution
Mr. [John] BOEHNER [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Boehner moves that the resolution be referred to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized
under the hour rule.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I think all of us
realize this is a very serious matter. We have not seen this
resolution nor known of its contents until this moment; and, given
the seriousness of the matter, I would ask that the House refer
this issue to the Committee on Ethics immediately.
Again, this is a very serious matter, and I think we all
realize it is a serious matter, but I would ask we do this under
the rules of the House. Referring this to the Ethics Committee is
the appropriate place to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
410, noes 0, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 513] . . .
So the previous question was ordered. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Paul] Ryan of Wisconsin). The
question is on the motion that the resolution be referred to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered. . . .
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
409, noes 0, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 514] . . .
So the motion to refer the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Termination of the Page Program
Sec. 24.4 A Member delivered remarks on the termination of the House
Page program.
On September 8, 2011,(18) the following remarks were
made concerning the end of the House Page program:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 157 Cong. Rec. 13106, 112th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL PAGES
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(19) The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Daniel Webster (FL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Earl] BLUMENAUER [of Oregon]. Mr. Speaker, tonight is a
very historic joint session of Congress. Indeed, it is unique in
the history of our Nation.
Not because it was the first time a President's request had
been refused by the Speaker. No. Or that the President's speech, in
and of itself, is somehow going to be extraordinary, although we
all hope that it is.
This event is historic because for the first time in two
centuries, there will be no young House pages in attendance when
the President takes the podium behind me. There will be no sea of
young men and women in blue blazers with bright faces intent on
shaking the President's hand and drinking in the ceremony and the
significance of a joint session of Congress.
This is sad on so many levels, especially as a symbol of why
Congress is held in such low esteem. Many here understand the cost
of a program but fail to understand its value.
Dedicated staff were dismissed without notice in a decision
that was announced via press release without a chance for the
people who care passionately about the program to argue for its
future or help pay for it. It may save a few million dollars, but
we lose the opportunity to enrich thousands of lives whose
influence and contributions have spread across the decades and
across America, while strengthening and uplifting this institution.
This is part of a disturbing trend here in Congress, devaluing
youth and civic education.
Also scheduled for elimination is the Classroom Law Project
sponsored ``We the People'' program and the national high school
Constitution competition that takes place every year all across the
country. This is at a time when our friend, the esteemed
documentary producer, Ken Burns, points out that the average
teenager can name eight kinds of blue jeans but can't name eight
American Presidents. Yet Federal support for civic education is not
on the radar screen here in Washington, DC.
This is not really any different than the other basic
infrastructure that is falling victim to reckless budget knives and
congressional indifference. The young people who participate in the
page program and the Classroom Law Project could easily construct a
path forward for this Congress and the President.
These young people would craft a path forward that featured a
balanced and fair revenue system that would raise revenue and
reduce the deficit. They would accelerate health care reform, not
put sand in the gears. They would right-size and redirect our
military involvement, and they would reform agricultural programs
to help more family farms and ranchers while saving money.
These alumni could figure it out, while those who control the
levers of power in the House pursue an extreme agenda that is not
what America needs or what Americans want. These young people, the
pages, may not be in attendance here this evening, but their
absence speaks volumes about political dysfunction and a
shortsighted agenda.
I hope we will all listen to them.
Sec. 25. Other Congressional Officials and Employees
Apart from the elected officers of the House(1) and
other appointed officials,(2) the House is supported by
other congressional employees whose jurisdiction spans both the House
and the Senate. These include the Attending Physician, the Architect of
the Capitol, and the Capitol Police.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. Sec. 13-17, supra.
2. See Sec. Sec. 18-23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attending Physician
The Office of the Attending Physician has its origins in the early
part of the 20th century. In the 70th Congress in 1928, the House
adopted a resolution requesting that the Secretary of the Navy detail a
medical officer to the House.(3) From that point to the
present day, a naval medical officer has been appointed by the
President of the United States to serve as the Attending Physician of
the United States Congress.(4) According to its mission
statement, the Office of the Attending Physician provides ``primary
care, emergency, environmental and occupational health services in
direct support of the United States Capitol, the Supreme Court,
visiting dignitaries, pages, staff and tourists.(5) The
Attending Physician's offices are located in the Capitol, each of the
House and Senate office buildings, and the Capitol Visitor Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. H. Res. 253, 70 Cong. Rec. 101, 70th Cong. 2d Sess. (Dec. 5, 1928).
In 1930, the Senate adopted a concurrent resolution (S. Con.
Res. 14) extending the jurisdiction of the Attending Physician
to the Senate as well, though the House never concurred in that
resolution. Nevertheless, the position evolved informally over
the years and currently provides medical services across the
Capitol Complex. In 2004, certain authorities for the Attending
Physician to respond to bioterrorism attacks were codified in
law. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4123.
4. There have been seven Attending Physicians appointed over the
course of the office's history. Pursuant to law, the Attending
Physician holds the reserve grade of major general or rear
admiral. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 12210.
5. See http://attendingphysician.house.gov/about.shtml (last visited
Oct. 24, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Architect of the Capitol
The Architect of the Capitol's primary responsibility is to
maintain and care for the U.S. Capitol Building.(6) However,
the Architect of the Capitol's jurisdiction also extends to the House
and Senate office buildings, the Capitol Visitor Center, the Capitol
Grounds, Capitol Police facilities, the Capitol Power Plant, the
buildings of the Library of Congress, the Supreme Court (including the
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building), and the U.S. Botanical
Gardens.(7) A Superintendent of the House office buildings
is employed by the Architect of the Capitol to maintain and operate the
House office buildings, which are also overseen by the House Office
Building Commission.(8) The Architect of the Capitol shares
jurisdiction over the Library of Congress with the Librarian of
Congress(9) and the Joint Committee of Congress on the
Library.(10) With respect to the Capitol Grounds, certain
areas fall under the jurisdiction of both the Architect of the Capitol
and the Mayor of the District of Columbia.(11) The Architect
of the Capitol serves on the Capitol Police Board.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1801 et seq.
7. https://www.aoc.gov/organizational-directory (last visited Sept. 5,
2019).
8. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2001. The House Office Building Commission usually
consists of the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, and
the Minority Leader. For more on House office buildings
generally, see Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 8.
9. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 136.
10. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 132b.
11. 40 U.S.C. Sec. 5102(b).
12. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Architect of the Capitol is appointed by the President of the
United States (with the advice and consent of the Senate) for a period
of ten years.(13) A commission, composed of various House
and Senate leaders, committee chairs, and ranking members, is charged
with recommending individuals for appointment as Architect of the
Capitol.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1801. The Architect of Capitol traces its origins to
the construction of the Capitol itself, and various engineers
and architects with responsibility over the Capitol were
sometimes referred to as the ``Architect of the Capitol''
throughout the early part of the 19th century. When the Capitol
was extended in the years prior to the Civil War, an Architect
of the Capitol Extension was appointed by the President. In
1876, a law was enacted to transfer authority over the Capitol
Building from the Commissioner of Public Buildings and Grounds
to the Architect of the Capitol. 19 Stat. 147. For more
information on the individuals who have served as Architect of
the Capitol, see https://www.aoc.gov/architect-of-the-capitol
(last visited Sept. 5, 2019).
14. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Police
The Capitol Police has been a presence on Capitol Hill since the
early 19th century(15) and provides security services across
the Capitol complex, including the Library of Congress.(16)
Pursuant to law, the Capitol Police is authorized to provide protection
for Members of Congress, officers of Congress, and their
families.(17) The Capitol Police has the authority to make
arrests and enforce the laws of the United States in the areas under
its jurisdiction.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. In 1828, a law was enacted that allowed Washington, D.C., police
regulations to be applied to the Capitol Grounds. The Capitol
Police consider that law the genesis of their police force. For
more on the history of the Capitol Police, see https://
www.uscp.gov/the-department/our-history (last visited July 31,
2018). For more on the Capitol's Police's relationship to the
House Sergeant-at-Arms, see Sec. 15, supra.
16. From 1950 until 2009, the Library of Congress employed its own
police officers. However, this police force was gradually
merged with the Capitol Police, beginning in 2003. See P.L.
108-7, 117 Stat. 363.
17. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1966.
18. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1967. The relationship between the Capitol Police and
the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police is established in
law. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1961, 1966-1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1873, a Capitol Police Board was established to oversee the
Capitol Police. The current composition of the board includes the
Sergeants-at-Arms of both Houses of Congress and the Architect of the
Capitol.(19) A Chief of the Capitol Police, appointed by the
Capitol Police Board, is responsible for supervising the police
force.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 361.
20. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 24, 1998, two Capitol Police employees, Officer Jacob
Joseph Chestnut and Detective John Michael Gibson, were killed in the
line of duty during a security incident at the Capitol.(21)
In tribute to the two officers, their remains laid in honor in the
Capitol Rotunda.(22) In memory of the officers, the Capitol
Police Headquarters was designated in their honor as the ``Eney,
Chestnut, Gibson Memorial Building.''(23) The document
entrance on the East Plaza of the Capitol was also designated as the
``Chestnut-Gibson Memorial Door.''(24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 1.13.
22. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 38 Sec. 12.4. See also Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 38 Sec. 3.5 (concurrent resolution authorizing
payment of funeral expenses and gratuities to surviving spouses
of slain officers).
23. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 7.5. Capitol Police Sergeant
Christopher Sherman Eney was accidentally killed during a
training exercise in 1984.
24. See Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 4 Sec. 7.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A resolution alleging improper use of the Capitol Police by a
committee chair has been raised as a question of the privileges of the
House.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. See H. Res. 330, 149 Cong. Rec. 19155-56, 108th Cong. 1st Sess.
(July 23, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribute to the Architect of the Capitol
Sec. 25.1 By unanimous consent, the House considered and agreed to a
concurrent resolution expressing thanks to the retiring Architect
of the Capitol.
On November 28, 1995,(26) the House concurred in the
following Senate concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. 141 Cong. Rec. 34733-34, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 33) expressing the thanks and
good wishes of the American people to Hon. George M. White on the
occasion of his retirement as the Architect of the Capitol, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
The text of the Senate concurrent resolution is as follows:
S. Con. Res. 33
Whereas at its inception, the Capitol of the United States of America was
blessed to rise under the hand of some of this Nation's greatest
architects, including Dr. William Thornton, Benjamin Henry Latrobe, and
Charles Bullfinch;
Whereas prior to the Honorable George Malcolm White, FAIA, being
appointed by President Nixon on January 27, 1971, it had been 106 years
since a professional architect had been named to the post of Architect of
the Capitol; . . .
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That
the thanks and good wishes of the American people are hereby tendered to
the Honorable George M. White, FAIA, on the occasion of his retirement from
the Office of the Architect of the Capitol after nearly a quarter-century
of outstanding service to this nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Bob] Barr [of Georgia]). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. [Victor] FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, and I will not object, but I yield to my friend,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], who might like to make
some comments on the legislation. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in. A motion to
reconsider was laid on the table.
E. House Employees As Party Defendant or Witness
Sec. 26. Current Procedures for Responding to Subpoenas
The relationship between Congress and judicial bodies (both state
and Federal) is a complex one that involves fundamental constitutional
questions regarding separation of powers, federalism, and judicial
review.(1) At the Federal level, the legislative and
judicial branches are considered co-equals--each with an independent
duty to exercise its constitutional obligations and guard against
encroachment of its prerogatives by the other branches. When Members of
the House, its officers or employees, or the House
itself,(2) become involved in judicial proceedings, an
initial determination must be made as to whether participation in such
proceedings is consistent with the rights and privileges of the
individuals or entities on whom process has been served. Over the
course of its history, the House has chosen a variety of methods for
determining such questions in order to either permit or deny compliance
with court orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Parliamentarian's Note: From the earliest days of Congress, the
House has often acted as a quasi-judicial body in its own
right. For example, the House frequently undertakes inquiries
and investigations during the course of which individuals may
be requested to testify before, or provide evidence to,
committees of the House. Individuals may be held in contempt of
Congress for failure to obey congressional subpoenas. For more
information regarding the House's investigatory powers, see 2
Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1597-1640; 3 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 1666-1826; 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 332-393;
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 15; and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 15.
2. For an example of the House itself being named a defendant in a
Federal civil action, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 11
Sec. 16.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedural Evolution
Although they do not possess the same privileges as Members,
officers of the House are institutional actors, and their interaction
with judicial bodies has long been regulated by the House. In
exercising their official duties, House officers may become involved in
litigation or other judicial proceedings, and may be subpoenaed to
testify or produce documents. In many cases, it is not some action of
the officer that is the subject of the judicial inquiry;(3)
rather, it is the officer's status as the custodian of House
documents(4) that is the most pertinent
factor.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. For questions of privilege based on actions by House officers, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 11 Sec. 10.
4. Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to clause 2(e)(2)(A) of rule XI,
all committee records (subject to certain narrow exceptions)
are deemed ``the property of the House'' and are to be kept
separate from the personal files of the individual serving as
the committee's chair. House Rules and Manual Sec. 796 (2019).
By contrast, under clause 6(b) of rule VII, records of
individual Members are considered ``exclusively the personal
property of the individual Member.'' House Rules and Manual
Sec. 695 (2019).
5. For questions of privilege involving House officers as custodians
of documents, see 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2663, 2664; 6
Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 585, 587; and Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 11 Sec. Sec. 16.7, 16.8, and 16.13-16.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over time, the process used by the House in addressing subpoenas
issued to officers or employees gradually evolved from a legislative
response to an administrative one. In the 46th Congress in
1879,(6) an employee of the Clerk's Office was subpoenaed by
the Adjunct General of the United States Army to testify and produce
documents with regard to a court martial case. The House Committee on
the Judiciary issued a report analyzing the circumstances in which an
officer or employee of the House may produce House documents in a
judicial proceeding. The conclusion reached by the committee was that
no officer or employee had any independent authority to allow third
parties to have access to documents of the House without the prior
consent of the House.(7) The report concluded with the
following resolution: ``Resolved, That no officer or employee of the
House of Representatives has the right either voluntarily or in
obedience to a subpoena duces tecum to produce any document, paper, or
book belonging to the files of the House before any court or officer,
nor to permit any copy of any testimony given or paper filed in any
investigation before the House or any of its committees, or of any
other paper belonging to the files of the House, except such as may be
authorized by statute to be copied, and such as the House itself may
have made public, to be taken without the consent of the House first
obtained.''(8) This resolution was subsequently adopted by
the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 9 Cong. Rec. 679-81, 46th Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 22, 1879).
7. Parliamentarian's Note: This appears, at the time, to have been a
question of first impression. ``There is a further question,
however, and perhaps so far as this House is concerned a more
important one, yet to be considered, and that is whether Mr.
Finch or any other officer of the House has the right or can be
lawfully compelled without the consent of the House to produce
in obedience to a subpoena duces tecum any paper belonging to
its files.'' 9 Cong. Rec. 680, 46th Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 22,
1879). For an earlier example where the production of documents
to a court by Members of the House in response to a subpoena
(but without the prior consent of the House) was deemed a
breach of the privileges of the House, see 3 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 2661.
8. 9 Cong. Rec. 680, 46th Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 22, 1879).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 49th Congress in 1886,(9) the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia (a precursor to the current U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia) issued a subpoena duces tecum to
the Clerk of the House, and commanded him to appear before the court
with certain records of the House. The House Committee on the Judiciary
issued another report analyzing the circumstances under which House
officers and employees may be compelled to produce House documents in
response to court orders. The report concluded with a resolution
(subsequently adopted by the House) containing the following statement:
``That by the privilege of this House no evidence of a documentary
character under the control and in possession of the House of
Representatives can by the mandate or process of the ordinary courts of
justice be taken from such control or possession but by its permission
. . . [t]hat when it appears by the order of a court or of the judge
thereof, or of any legal officer charged with the administration of the
orders of such court or judge, that documentary evidence in the
possession and under the control of the House is needful for use in any
court of justice or before any judge or such legal officer for the
promotion of justice, this House will take such orders thereon as will
promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges and rights
of this House.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 17 Cong. Rec. 1295, 49th Cong. 1st Sess. (Feb. 9, 1886).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These resolutions were subsequently relied upon by the House in
determining similar questions for nearly a century. Officers and
employees of the House, when served with subpoenas, would inform the
House of such receipt, often would quote the resolutions described
above, and would request that the House authorize compliance. The House
would then adopt a privileged resolution(10) permitting (or
denying) such compliance.(11) If the House chose to take no
action upon notification that an officer or employee had been served
with a subpoena, then compliance was not authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Such resolutions would often quote the earlier resolutions of the
Committee on the Judiciary as well. See, e.g., 6 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 587.
11. For an early example of a resolution authorizing compliance, see 6
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ad hoc method of addressing court orders gave full power to
the House to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not
compliance was consistent with the privileges of the House. However,
this method of disposing of these questions had the potential to burden
the House with the necessity to address this type of non-legislative
business any time it arose.(12) Further, this system
required the House to be in session to dispose of the matter, which
could cause unnecessary delays in court proceedings when subpoenas were
received during periods of recess or adjournment. Thus, between 1948
and 1979, the House experimented with different types of ongoing
authority that would obviate the need for adopting a separate
resolution for every subpoena received by an officer or employee of the
House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Parliamentarian's Note: As these types of resolutions involved the
House's defense of its constitutional prerogatives, they
naturally qualify as questions of privilege under rule IX. See
House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 698, 699, and 702 (2019). As
highly privileged questions, such resolutions take precedence
over matters of lesser privilege, and thus have the potential
to displace the regular legislative business of the House.
13. Parliamentarian's Note: In the 80th Congress in 1948, the House
adopted House Resolution 584, which provided that, during the
Congress, officers and employees of the House were authorized
to appear in response to a validly-issued subpoena in all cases
involving the prosecution of witnesses for contempt of
Congress. It further provided that, upon a court finding of
materiality and relevancy, papers and documents of the House
could be made available to all proper parties in the
litigation. Under this authority, no further action of the
House would be required to permit compliance. H. Res. 584, 94
Cong. Rec. 5432, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. (May 6, 1948). Similar
resolutions were adopted by the House in 1950, 1951, and 1953.
See H. Res. 864, 96 Cong. Rec. 15636, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
(Sept. 22, 1950); H. Res. 481, 97 Cong. Rec. 13777, 82d Cong
1st Sess. (Oct. 20, 1951); and H. Res. 391, 99 Cong. Rec.
11132, 83d Cong. 1st Sess. (Aug. 3, 1953). In 1954, the same
type of resolution specified that it was applicable during
periods of ``recess or adjournment'' of the current Congress
(language that would be used in subsequent resolutions through
1975). See H. Res. 711, 100 Cong. Rec. 15547, 83d Cong. 2d
Sess. (Aug. 20, 1954). In 1955, the language of this type of
resolution was expanded to encompass not just subpoenas in
contempt cases, but subpoenas issued by ``any court of the
United States.'' See H. Res. 341, 101 Cong. Rec. 13063, 84th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Aug. 2, 1955). See also H. Res. 416, 103 Cong.
Rec. 16759-60, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. (Aug. 30, 1957), and H.
Res. 224, 105 Cong. Rec. 5260, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 25,
1959). In 1959, a similar type of resolution was adopted that
expanded the application beyond officers and employees of the
House to include Members as well. See H. Res. 389, 105 Cong.
Rec. 19365, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (Sept. 12, 1959). This
language was used in several subsequent Congresses. See H. Res.
17, 107 Cong. Rec. 27, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 1961); H.
Res. 10, 109 Cong. Rec. 24, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 9,
1963); H. Res. 12, 111 Cong. Rec. 27, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 4, 1965); H. Res. 11, 113 Cong. Rec. 35, 90th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 10, 1967); H. Res. 15, 115 Cong. Rec. 37, 91st
Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 1969); H. Res. 9, 117 Cong. Rec. 16,
92d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 21, 1971); H. Res. 12, 119 Cong. Rec.
30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 1973); and H. Res. 9, 121
Cong. Rec. 35, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 15, 1975). In 1977, a
similar resolution was adopted that provided the same authority
to respond to subpoenas at any point during the Congress (not
just during periods of recess or adjournment), and further
stated explicitly the House's right to revoke or modify such
authorities at any time. It also required that the individual
served with a subpoena notify the Speaker (who would then lay
the matter before the House for the information of Members).
See H. Res. 10, 123 Cong. Rec. 73, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan.
4, 1977). The same language was used in the following Congress.
See H. Res. 10, 125 Cong. Rec. 19, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan.
15, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 96th Congress in 1980, the House adopted House Resolution
722, which was the direct precursor to current rule
VIII.(14) This resolution drew heavily on previous
resolutions of this type, but further expanded its scope by granting
Members, officers, and employees of the House greater flexibility to
respond to subpoenas without further House action. As with the version
first used in 1977,(15) the procedures of House Resolution
722 authorized compliance with subpoenas at any point during the
Congress, with the explicit caveat that the House retained its ability
to revoke or modify this authority at any time. It further required
that the Speaker be notified of the receipt of any subpoenas, and that
the Speaker promptly notify the House of such receipt. The resolution
provided that the Member, officer, or employee should make the initial
determination as to whether the subpoena ``is a proper exercise of the
court's jurisdiction, is material and relevant, and is consistent with
the privileges and rights of the House.'' Thus, rather than have the
House itself make this determination by adopting (or choosing not to
adopt) a resolution specific to each individual case, the individual on
whom process has been served is authorized to decide the question.
Pursuant to House Resolution 722, the Member, officer, or individual
would inform the Speaker (who would then inform the House) as to what
action was taken in response to the subpoena. No further action of the
House was required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019). Between 1981 and 1999,
these procedures were found in former rule L.
15. H. Res. 10, 123 Cong. Rec. 73, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4, 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This method of addressing subpoenas or other judicial orders was
incorporated into the standing rules at the beginning of the 97th
Congress in 1981.(16) The advent of this process has
effectively converted the treatment of subpoenas issued to officers and
employees of the House into an administrative (rather than legislative)
matter. Members of the House are informed as to whether any such
subpoenas have been received, and how the individual has determined the
relevant questions regarding consistency with the rights and privileges
of the House.(17) Although the House retains full authority
to override such decisions, it is no longer required to adopt separate
resolutions to permit compliance for each case as it arises. Thus, the
privileges of the House with respect to the actions of its officers and
control over its records are fully protected by the rule, while the
processing of noncontroversial judicial orders may proceed efficiently
without overly burdening the business of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H. Res. 5, 127 Cong. Rec. 98-99, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5,
1981).
17. See Sec. 26.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the advent of rule VIII, there has been little change in the
process by which officers and employees of the House respond to
subpoenas. In the 107th Congress in 2001,(18) the rule was
expanded to cover administrative as well as judicial subpoenas, but
this change was repealed in the 115th Congress.(19) In the
115th Congress, the rule was rewritten to clarify and consolidate
notification requirements, and eliminate the requirement for the Clerk
to transmit a copy of the rule to the court.(20) Following
the establishment of the Office of General Counsel,(21)
officers and employees have access to expert legal counsel to advise
them as to whether compliance with court orders is consistent with the
privileges of the House.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 5, 147 Cong. Rec. 25, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2001).
19. H. Res. 5, 163 Cong. Rec. H8 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 3, 2017).
20. Id.
21. See Sec. 19, supra.
22. Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the advent of the Office of
General Counsel, the Counsel to the Clerk performed a similar
function. For more on the House General Counsel and its
history, see Sec. 19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although rule VIII permits Members, officers, and employees to
respond to subpoenas if the individual served determines that such
response is consistent with the rights and privileges of the House, the
House retains its ability to adopt resolutions to
permit,(23) deny,(24) or limit compliance with
court orders. Although a resolution to authorize or deny compliance
with judicial orders constitutes a question of the privileges of the
House, and thus has priority over other items of business,
consideration of such resolutions may also be initiated by a unanimous-
consent agreement.(25) Rule VIII applies to judicial
subpoenas and orders, but the House has authorized compliance with
other requests from judicial officials, such as a request for a
``cooperative response'' from a Special Counsel to the Attorney General
(seeking House documents and materials).(26) Rule VIII
specifically excludes executive session material of the House from
being disclosed or copied in response to subpoenas or other court
orders.(27)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. See Sec. 26.3, infra.
24. See Sec. 26.4, infra.
25. See Sec. 26.5, infra.
26. See Sec. 26.6, infra.
27. Rule VIII, clause 3(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019). See
also Sec. 26.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule VIII applies to Members, officers, and employees of the House.
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are also covered by the
rule.(28) If a congressional official is associated with
both the House and the Senate, such official's response to a judicial
subpoena would need to be authorized by both bodies via a concurrent
resolution.(29) Although former officers and former
employees of the House are not covered by rule VIII, the House has been
notified in some cases that such individuals have been served with
subpoenas, if the instant case involves both current and former
officers or employees.(30)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. See, e.g., 161 Cong. Rec. H6743 [Daily Ed.], 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Sept. 30, 2015).
29. See Sec. 26.8, infra. See also Sec. 25, supra.
30. See, e.g., 127 Cong. Rec. 694-95, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 22,
1981) and 126 Cong. Rec. 32252, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. (Dec. 4,
1980). In the 115th Congress, a separate order contained in the
resolution adopting the standing rules provided authorization
for a former employee of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence to testify in a criminal action. See H. Res. 5,
161 Cong. Rec. 36, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to notification procedures, it is the Speaker's duty
under rule VIII to promptly lay the matter before the House when
notified by the affected party. Where there has been a delay in
notifying the House of the receipt of subpoenas, a question of the
privileges of the House may be raised to direct the Speaker to produce
the relevant court orders.(31)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. See Sec. 26.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officers and employees of the House may retain counsel to represent
them in matters before the courts. The House Office of General Counsel
is available to provide such representation. Additionally, pursuant to
statute,(32) officers and employees of the House may request
that the U.S. Attorney located in the jurisdiction where the case has
been brought represent them in the proceedings.(33) Finally,
the House may independently authorize counsel for officers or employees
who become involved in litigation related to their official
duties.(34)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5503.
33. Parliamentarian's Note: With the advent of the Office of General
Counsel, requests of this type have become rare. For earlier
instances, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 23.3-23.5.
See also 127 Cong. Rec. 3037, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (Feb. 25,
1981).
34. For an example of special counsel being retained by the House to
represent both Members and officers, see Deschler's Precedents
Ch. 6 Sec. 23.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability
Sec. 26.1 Employees of the House, such as Members' aides and staff
(including district staff), are covered by rule VIII(35)
and thus when subpoenas are issued to such individuals, the Speaker
is informed, and the matter is laid before the House for the
information of Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 14, 2015,(36) the Speaker pro tempore laid
before the House the following communications from staff of the
district office of a Member, as required by rule VIII:(37)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. 161 Cong. Rec. 4874, 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
37. Parliamentarian's Note: The above subpoenas were served in
connection with the ongoing investigation of former Rep. Aaron
Schock of Illinois. For similar occurrences, see 161 Cong. Rec.
5204, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 20, 2015); 161 Cong. Rec.
5598, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (Apr. 27, 2015); 161 Cong. Rec.
6319, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (May 8, 2015); and 161 Cong. Rec.
6424, 114th Cong. 1st Sess. (May 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM DISTRICT OFFICE MANAGER OF THE OFFICE OF THE
18TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the District Office Manager of the Office of the
18th Congressional District of Illinois:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, April 8, 2015.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you formally pursuant to
rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives that I have
been served with a grand jury subpoena for testimony issued by the
United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
I have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the privileges and rights of the House.
Sincerely,
Bryan Rudolph,
District Office
Manager. -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF MEMBER OF THE OFFICE OF THE 18TH
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from a Staff Member of the Office of the 18th
Congressional District of Illinois:
March 31, 2015.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you formally, pursuant to
rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that I have
been served with a grand jury subpoena for testimony, issued by the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
After consultation with counsel, I will make the determinations
required by rule VIII.
Sincerely,
Sarah Rogers. -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF MEMBER OF THE OFFICE OF THE 18TH
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from a Staff Member of the Office of the 18th
Congressional District of Illinois:
March 31, 2015.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you formally, pursuant to
rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that I have
been served with a grand jury subpoena for testimony, issued by the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
After consultation with counsel, I will make the determinations
required by rule VIII.
Sincerely,
Dayne LaHood.
Notification
Sec. 26.2 A resolution alleging that the Speaker did not promptly
notify the House that subpoenas had been received by House officers
and employees, and further directing the Speaker to produce the
relevant court orders and explain the reason for the
delay,(38) constitutes a valid question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.(39)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Parliamentarian's Note: As depicted below, the Speaker explained
the circumstances surrounding the receipt of these subpoenas
during debate on the resolution raised as a question of
privilege. These comments constituted compliance with the
directive of the resolution, and no further announcement was
made by the Speaker.
39. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 698, 699, and 702 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 14, 1992,(40) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. 138 Cong. Rec. 11309-16, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 14, 1992.
Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you pursuant to former rule
L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been served with a
subpoena issued by the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.
Sincerely,
Donnald K. Anderson,
Clerk. -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE HONORABLE AUSTIN J. MURPHY, MEMBER OF
CONGRESS
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Honorable Austin J. Murphy, Member of Congress:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 8, 1992.
Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you pursuant to former rule
L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been served with a
subpoena issued by the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.
Very truly yours,
Austin J. Murphy,
Member of Congress. -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE HONORABLE JOE KOLTER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Honorable Joe Kolter, Member of Congress:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 12, 1992.
Speaker Thomas S. Foley,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you pursuant to former rule
L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been served with a
subpoena issued by the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.
Sincerely,
Joe Kolter,
Member of Congress. -------------------
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE SPEAKER OF
THE HOUSE TO PRODUCE COURT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION OF THE HOUSE POST OFFICE
Mr. [Robert] WALKER [of Pennsylvania]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution.
The SPEAKER.(41) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 456
Whereas, the Department of Justice is conducting a criminal investigation
into the activities of the Office of the House Postmaster and;
Whereas, the Department of Justice issued five subpoenas on May 6
requiring certain members of the House and current or former employees to
produce certain materials and;
Whereas, Rule L requires that the Speaker be promptly notified of receipt
of all subpoenas and that they be laid before the House and that the
Speaker shall inform the House of the proper exercise of the court order;
Resolved, That the House of Representatives directs the Speaker of the
House to produce the court orders dealing with the criminal investigation
of the House Post Office and that the Speaker explain what delayed the
timely consideration of said court orders.
The SPEAKER. In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution states
a question of privilege.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is recognized for
1 hour. . . .
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution relating to rule L, which
does require that the Speaker promptly notify the House of receipt
of all subpoenas. It is at least our understanding that five
subpoenas were served upon the House over a week ago and that the
House has just learned of three of those subpoenas, and there are
perhaps two more yet to come. . . .
The SPEAKER. The Chair will make a statement from the chair,
that the documents that have been laid before the House today
indicate that the subpoenas have been issued. The Chair will inform
the House that there has been oral modification of the subpoenas
requested by the U.S. attorney over the period of the last several
days and that, to the best of the Chair's knowledge, the U.S.
attorney is satisfied with the discussions that have been ongoing
with regard to the matter requested and that, when those
discussions had been concluded, that the information would be laid
before the House, as it has been today.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, in that regard, have all subpoenas
that are before the House been laid before the House at this point?
The SPEAKER. All that have been addressed to the Speaker so
far.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, that is the question. Our
understanding was that there may have been as many as five
subpoenas that came to the Hill last week. Are all five of those
now before the House?
The SPEAKER. At this point the Chair has received three
letters, and they have been laid down. There are two additional
letters, I am told, that are coming. They will be laid promptly
before the House when they arrive.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, those figures would fit with what we
know, but our understanding is those subpoenas first arrived on
Capitol Hill as of last Wednesday.
Is that correct?
The SPEAKER. As I have informed the gentleman, the U.S.
attorney modified his request verbally after the subpoenas had been
served and no conclusion as to the scope of the subpoenas had been
reached until very recently, and I think they are still ongoing in
their discussions.
Mr. WALKER. Then my question, Mr. Speaker, would be, and I will
be happy to yield to the minority whip in a minute, but my question
would be:
If there had been negotiations with regard to this, why is it the
minority has been left out of those negotiations despite the assurances of
the Speaker and others during our reform task force meetings that there
would never be a time when the minority is left out of such discussions?
The SPEAKER. The Chair was of the opinion that the minority had
been informed about it. If there has been any lapse in that matter,
the Chair regrets it, but there has been no conclusion to the
request of the U.S. attorney at this point.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, evidently these are matters that have
been under discussion for a week. I can find no one on the minority
side who was informed about this at any time. This is an ongoing
pattern. On several occasions we have also been told that it was a
lapse of protocol, a lapse of memory, a lapse of something, that
has been preventing the minority from being informed. These are
important matters before the House, and they are exactly the kind
of thing that was mentioned over and over again in the reform task
force meetings as matters that had to come promptly to the
minority.
That is not happening in this case, and it is a major concern
for Members of the minority that we have not only been kept in the
dark about the subpoenas themselves, but also that, as I understand
the Speaker, there are ongoing negotiations with the U.S. attorney
that we have also not been included in.
The SPEAKER. The matter that has come to the attention of the
House is one in which the Chair feels the minority should have been
informed, and the Chair takes responsibility for that lapse.
But the Chair would also assure the House that all the
procedures of rule L are being scrupulously observed and the House
is being informed in the spirit of the rule as the determinations
have been made under the rule.
The Chair does believe that he should assure that the minority
leader was informed, and takes responsibility to see that that is
done in the future.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair for that, but it is a fact that
the Republican leader has not been informed.
The SPEAKER. It was the Chair's impression that he had been,
and, if the Chair had been advised that he had not been and was
aware that he had not been, it would have been concluded that he
would have been informed. The Chair notes that the complaint is not
coming from the leader, but from others in the House, and I wish to
assure----
Mr. WALKER. I remind the Speaker that all Members have the
ability to bring a privileged resolution, and I do not think the
minority leader, the Republican leader of the House, the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Michel], would object to this particular
resolution. I think the Republican leader is probably very
disturbed about the fact that he did not get the kind of
information that he was entitled to in this kind of case, and to
suggest that somehow I am running a rump operation here I do not
believe is something that needs to be aired here. This is an
entirely legitimate matter to bring before the House, and I have
every reason to believe that the Republican leader is very
disturbed about the fact that the Democratic Party is continuing
not to inform him of matters that relate to the business of this
House. . . .
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman yield to the Chair?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has tried to explain that there is no
effort at this point to in any way negotiate the request of the
U.S. attorney. It is to determine what it is.
There has been a request from the U.S. attorney through
subpoenas which were very broad in their reach and required a very
early return. And it was the effort to determine exactly what the
reach of the subpoena was and how soon the return that led to
discussions with the U.S. attorney, not other negotiations.
It was an attempt to discover from the U.S. attorney what would
be needed in the judgment of the Office of Counsel of the Clerk to
comply with the subpoena to determine what the U.S. attorney's
position was.
The Chair has attempted to explain this. The Chair has taken
upon himself a responsibility for not informing the minority
leader. It was not intended as any slight to him. This Member has
tried very hard, as Speaker, to keep the minority leader advised of
these matters. I regret that this was a case where the course of
determining what the subpoena was was not promptly communicated to
the minority leader.
However, the rule itself is complied with in the Chair's
opinion, when it is determined what the request is, that it should
be then promptly laid before the House.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, respectfully might I say that the rule
is fairly clear that such negotiations with regard to the proper
exercise of the court's jurisdiction are, in fact, supposed to take
place after the House has been notified.
If the Speaker will read clause 3 of rule L, he will find that
it says:
Once notification has been laid before the House, the Member, officer or
employee shall determine whether the issuance of the subpoena or other
judicial order is a proper exercise of the court's jurisdiction, is
material and relevant.
And so, therefore, the matter should have been laid before the
House prior to the kind of negotiation that the Speaker refers to.
Our concern on this is that this was not laid before the House,
that these modifications have taken place.
My question to the Chair would be, if, in fact, this is the
matter that has been negotiated or has been dealt with, can the
Chair inform the House what the modifications were that the House
insisted on?
The SPEAKER. There is no negotiation taking place on section 3
of rule L. The effort has been to determine what the desire of the
U.S. attorney was, as expressed in the subpoena. That is all.
Mr. WALKER. Could the Chair inform the House what the
modifications were in the original order that have been worked out
with the U.S. attorney?
The SPEAKER. There is no determination at this point. The Chair
has made an explanation to the gentleman. He assures the House that
he will immediately discuss the matter in full with the legal staff
and the legal members of the legal committee.
In this way, we can immediately lay before the minority all
information we presently possess about this matter.
The Chair reiterates his statement that there was no desire on
his part or on the part of the majority to deny the minority leader
any appropriate information. The gentleman may not accept that, but
in the spirit of the gentleman's privileged resolution, the Chair
has made the explanation that the gentleman requested.
The Chair at that point will leave the matter for the House's
determination. . . .
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the
Speaker. -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM WERNER W. BRANDT, SERGEANT AT ARMS
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 14, 1992.
Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you pursuant to former rule
L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been served with a
subpoena issued by the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.
Sincerely,
Werner W. Brandt,
Sergeant at Arms.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, that is an additional one. Do we have
one more to go? Do we have another one yet to come?
The SPEAKER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the Chair
would say that there is one more communication which the Chair will
supply.
Mr. WALKER. There is one more. Do we have some idea as to when
we will get that, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER. As soon as it is transmitted to the Speaker, the
Chair would assume, very shortly.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the Speaker. . . .
Mr. SPEAKER. If the gentleman will yield, the Chair lays before
the House a
communication. -------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM HON. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Honorable Dan Rostenkowski, Member of Congress:
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you pursuant to former rule
L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been served with a
subpoena issued by the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.
Sincerely,
Dan Rostenkowski.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, do I understand now that is all of the
subpoenas that are before the House at this point?
The SPEAKER. All that the Chair is aware of. . . .
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER. Without Objection, the previous question is
ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the privileged resolution
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas
324, nays 3, not voting 107, as follows:
[Roll No. 126] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Consideration by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 26.3 By unanimous consent,(42) the House agreed to
consider two separate resolutions, each proposing a different
method of complying with a subpoena from the Special Counsel to the
Attorney General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Parliamentarian's Note: Although each resolution constituted a
question of the privileges of the House under rule IX (and thus
entitled to priority over most other business), a unanimous-
consent agreement was utilized in this instance in order to
structure the debate and preclude intervening motions. See
House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 1992,(43) the following unanimous-consent
request, making in order two separate resolutions authorizing
compliance with subpoenas issued to an officer of the House, was agreed
to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. 138 Cong. Rec. 9753, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 26.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAKING IN ORDER TWO RESOLUTIONS ON A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGES OF
THE HOUSE
Mr. [Richard] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that it be in order, without the intervention of
any motion, to consider a resolution to be offered by the majority
leader or his designee as a question of the privileges of the
House, that debate on the resolution continue not to exceed 1 hour,
to be equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the
minority leader, or their designees, that the previous question be
considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without
intervening motion, and that the resolution on final adoption not
be subject to a demand for a division of the question; and further
that immediately upon disposition of that resolution it shall be in
order, without the intervention of any motion, to consider a
resolution to be offered by the minority leader or his designee as
a question of the privileges of the House, that debate on the
resolution continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and
controlled by the minority leader and the majority leader, or their
designees, that the previous question be considered as ordered on
the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion, and
that the resolution on final adoption not be subject to a demand
for a division of the question.
The SPEAKER.(44) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Resolutions Prohibiting Compliance
Sec. 26.4 A resolution asserting that a judicial subpoena was an
unconstitutional invasion of the prerogatives of the House, and
directing a House officer not to produce investigative records of
the House sought by the court, constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House.
On April 28, 1983,(45) the House considered a resolution
raised as a question of privilege as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. 129 Cong. Rec. 10417-18, 10423-24, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. For an
earlier letter signed jointly by the Speaker, floor leaders,
and whips of both parties, instructing the Clerk not to produce
the requested documents, see 128 Cong. Rec. 6114, 97th Cong. 2d
Sess. (Mar. 31, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RELATING TO INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS OF
SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGING
Mr. [Thomas] FOLEY [of Washington]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privileges of the House and offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 176), and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 176
Whereas the Constitution of the United States vests authority in the
House of Representatives to protect and preserve documents and papers
generated during an official and duly authorized investigation conducted by
one of its committee;
Whereas article I, section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution (the speech or
debate clause) prohibits the questioning of legislative actions outside the
House, whether by testimony or production of documentary evidence;
Whereas article I, section 5, clause 3 of the Constitution provides that
the House shall determine the portion of its proceedings which shall be
public;
Whereas the House Select Committee on Aging conducted an investigation
and hearing into abuses reported in the sale of medicare supplemental
insurance to the elderly during 1978; and
Whereas such investigation and hearing resulted in the official
publication of a committee report entitled ``Abuses in the Sale of Health
Insurance to the Elderly in Supplementation of Medicare: A National Scandal
and a committee report ``Cancer Insurance: Exploiting Fear For ``Profit (An
Examination of Dread Disease Insurance)'' Comm. Pub. 96-202; and
Whereas certain documents were obtained or generated during the course of
such investigation and hearing and in the preparation of the staff study
and the committee report; and
Whereas pursuant to Rule XXXVI of the House of Representatives, the
Select Committee's records were committed to the custody of the Clerk of
the House whose duty it is to protect, preserve and maintain such records
and to prevent their production in contravention of the aforementioned
rights and privileges of the House and its Members; and
Whereas there is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland a civil suit entitled George H. Benford v. American
Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. N-79-2386;
Whereas on March 22, 1982, a deposition subpoena duces tecum issued by
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued by the
United States in the foregoing action was served upon the Clerk requiring
the production of documents relating to the Select Committee's
investigation; and
Whereas the Clerk, pursuant to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House,
notified the Speaker of the House of the receipt of such subpoena and the
Speaker of the House laid the letter of notification before the House on
March 30, 1982.
Whereas the Speaker of the House. in consultation with the majority and
minority leaders and whips of the House instructed the Clerk with regard to
this subpoena and such instruction was laid before the House on March 31,
1982.
Whereas, on April 8, 1983, the district court refused to continue a stay
of such deposition subpena and required the Clerk to produce for
Plaintiff's inspection and copying all documents specified in the subpena;
and
Whereas, the district court refused to allow the Select Committee to
intervene to protect its interest in its investigative records in the
possession of the Clerk;
Whereas pursuant to, and in compliance with, an earlier subpena issued by
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to the Clerk
in this litigation, and in accordance with the provision of Rule L (50) of
the Rules of the House, the Clerk has produced copies of documents
constituting or reflecting nonprivileged disseminations; and therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the House considers the subpena an unwarranted and
unconstitutional invasion of its constitutional prerogative to determine
which of its proceedings shall be made public, and in direct contravention
of the constitutional protection for congressional investigative activity
and be it further
Resolved, That the Clerk of the House be, and hereby is ordered and
directed not to produce for inspection and copying by Plaintiff or any of
his representatives, or to the Court for inspection, any of the
investigative records of the Select Committee sought by the subpena and be
it further
Resolved, That the counsel to the Clerk are directed to assert the rights
and privileges of the House, and any and all other rights arising from
applicable rules or laws, in any further proceedings in the case and to
take all steps necessary to defend the House's rights, including appeal
from any rulings or petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Resolved, That the Clerk of the House shall forthwith transmit a
certified copy of this resolution to the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [George] Brown of California). The
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I bring this privileged resolution before this
body today in the belief that the circumstances of the case have
now reached a point at which it is imperative that the House act to
protect its own prerogatives, including the essential privilege of
speech and debate.
As the resolution indicates, the case arises out of an
investigation conducted by the Select Committee on Aging into
certain problems connected with the sale of supplementary insurance
to the aged, particularly cancer insurance.
In the course of that investigation, meetings took place with
some individuals involved in the sale of this insurance which led
to lawsuits being filed.
In accordance with that series of lawsuits, a jury trial was
had with some of the same defendants. Although the jury returned a
verdict against the plaintiff and for the defendants, this
plaintiff has pursued certain documents in the possession of the
Clerk and the Select Committee on Aging which, in the judgment of
the bipartisan committee established under rule L and headed by the
Speaker, constitutes an invasion of the privileges of the House.
The House will remember that in approving this rule it gave the
Speaker authority to convene such a bipartisan consultation between
the respective leadership groups to advise him in his determination
of which matters should involve the intervention of the House to
protect its privileges.
In this case, as in others, it was agreed by the bipartisan
leadership, notwithstanding some concerns about the circumstances
of the original case, that the instant request for subpena is in
violation of the privileges of the House and should therefore be
resisted.
Because the court, in this case, the U.S. Court for Maryland,
sitting in Baltimore, has declined to permit the intervention of
the House in order to present issues of privilege and has insisted
on the production of documents or, as has been more recently
ordered, their examination at the Capitol by the plaintiff, it is
felt to be imperative that the House act to instruct the Clerk not
to comply with the subpena. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
motion offered by mr. sensenbrenner
Mr. [Frank] SENSENBRENNER [of Wisconsin]. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to refer.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. SENSENBRENNER moves to refer the resolution to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to refer.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to refer
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
announces that he will reduce a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the question of passage.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
21, nays 389, not voting 23, as follows: . . .
So the motion to refer was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In accordance with the previous
announcement of the Chair, the time during which this vote will be
taken will be reduced to 5 minutes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
386, nays 22, not voting 25, as follows: . . .
Resolutions Authorizing Limited Compliance
Sec. 26.5 Although rule VIII(46) permits officers and
employees of the House to determine if compliance with subpoenas is
consistent with the rights and privileges of the House, the House
retains its authority to modify that permission, and may adopt a
resolution authorizing only limited compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 1992,(47) the House considered (but did not
ultimately adopt) a resolution authorizing compliance with a subpoena,
but conditioned on obtaining a determination from the court regarding
the enforceability of the subpoena (including its materiality and
relevance):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. 138 Cong. Rec. 9753-54, 9762, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--DIRECTING RELEASE OF CERTAIN MATERIALS
RELATING TO INQUIRY OF THE OPERATION OF THE BANK OF THE
SERGEANT AT ARMS
Mr. [Richard] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the order of the House just agreed to, I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 440) directing the release of certain materials
relating to the inquiry of the operation of the bank of the
Sergeant at Arms pursuant to House Resolution 236 in a manner
consistent with enforcement of criminal law and procedure, respect
for the constitutional structure of government and the individual
rights assured to all citizens, and the expectation of the public
that the legal process will be impartial and fair, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER.(48) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 440
Directing the release of certain materials relating to the inquiry of the
operation of the bank of the Sergeant at Arms pursuant to House Resolution
236 in a manner consistent with enforcement of criminal law and procedure,
respect for the constitutional structure of government and the individual
rights assured to all citizens, and the expectation of the public that the
legal process will be impartial and fair.
Whereas, on March 27, 1992, Attorney General William Barr, appointed
former federal Judge Malcolm A. Wilkey as Special Counsel to the Attorney
General to conduct a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the
criminal law arising out of the operations of the former House bank; and
Whereas, shortly thereafter, employees of the former House bank were made
available for interviews in accordance with Judge Wilkey's request and in
the spirit of cooperation by the House of Representatives with the
preliminary inquiry; and,
Whereas, on April 20, 1992, the Speaker of the House, on behalf of
himself and the Republican leader, forwarded to Judge Wilkey a letter
informing him that it would be inconsistent with the Rules of the House of
Representatives to provide copies of the records sought by Judge Wilkey
without the matter being fully considered by the entire House upon its
reconvening the following week; and,
Whereas, on April 21, 1992, while the House remained in recess, Judge
Wilkey caused to be issued subpoenas to the Acting Chairman of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and to the Sergeant at Arms of
the House of Representatives calling for production by April 28, 1992, of
all records of the former House bank which include all transactions of
every person who used the former House bank during a 39-month period, such
as Members without overdrafts, Member's spouses, employees, members of the
press, and the members of the public, as well as deposit slips and monthly
statements of all Members: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives shall comply with the
subpoenas issued in connection with the preliminary inquiry of the Special
Counsel, in a manner consistent with (1) enforcement of criminal law and
procedure; (2) respect for the constitutional structure of government and
the individual rights assured to all citizens; and (3) the expectation of
the public that the legal process will be impartial and fair: Be it further
Resolved, That microfilm rolls shall be collected by the Sergeant at Arms
and he shall promptly undertake to expeditiously have reproduced in
documentary form, using the best available modern technology, the forty-one
rolls of microfilm sought by the subpoena: Be it further
Resolved, The Sergeant at Arms shall obtain from the United States
District Court a determination of the enforceability of the subpoena
including its materiality and relevance and shall upon receipt of such
determination notify the House of the Court's determination: Be it further
Resolved, The Sergeant at Arms, after providing notification to the
House, is authorized and directed to comply with the subpoena consistent
with the Court's determination: Be it further
Resolved, That the House relies upon the assurances of the Special
Counsel that he will take such steps as are necessary to provide full
protection for the confidentiality of the records provided: Be it further
Resolved, Consistent with this resolution that it is the will of the
House to maintain such communication and cooperation with the Special
Counsel as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges
and rights of the House and its Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [David] Bonior [of Michigan]). The
resolution states a question of privilege.
Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] will be recognized for 30 minutes and the
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Gephardt]. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [James] HANSEN [of Utah]. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
131, nays 284, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 91] . . .
Resolutions Responding to Informal Requests
Sec. 26.6 Although rule VIII(49) applies to judicial
subpoenas and orders, the House may choose to comply with an
informal request for documents and materials issued by judicial
officers by adopting a resolution authorizing compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department, the
House adopted the following resolution on May 28, 1992,(50)
in response to an informal request by the Special Counsel to the
Attorney General for documents and materials:
50. 138 Cong. Rec. 12790-91, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--AUTHORIZING SERGEANT AT ARMS TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN RECORDS TO SPECIAL COUNSEL RELATIVE TO
OPERATION OF HOUSE BANK
Mr. [Richard] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Madam Speaker, I rise to
a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 471) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. [Jolene] Unsoeld [of
Washington]). The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 471
Whereas on April 29, 1992 the House of Representatives adopted House
Resolution 441 directing the release of certain materials relating to the
inquiry of the operation of the Bank of the Sergeant at Arms pursuant to
House Resolution 236 as a ``cooperative response'' to requests for those
materials from the Honorable Malcolm R. Wilkey, Special Counsel to the
Attorney General of the United States;
Whereas pursuant to House Resolution 441 the 41 microfilm rolls provided
to the Special Counsel were furnished without prejudice to any future
consideration by the House or the Judiciary of requests for documentary or
testimonial evidence from Members, Officers of employees of the House, but
only upon assurances of the Special Counsel that he will take such steps as
are necessary to provide for protection of the confidentiality of the
records provided;
Whereas pursuant to House Resolution 441 the House expressed its will to
maintain such communication and cooperation with the Special Counsel as
will promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges and rights
of the House and consistent with the constitutional or legal rights
applicable or available to any Member, Officer or employee of the House or
any other individual;
Whereas the Special Counsel has requested the production of further
documentary evidence in addition to that furnished pursuant to House
Resolution 441;
Whereas, by the privileges of the House no evidence of a documentary
character under the control and in the possession of the House can, either
by the mandate of process of the ordinary courts of justice or pursuant to
requests by appropriate Federal or State authorities, be taken from such
control or possession except by the permission of the House; Now therefore
be it
Resolved, That the material requested by the Special Counsel consisting
of: for the period July 1, 1988 through October 1991 the general ledgers of
the bank; the ``throwout books''; lists or other compilations of persons
whose check privileges had been suspended or otherwise restricted; for
accounts in which there were one or more ``overdrafts'' any list or other
compilation of individuals who had been granted signature authority by
account holders and any list or other compilation of individuals who had
been designated by Members as a staff contact person; information relating
to overdrawn accounts and general bank administration maintained in the
computers of the bank; in addition, and without respect to the time
limitation referenced above, any list or other compilation relating to
promissory notes made by the National Bank of Washington, shall be
collected by the Sergeant at Arms and he shall commence production thereof
to the Special Counsel not later than five p.m. on Monday June 1, 1992; Be
it further
Resolved, That upon receipt of further requests for documentary or
testimonial evidence from the Special Counsel addressed to any Member,
officer, or employee of the House, the Leadership Legal Advisory Group
(consisting of the Speaker, the majority leader, the minority leader, the
majority whip and the minority whip), is hereby authorized to respond to
and to take appropriate action with respect to such requests from the
Special Counsel in a manner consistent with the privileges and precedents
of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution states a question of
privilege of the House.
The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] is recognized for 1
hour. . . .
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER.(51) The question is on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Newt] GINGRICH [of Georgia]. Mr. Speaker, I object to the
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point
of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
396, nays 5, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 145] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 26.7 Where the Department of Justice requests that the House
voluntarily provide documents or other material for a judicial
proceeding, the House may choose to respond by adopting a
resolution authorizing compliance.
On February 17, 2012,(52) the House adopted the
following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. 158 Cong. Rec. 2060, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTING THE CLERK TO PROVIDE AUDIO BACKUP FILE OF DEPOSITION
OF WILLIAM R. CLEMENS
Mr. [David] DREIER [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I send to the
desk a resolution (H. Res. 558) directing the Clerk of the House of
Representatives to provide a copy of the on-the-record portions of
the audio backup file of the deposition of William R. Clemens that
was conducted by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
on February 5, 2008, to the prosecuting attorneys in the case of
United States of America v. Clemens, No. 1:10-cr-00223-RBW
(D.D.C.), and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration
in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(53) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. Steve Womack (AR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 558
Whereas on February 5, 2008, William R. Clemens voluntarily appeared in
Washington, DC and was deposed by the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform of the House of Representatives in connection with that Committee's
investigation into the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing
substances in professional sports, and in Major League Baseball in
particular;
Whereas the written transcript of Mr. Clemens' deposition, prepared by
the Official Reporters of the House, with an Errata Sheet prepared by Mr.
Clemens' counsel included as an Appendix, is the official House record of
that proceeding;
Whereas this deposition and Mr. Clemens' public appearance before the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 13, 2008, raised
significant questions about Mr. Clemens' truthfulness, as a result of which
the then Chair and ranking minority member jointly requested, on or about
February 27, 2008, that the Department of Justice investigate whether Mr.
Clemens committed perjury or knowingly made false statements in the course
of the deposition or his February 13, 2008 public appearance;
Whereas the Department of Justice did in fact investigate whether Mr.
Clemens committed perjury or knowingly made false statements in the course
of his February 5, 2008 deposition and/or his February 13, 2008 public
appearance before the Committee; Whereas as a result of the Department of
Justice's investigation, Mr. Clemens subsequently was indicted by a grand
jury on one count of obstruction of Congress in violation of sections 1505
and 1515(b) of title 18, United States Code, 3 counts of making false
statements in violation of sections 1001(a)(2) and (c)(2) of title 18,
United States Code, and 2 counts of perjury in violation of section 1621(1)
of title 18, United States Code;
Whereas the Department of Justice has requested via letter that the House
voluntarily provide to it a copy of the on-the-record portions of an audio
backup file of Mr. Clemens' deposition;
Whereas by the privileges and rights of the House of Representatives, an
audio backup file of Mr. Clemens' deposition may not be taken from the
possession or control of the Clerk of the House of Representatives by
mandate of process of the article III courts of the United States, and may
not be provided pursuant to requests by the court or the parties to United
States of America v. Clemens except at the direction of the House; and
Whereas it is the judgment of the House of Representatives that, in the
particular circumstances of this case, providing a copy of the on-the-
record portions of an audio backup file of Mr. Clemens' deposition to the
prosecuting attorneys in the case of United States v. Clemens would promote
the ends of justice in a manner consistent with the privileges and rights
of the House: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives directs the Clerk of the
House to provide for use at trial a copy of the on-therecord portions of
the audio backup file of the deposition of William R. Clemens that was
conducted by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February
5, 2008, to the prosecuting attorneys in the case of United States of
America v. Clemens, No. 1:10-cr-00223-RBW (D.D.C.).
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Concurrent Resolutions Authorizing Compliance
Sec. 26.8 In order to authorize compliance with a subpoena issued by a
court to the Chief of the Capitol Police, both the House and the
Senate must adopt a concurrent resolution, as the Chief of the
Capitol Police is an official of both Houses of Congress.
On July 16, 1975,(54) the House adopted a concurrent
resolution authorizing the Chief of the Capitol Police to respond to a
subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. 121 Cong. Rec. 23144-46, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.; House Rules and
Manual Sec. 291a (2019). The Senate did not take up this
concurrent resolution. For an anomalous instance where a simple
House resolution was used instead of a concurrent resolution,
see H. Res. 519, 121 Cong. Rec. 17981-82, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
(June 10, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE SERGEANT AT ARMS--JEFFREY SIMON V. JAMES
M. POWELL, ET AL.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Office of the Sergeant at Arms,
Washington, DC, July 14, 1975.
Hon. Carl Albert,
The Speaker,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I was served by a United States Attorney with
the attached subpoena that was issued by the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. This subpoena is signed by Clerk of
the Court, James F. Davey in the case of Jeffrey Simon against
James M. Powell, et al., and commands me to answer the complaint
within sixty days after service of the summons.
Also attached is a copy of a letter from Honorable William
Wannall, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. Senate, and Chairman, U.S. Capitol
Police Board to the Department of Justice requesting
representation.
The subpoena in question is respectfully attached for such
action as the House may in its wisdom see fit to take.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
Kenneth R. Harding,
Sergeant at Arms.
The SPEAKER.(55) The Clerk will read the subpoena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows: . .
. -------------------
AUTHORIZING CHIEF OF THE U.S. CAPITOL POLICE TO ANSWER
INTERROGATIONS IN CASE OF SIMON AGAINST POWELL, ET AL.
Mr. [Thomas] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 342) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:
H. Con. Res. 342
Whereas in the case of Jeffery Simon against James M. Powell, et al.
(civil action no. 75-0973) pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia, a series of interrogatories was issued by the
said Court and served upon James M. Powell, Chief of the U.S. Capitol
Police, requesting him to answer such interrogatories in writing, under
oath, and to serve the answers on counsel for plaintiff in such proceeding;
and
Whereas information secured by officers and employees of the Congress of
the United States pursuant to their official duties as such officers and
employees may not be compelled by the mandate of process of the ordinary
courts of justice but by the permission of the Congress: Therefore be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That
James M. Powell, Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, is authorized to answer
the interrogatories before-mentioned; and be it further
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That a
copy of this resolution be submitted to the said Court.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Executive Session Material
Sec. 26.9 Although rule L (now rule VIII)(56) generally
permits officers and employees of the House to comply with judicial
subpoenas after determining that such compliance is consistent with
the prerogatives of the House, the rule specifically excludes the
disclosure of material or evidence taken in executive session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019). Clause 3(b) of the rule
states that ``[u]nder no circumstances may minutes or
transcripts of executive sessions, or evidence of witnesses in
respect thereto, be disclosed or copied.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 22, 1981,(57) the following communications,
in which the Speaker advised a former employee of the House not to
comply with a subpoena seeking executive session material, were laid
before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. 127 Cong. Rec. 694-95, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATIONS IN THE CASE OF DUPUY AGAINST RIPLEY, ET AL.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communications,
which were read:
Washington, DC,
January 2, 1981.
Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
Room H-204, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
(Attention of L. Kirk O'Donnell).
Dear Ms. Speaker: Please find attached a copy of a Civil
Subpoena for the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, commanding me to appear in court on the
west coast on January 13, 1981. The plaintiff in this civil action
desires my testimony concerning my recollection of what transpired
during a deposition of two Drug Enforcement Agency agents taken by
myself and other members of the staff of the House Select Committee
on Intelligence (the Pike Committee) approximately five years ago.
Pursuant to H. Res. 722, this is notification and a request for
permission to testify under the subpoena.
Under H.R. 722, however, it may well be impossible for me to so
testify. Under the rules of the House Select Committee on
Intelligence Staff depositions such as the one in question here
were deemed to have been taken in executive session. In this
particular case the information disclosed in the course of the
deposition was not classified, or in any way based on classified
materials. However that may be, if my memory serves, the executive
session designation of the transcript of the deposition was never
removed by vote of the full select committee, which under the
committee's rules is required for public disclosure. That
committee, of course, is no longer in existence.
Finally, even if allowed to testify (perhaps by special
resolution of the House) my testimony would be of little value
without an opportunity to refresh my recollection by reviewing the
transcript of the deposition. I presume (without knowing) that such
material is now in the custody and control of the new Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. By copy of this letter I am
notifying that committee of my desire to review the transcript of
the deposition taken of Special Agent Stevenson of the DEA in the
latter part of 1975.
Your attention to this matter is sincerely appreciated.
Sincerely,
John McElroy Atkisson.
[U.S. District Court for the Central District of California]
Pierr Roland Dupuy, plaintiff, v. Charles Ripley, et al.,
defendants
(CV-76-2956 WPG, CV-77-1534 WPG, CV-76-2657 WPG, CV-76-2658
WPG)
To: John McElroy Atkisson.
You are hereby commanded to appear in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California at the United
States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, in Courtroom No. 6
before the Honorable William P. Gray in the city of Los Angeles on
the 13th day of January 1981 at 9:30 o'clock a.m., to testify in
the above-entitled action.
Washington, DC,
January 19, 1981.
John McE. Atkisson,
White, Fine & Verville, Attorneys at Law,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Atkisson: I received your letter notifying me of a
civil subpoena demanding your appearance to give testimony in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
in Pierre Roland Dupuy v. Charles Ripley, et al.
The provisions of House Resolution 722 have now been
incorporated into the Rules of the House as Rule L. The rule
clearly states:
``[t]hat under no circumstances shall any minutes or
transcripts of executive sessions or any evidence of witnesses in
respect thereto be disclosed or copied.''
Consequently, the Rule prohibits compliance with the subpoena.
Permission to do so could only be granted by a resolution of the
House.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
The Speaker.
Sec. 27. History of Former Procedures for Responding to Subpoenas
The precedents carried in this section represent the procedures
used by the House in responding to subpoenas issued to officers or
employees of the House prior to the advent of current rule VIII. For
currently applicable procedures, see Section 26, above.
Former Practice: Precursors to Current Rule VIII
Sec. 27.1 Prior to the advent of rule VIII,(1) the House
would adopt a privileged resolution each Congress providing for the
disposition of subpoenas served upon Members, officers, and
employees of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 1948 and 1975,(2) the House would typically
adopt a resolution each Congress providing limited authority for
officers or employees of the House to respond to subpoenas during
periods of recess or adjournment. House Resolution 9, adopted by the
House on January 14, 1975,(3) is a typical example of this
type of resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 26, supra.
3. 121 Cong. Rec. 35, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. See also House Rules and
Manual Sec. Sec. 291a, 697 (2019).
H. Res. 9
Whereas, by the privileges of this House no evidence of a documentary
character under the control and in the possession of theHouse of
Representatives can, by the mandate of process of the ordinary courts of
justice, be taken from such control or possession except by its permission:
Therefore be it
Resolved, That when it appears by the order of any court in the United
States or a judge thereof, or of any legal officer charged with the
administration of the orders of such court or judge, that documentary
evidence in the possession and under the control of the House is needful
for use in any court of justice or before any judge or such legal officer,
for the promotion of justice, this House will take such action thereon as
will promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges and
rights of this House; be it further
Resolved, That during any recess or adjournment of the Ninety-fourth
Congress, when a subpena or other order for the production or disclosure of
information is by the due process of any court in the United States served
upon any Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives,
directing appearance as a witness before the said court at any time and the
production of certain and sundry papers in the possession and under the
control of the House of Representatives, that any such Member, officer or
employee of the House, be authorized to appear before said court at the
place and time named in any such subpena or order, but no papers or
documents in the possession or under the control of the House of
Representatives shall be produced in response thereto; and be it further
Resolved, That when any said court determines upon the materiality and
the relevancy of the papers or documents called for in the subpena or other
order, then said court, through any of its officers or agents shall have
full permission to attend with all proper parties to the proceedings before
said court and at a place under the orders and control of the House of
Representatives and take copies of the said documents or papers and the
Clerk of the House is authorized to supply certified copies of such
documents that the court has found to be material and relevant, except that
under no circumstances shall any minutes or transcripts of executive
sessions, or any evidence of witnesses in respect thereto, be disclosed or
copied, nor shall the possession of said documents and papers by any
Member, officer, or employee of the House be disturbed or removed from
their place of file or custody under said Member, officer, or employee; and
be it further
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted by the Clerk of
the House to any of said courts whenever such writs of subpena or other
orders are issued and served as aforesaid.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
In 1977 and 1979, the House expanded the scope of these resolutions
by: (1) permitting limited compliance with subpoenas at any point in
the Congress; (2) providing that the Speaker be notified of the receipt
of any such subpoenas; and (3) reserving to itself the ability to
revoke or modify the authorization at any point. On January 15,
1979,(4) the House adopted the following resolution:
4. 125 Cong. Rec. 19, 96th Cong 1st Sess. See also H. Res. 10, 123
Cong. Rec. 73, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4, 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROCEDURES IN RELATION TO THE PRODUCTION OF WITNESSES AND
DOCUMENTS IN COURTS OF JUSTICE
Mr. [John] BRADEMAS [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 10) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 10
Whereas, by the privileges of this House no evidence of a documentary
character under the control and in the possession of the House of
Representatives can, by the mandate of process of the ordinary courts of
justice be taken from such control or possession except by its permission:
Therefore be it
Resolved, That when it appears by the order of any court in the United
States or a judge thereof, or of any legal officer charged with the
administration of the orders of such court or judge that documentary
evidence in the possession and under the control of the House is needful
for use in any court of justice or before any judge or such legal officer,
for the promotion of justice, this House will take such action thereon as
will promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges and
rights of this House; and be it further
Resolved, That during the Ninety-sixth Congress, when a subpoena or other
order for the production or disclosure of information is by the due process
of any court in the United States served upon any Member, officer, or
employee of the House of Representatives directing appearance as a witness
before the said court at any time and the production of certain and sundry
papers in the possession and under the control of the House of
Representatives, that any such Member, officer, or employee of the House,
after notifying the Speaker, is authorized to appear before said court at
the place and time named in any such subpoena or order, but no papers or
documents in the possession or under the control of the House of
Representatives shall be produced in response thereto; and be it further
Resolved, That after the Speaker has been notified by the Member,
officer, or employee that a proper court has determined upon the
materiality and relevancy of specific papers or documents called for in the
subpoena or other order, then said court, through any of its officers or
agents shall have full permission to attend with all proper parties to the
proceedings before said court and at a place under the orders and control
of the House of Representatives and take copies of the said documents or
papers and the Clerk of the House is authorized to supply certified copies
of such documents that the court has found to be material and relevant,
except that under no circumstances shall any minutes or transcripts of
executive sessions, or any evidence of witnesses in respect thereto be
disclosed or copied, nor shall the possession of said documents and papers
by any Member, officer, or employee of the House be disturbed or removed
from their place of file or custody under said Member, officer, or
employee; and be it further
Resolved, That the House of Representatives reserves to Itself the power
to revoke or modify the authority contained herein in all or specific
instances; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be
transmitted by the Clerk of the House to any of said courts whenever such
writs of subpoena or other orders are Issued and served as aforesaid.
On September 17, 1980,(5) the House adopted a resolution
that formed the basis of current rule VIII(6) (incorporated
into the standing rules in the following Congress as former rule
L):(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 126 Cong. Rec. 25777-78, 25785, 25787-90, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. For
the special order of business resolution structuring
consideration of House Resolution 722, see H. Res. 723, 126
Cong. Rec. 25776, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 17, 1980).
6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019).
7. See H. Res. 5, 127 Cong. Rec. 98-99, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5,
1981).
Mr. [Butler] DERRICK [of South Carolina]. Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 722
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 722
Whereas, by the privileges of this House, no evidence of a documentary
character, under the control and in the possession of the House of
Representatives can, by the mandate of process of the ordinary courts of
justice be compelled or taken from such control or possession except by its
permission: Therefore, be it
Resolved, That when any Member, officer, or employee of the House of
Representatives is properly served with a subpoena or other judicial order
directing appearance as a witness relating to the official functions of the
House or for the production or disclosure of any documents relating to the
official functions of the House, such Member, officer, or employee shall
comply, consistently with the privileges and rights of the House, with said
subpoena or other judicial order as hereinafter provided, unless otherwise
determined pursuant to the provisions of this resolution.
Sec. 2. Upon receipt of a properly served subpoena or other judicial
order directing appearance as a witness relating to the official functions
of the House or for the production or disclosure of any documents relating
to the official functions of the House, such Member, officer, or employee
shall promptly notify, in writing, the Speaker of its receipt and such
notification shall then be promptly laid before the House by the Speaker,
except that during a period of recess Or adjournment of longer than three
days, no such notification to the House shall be required. However, upon
the reconvening of the House, such notification shall then be promptly laid
before the House by the Speaker.
Sec. 3. Once notification has been laid before the House, the Member,
officer, or employee shall determine whether the issuance of the subpoena
or other judicial order is a proper exercise of the court's jurisdiction,
is material and relevant, and is consistent with the privileges and rights
of the House. The Member, officer, or employee shall notify the Speaker
prior to seeking judicial determination of these matters.
Sec. 4. Upon determination whether the subpoena or other judicial order
is a proper exercise of the court's jurisdiction, is material and relevant,
and is consistent with the privileges and rights of the House, the Member,
officer, or employee shall immediately notify, in writing, the Speaker of
such a determination.
Sec. 5. The Speaker shall inform the House of the determination of
whether the subpoena or other judicial order is a proper exercise of the
court's jurisdiction, is material and relevant, and is consistent with the
privileges and rights of the House, and shall generally describe the
records or information sought, except that during any recess or adjournment
of the House for longer than three days, no such notification is required.
However, upon the reconvening of the House, such notification shall then be
promptly laid before the House by the Speaker.
Sec. 6. Upon such notification to the House that said subpoena is a
proper exercise of the court's jurisdiction, is material and relevant, and
is consistent with the privileges and rights of the House, the Member,
officer, or employee shall comply with such subpoena or other judicial
order by supplying certified copies, unless the House adopts a resolution
to the contrary; except that under no circumstances shall any minutes or
transcripts of executive sessions, or any evidence of witnesses in respect
thereto, be disclosed or copied. Should the House be in recess or
adjournment for longer than three days, the Speaker may authorize
compliance or take such other action as he deems appropriate under the
circumstances during the pendency of such recess or adjournment. And upon
the reconvening of the House, all matters having transpired under this
section shall be laid promptly before the House by the Speaker.
Sec. 7. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted by the Clerk of
the House to any of said courts whenever any such subpoena or other
judicial order is issued and served on a Member, officer, or employee of
the House.
Sec. 8. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to deprive,
condition or waive the constitutional or legal rights applicable or
available to any Member, officer, or employee of the House, or of the House
itself, or the right of a Member or the House to assert such privilege or
right before any court in the United States, or the right of the House
thereafter to assert such privilege or immunity before any court in the
United States.
Sec. 9. This resolution shall apply with respect to subpoenas served on
or after the date of its adoption; and, with respect to those subpoenas,
House Resolution 10 shall be of no force or effect.
The SPEAKER.(8) Pursuant to the provisions of House
Resolution 723, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Derrick)
will be recognized for 45 minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bauman) will be recognized for 45 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Derrick). . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Philip] Sharp [of Indiana]).
Under the rule, the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Bauman) there were--yeas 112, nays 18.
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, I object to the
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point
of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas
380, nays 23, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 553] . . .
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Former Practice: Resolutions Authorizing Compliance
Sec. 27.2 Prior to the 97th Congress, it was necessary for the House to
adopt a privileged resolution in order to authorize officers or
employees of the House to comply with a subpoena issued by a court.
Before the adoption of what is now rule VIII(9) of the
standing rules of the House, a separate resolution was required to
authorize compliance with a subpoena issued to an officer or employee
of the House. The proceedings of February 20, 1973,(10)
typify the procedure by which this type of privileged resolution (in
this case authorizing compliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued by
a Federal grand jury) would be considered and adopted by the House:
9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019).
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 4490-91, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Washington, DC, February 6, 1973.
Hon. Carl Albert,
The Speaker, House of Representatives.
Dear Sir: On this date, I have been served with a subpoena
duces tecum by a representative of the U.S. Department of Justice,
that was issued and signed by the Chief United States District
Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. This subpoena is in connection with the United States
of America v. Grand Jury Investigation.
The subpoena commands me to appear in the said U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, on the 13th day of March 1973 and requests certain
House records of employees of a former Member, Congressman J.
Irving Whalley (12th Congressional District, Pennsylvania) that are
outlined in the subpoena itself, which is attached hereto.
House Resolution 12 of January 3, 1973, and the rules and
practices of the House of Representatives indicate that no official
of the House may, either voluntarily or in obedience to a subpoena
duces tecum, produce such papers without the consent of the House
being first obtained. It is further indicated that he may not
supply copies of certain of the documents and papers requested
without such consent.
The subpoena in question is herewith attached, and the matter
is presented for such action as the House in its wisdom may see fit
to take.
Sincerely,
W. Pat Jennings,
Clerk, House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER.(11) The Clerk will read the subpoena. .
. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 221) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 221
Whereas in the Grand Jury Investigation pending in the United States
District court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, a subpoena duces
tecum was issued by the said court and addressed to W. Pat Jennings, Clerk
of the House of Representatives, directing him to appear as a witness
before the grand jury of the said court at 10 o'clock antemeridian on the
13th day of March, 1973, and to bring with him certain papers and documents
in the possession and under the control of the House of Representatives:
Therefore be it
Resolved, That by the privileges of the House no evidence of a
documentary character under the control and in the possession of the House
of Representatives can, by the mandate of process of the ordinary courts of
justice, be taken from such control or possession but by its permission; be
it further
Resolved, That when it appears by the order of the court or of the judge
thereof, or of any legal officer charged with the administration of the
orders of such court or judge, that documentary evidence in the possession
and under the control of the House is needful for use in any court of
justice or before any judge or such legal officer, for the promotion of
justice, this House will take such action thereon as will promote the ends
of justice consistently with the privileges and rights of this House; be it
further
Resolved, That W. Pat Jennings, Clerk of the House, or any officer or
employee in his office whom he may designate, be authorized to appear at
the place and before the grand jury in the subpoena duces tecum beforehand,
but shall not take with him any papers or documents on file in his office
or under his control or in possession of the House of Representatives; be
it further
Resolved, That when the said court determines upon the materiality and
the relevancy of the papers and documents called for in the subpoena duces
tecum, then the said court, through any of its officers or agents, be
authorized to attend with all proper parties to the proceeding and then
always at any place under the orders and control of this House, and take
copies of those requested papers and documents which are in possession or
control of the said Clerk; and the Clerk is authorized to supply certified
copies of such documents or papers in his possession or control that the
court has found to be material and relevant and which the court or other
proper officer thereof shall desire, so as, however, the possession of said
documents and papers by the said Clerk shall not be disturbed, or the same
shall not be removed from their place of file or custody under the said
Clerk; and be it further
Resolved, That as a respectful answer to the subpoena duces tecum a copy
of these resolutions be submitted to the said court.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Former Practice: Resolutions Prohibiting Compliance
Sec. 27.3 Prior to the 97th Congress, if the House did not (by the
adoption of a privileged resolution) authorize officers or
employees to respond to court-issued subpoenas, any response was
therefore precluded, and the House could instead adopt a resolution
affirming its constitutional privilege not to authorize a response.
On December 18, 1974,(12) the House adopted a resolution
affirming its constitutional right to preclude its officers and
employees from responding to subpoenas duces tecum issued by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia and providing that the
resolution be submitted to the court in lieu of
compliance:(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 40925-26, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Parliamentarian's Note: The adoption of a resolution specifically
precluding a response was not required, as the lack of any
action by the House (prior to the advent of rule VIII) would
have prevented officers or employees from complying with
judicial orders. Here, the Speaker had previously informed the
House that subpoenas had been issued to various House
employees, and the House had chosen to take no action. See 120
Cong. Rec. 33020-23, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 30, 1974) and
120 Cong. Rec. 38730-32, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. (Dec. 10, 1974).
Those employees served with subpoenas were subsequently served
with applications to show why they should not be held in
contempt of court. The Speaker laid that matter before the
House on December 20, 1974. See 120 Cong. Rec. 41863, 93d Cong.
2d Sess. See also House Rules and Manual Sec. 291 (2019). For
further proceedings in this case in the following Congress, see
H. Res. 85, 121 Cong. Rec. 1161, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 23,
1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas] O'NEILL [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 1517) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1517
Whereas in the case of Common Cause et al. against E. T. Klassen et al.
(Civil Action No. 1887-73) pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia, The House of Representatives was notified by the
Speaker on September 30, 1974, that subpoenas duces tecum had been issued
upon the application of Kenneth J. Guido, attorney for the plaintiffs, and
had been served upon Mr. Eli S. Bjellos, Chief, House Publications
Distribution Service of the Office of the Doorkeeper; upon Mr. John M.
Swanner, Staff Director, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct; upon
Mr. Victor C. Smiroldo, Staff Director and Counsel, House Commission on
Congressional Mailing Standards; upon Mr. David Ramage, House Majority
Clerk, House Majority Room; and upon Mr. Thomas J. Lankford, House Minority
Clerk, House Minority Room; directing them to appear as witnesses before
the said court on various dates and to bring with them certain papers in
the possession and under the control of the United States House of
Representatives, and
Whereas plaintiffs have subsequently filed with the said Court and have
served upon the aforementioned employees of the House motions to compel the
deponents to answer questions and to produce the documents called for in
the subpoenas duces tecum or to be held in contempt of the said Court, and
Whereas said Court has scheduled a status call in the aforementioned case
to be held on Friday, December 20. 1974, and a hearing on a motion to
dismiss in the aforementioned case on Monday, January 27, 1975 before said
Court: Therefore be it
Resolved, That by the privileges of this House no evidence of a
documentary character under the control and in the possession of the House
can, by the mandate of process of the ordinary courts of justice, be taken
from such control or possession but by its permission, and no House
employee may be compelled to disclose information obtained pursuant to his
official duties as an employee of the House, without the consent of the
House; be it further
Resolved, That when it appears by the order of the court or of the judge
thereof, or of any legal officer charged with the administration of the
orders of such court or judge, that documentary evidence in the possession
and under the control of the House is needful for use in any court of
justice or before any judge or such legal officer, for the promotion of
justice, this House will take such action thereon as will promote the ends
of justice consistently with the privileges and rights of the House; be it
further
Resolved, That as a respectful answer to the subpoenas duces tecum a copy
of these resolutions be submitted to the said Court. . . .
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Former Practice: Secret Grand Jury Proceedings
Sec. 27.4 Pursuant to House resolutions adopted in the 95th and 96th
Congresses, all subpoenas received by officers or employees of the
House during these Congresses were required to be laid before the
House and printed in full in the Congressional
Record,(14) with an exception for subpoenas involving
secret grand jury proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Parliamentarian's Note: Under the current notification procedures
of rule VIII, communications regarding subpoenas received by
officers and employees of the House are printed in the
Congressional Record for the information of Members, but the
text of the judicial orders at issue is not typically printed
in full. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 697 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under former practice of the 95th and 96th Congresses, subpoenas
received by officers or employees of the House were required to be laid
before the House for the information of Members (and consequently
printed in full in the Congressional Record). Due to the secrecy of the
deliberations, subpoenas involving grand jury proceedings would not be
laid down before the House and printed in full in the Record. Instead,
the subpoenas would be made available to Members for their inspection,
and mere notice of their receipt printed in the Record, as depicted in
the following proceedings of February 28, 1980:(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 4306, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM THE SERGEANT AT ARMS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Sergeant at Arms of the House of
Representatives:
Washington, DC,
February 28, 1980.
Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: On February 13, 1980 I was served with a
subpoena duces tecum by a representative of the U.S. Department of
Justice; said subpoena was issued by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
The subpoena commands me or my authorized representative to
appear before a Grand Jury of said Court, which is deliberating in
secrecy pursuant to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and requests the production of certain House Records.
Attached to the subpoena is a finding by the Court that the records
are material and relevant to the Grand Jury investigation, pursuant
to House Resolution 10, Ninety-Sixth Congress, which authorizes any
officer of the House to produce copies of House records pursuant to
a subpoena of a court upon a finding of materiality and relevancy.
The subpoena is available in my office for inspection by any
Member.
Sincerely,
Kenneth R. Harding,
Sergeant at Arms. -------------------
Washington, DC,
February 28, 1980.
Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: On February 13, 1980 I was served with a
subpoena duces tecum by a representative of the U.S. Department of
Justice; said subpoena was issued by the United States District
Court of Columbia.
The subpoena commands me or my authorized representative to
appear before a Grand Jury of said Court, which is deliberating in
secrecy pursuant to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and requests the production of certain House Records.
Attached to the subpoena is a finding by the Court that the records
are material and relevant to the Grand Jury investigation, pursuant
to House Resolution 10, Ninety-Sixth Congress, which authorizes any
officer of the House to produce copies of House records pursuant to
a subpoena of a court upon a finding of materiality and relevancy.
The subpoena is available in my office for inspection by any
Member.
Sincerely,
Kenneth R. Harding,
Sergeant at Arms.
Former Practice: Notification
Sec. 27.5 A resolution alleging that the House had not properly
authorized an officer of the House to take certain actions in court
proceedings in defense of the House's constitutional prerogatives,
and further calling for an investigation into the matter,
constitutes a question of the privileges of the
House.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Parliamentarian's Note: Notification of the receipt of these
subpoenas was laid before the House on February 11, 1980. See
126 Cong. Rec. 2579, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. The Counsel to the
Clerk (a precursor position to the current House General
Counsel (see Sec. 19, supra)) had attempted to quash the
subpoenas issued to the Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. This action was
taken without first notifying the House and without the House's
prior approval. Prior to the 97th Congress, no officer or
employee of the House was authorized to respond to subpoenas
without the specific approval of the House (i.e., by the
adoption of a privileged resolution permitting compliance with
the court order). Under current rule VIII, officers and
employees are authorized to make the initial determination as
to whether compliance is consistent with the privileges of the
House (usually after consultation with the House General
Counsel). See House Rules and Manual Sec. 869 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 13, 1980,(17) the House adopted the
following resolution raised as a question of the privileges of the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 2768-69, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSTRUCTING COMMITTEE ON RULES TO INQUIRE INTO TRUTH OR
FALISITY OF A CERTAIN NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT
Mr. [Richard] BOLLING [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I send to the
desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 578) and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 578
Resolved, Whereas it was reported in the public press on February 9,
1980, that, ``The House of Representatives this week lost a secret effort
in court to obtain a ruling that congressmen do not have to respond to
federal grand jury subpoenas for House records;'' and
Whereas the House of Representatives has never authorized such action on
its behalf in the case mentioned in the press account; and
Whereas such alleged House action involves the conduct of officers and
employees of the House, newspaper charges affecting the honor and dignity
of the House, and the protection of the constitutional prerogatives of the
House when directly questioned in the courts, and thus involves a question
of privilege of the House:
Therefore be it resolved, That the Committee on Rules be instructed to
inquire into the truth of falsity of the newspaper account and promptly
report back to the House its findings and any recommendations thereon. . .
The SPEAKER.(18) The Chair has examined the
resolution and finds that under rule IX and the precedents of the
House, the resolution presents the question of the privilege of the
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) will be recognized
for 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling).
. . .
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri has referred in his
remarks that he feels that it is appropriate for the House, through
the Rules Committee, initially to look into this matter, and he
thinks it might be done with greater dignity and, one might say,
with greater honor if done by the committee or considered at
another time.
The Chair, in its opinion, feels that he has not transgressed
on the honor or the dignity of the minority party or the minority
leader, and the point of order is not well taken.
The gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. [Robert] BAUMAN [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair
address himself to the issue of motivation the gentleman from
Missouri raised, as to whether that is a correct use of
parliamentary language.
The SPEAKER. In the opinion of the Chair the gentleman did not
talk about or refer to the dishonor of any Member of the House, nor
did he characterize the motives of any specific Member in an
unparliamentary way.
The Chair repeats, the point of order is not well taken.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my
distinguished friend from Arizona 5 minutes for debate only.
Mr. [John] WYDLER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman knows that is not in order at this
time. He is well aware of the rules.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes).
F. House Employment and Administration
Sec. 28. Employment Practices
The House of Representatives is not only a constitutionally-
prescribed component of the Federal legislature but also an employing
entity that oversees the work of thousands of individuals across
Capitol Hill.(1) Like any large employer, the House is
subdivided into numerous offices, divisions, and other subunits. Each
Member of the House employs numerous staff to handle legislative work,
constituent services, and other matters, and each Member is responsible
for hiring and terminating staff.(2) The elected officers of
the House,(3) as well as nonelected officials,(4)
are likewise responsible for staffing their offices.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For earlier treatment of House employment issues, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. Sec. 24-27.
2. For more on Members' offices, see Deschler's Precedents Ch. 7 and
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 7.
3. See Sec. Sec. 13-17, supra.
4. See Sec. Sec. 18-23, supra.
5. Parliamentarian's Note: Employees of the party caucuses are not
employees of the House or any of its subdivisions, and are
instead compensated by the relevant party organization. For a
discussion of ``minority employee'' positions, see Sec. 31,
infra. For more on party organization generally, see Precedents
(Wickham) Ch. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standing committees of the House employ both partisan and
nonpartisan professional staff.(6) Clause 9 of rule
X(7) lays out a variety of rules relating to the appointment
of such employees, their compensation, and their duties and
responsibilities.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. For more on committee employment generally, see Deschler's
Precedents Ch. 17 Sec. 13 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 17.
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 771-781 (2019).
8. Parliamentarian's Note: The formalization of committee staffing
began with the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat.
812), which for the first time authorized the hiring of
professional staff on a nonpartisan basis. This process was
strengthened by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
(P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140) and the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-67, 93d
Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 8, 1974)). Most notably, the reforms of
the 1970s provided for the first time that the minority party
would be entitled to a portion of the committee staff, ending
the majority party's sole control over committee resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on House Administration exercises jurisdiction over
most aspects of House employment. Pursuant to clause 1(k)(3) of rule
X,(9) the committee's purview includes ``employment of
persons by the House, including staff for Members, Delegates, the
Resident Commissioner, and committees; and reporters of debates subject
to rule VI.'' Additional areas of jurisdiction related to employment in
the House include: ``Appropriations from accounts for committee
salaries and expenses . . . and allowance and expenses of Members,
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and administrative
offices of the House.'' (clause 1(k)(1) of rule X);(10)
``Services to the House'' (clause 1(k)(13) of rule X);(11)
and ``Compensation, retirement, and other benefits of Members,
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers and employees of
Congress.'' (clause 1(k)(16) of rule X).(12) Pursuant to
clause 4(d),(13) the Committee on House Administration also
maintains oversight jurisdiction relating to certain elected officers
of the House and other administrative officials (including employment)
and the management of services to the House provided by the Architect
of the Capitol.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 724 (2019).
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 750, 752 (2019).
14. For more on the role of the Architect of the Capitol, see Sec. 25,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years, the House has adopted various rules regulating
employment practices and establishing workforce protections. One of the
earliest attempts to provide systematic treatment of House employment
practices was the Fair Employment Practices Resolution of the 100th
Congress(15) (renewed in the next Congress(16)
and ultimately incorporated into the standing rules).(17)
That rule focused on nondiscrimination in House employment and
contained procedures to remedy alleged violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Res. 558, 134 Cong. Rec. 27840-41, 100th Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 3,
1988).
16. H. Res. 15, 135 Cong. Rec. 85, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3,
1989).
17. H. Res. 5, 137 Cong. Rec. 39, 102d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 1991),
and H. Res. 5, 139 Cong. Rec. 49, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 5,
1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Employment Practices Resolution was overtaken by a subsequent
attempt by the House to take Federal workplace laws (applicable to the
executive branch and/or private sector) and apply them to House
employment processes as well. This resolution, known as the
``Application of Certain Laws,'' was adopted at the end of the 103d
Congress in 1994.(18) This resolution created an Office of
Compliance tasked with issuing regulations to implement the application
of various laws to the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 578, 140 Cong. Rec. 29314-18, 29326, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
(Oct. 7, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The system established by the ``Application of Certain Laws''
resolution was itself supplanted by the enactment of the Congressional
Accountability Act (CAA) at the outset of the 104th Congress in
1995.(19) This law retained the Office of
Compliance(20) and broadened the applicability of various
employment laws (including civil rights, labor, and workplace safety
laws) to both the House and the Senate. The CAA remains the primary law
regarding employment practices applicable to House operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1301 et seq. See Sec. 28.3, infra.
20. Parliamentarian's Note: In the 115th Congress, the Congressional
Accountability Act was amended to change the name of the Office
of Compliance to the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.
See P.L. 115-397, 132 Stat. 5297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 115th Congress, the House adopted a resolution providing
that all employees undergo mandatory training in workplace rights and
responsibilities.(21) That same resolution provided that
each employing office shall post in a prominent position a statement of
the rights and protections for employees under the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995.(22) The House also adopted a
resolution in the 115th Congress requiring employing offices in the
House to adopt anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies for
each employing offices.(23) That resolution also established
the Office of Employee Advocacy, which provides assistance to
congressional employees regarding Congressional Accountability Act
procedures.(24) Also in the 115th Congress, the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act was passed, which
expanded various congressional employment rights and changed the name
of the Office of Compliance to the Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights.(25) In the 116th Congress, the Code of Official
Conduct was amended to explicitly prohibit employment discrimination
against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
identity.(26)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See H. Res. 630, 163 Cong. Rec. H9491-H9498 [Daily Ed.], 115th
Cong. 1st Sess. (Nov. 29, 2017).
22. Id. This requirement was continued as a separate order in the 116th
Congress. See 165 Cong. Rec. H21 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st
Sess. (Jan. 3, 2019).
23. See H. Res. 724, 164 Cong. Rec. H813, H814 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong.
2d Sess. (Feb. 6, 2018). This requirement was continued as a
separate order in the 116th Congress. See 165 Cong. Rec. H21
[Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3, 2019). House
Resolution 724 also amended the Code of Official Conduct to
explicitly prohibit ``unwelcome sexual advances or conduct'' by
officers and employees of the House. See Rule XXIII, clause
18(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 1095 (2019).
24. Id.
25. P.L. 115-397, 132 Stat. 5297.
26. H. Res. 6, 165 Cong. Rec. H19 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess.
(Jan. 3, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Practice: The Patronage System
Prior to the 1970s, employment in the House was handled in a much
more informal manner than it has been since that time. For much of the
House's history, a system of patronage was used to fill positions
within the various House offices.(27) Under such system, the
majority party by custom would control the distribution of ``appointive
places in the House organization''(28) and an internal party
committee formed to administer the allocation of patronage positions.
Patronage appointments at the committee level were typically not
included as part of this distribution, but were instead under the
control of individual committee chairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. For an earlier description of the House's patronage system, see 8
Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3626-3629.
28. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of clear criteria for employing individuals under the
patronage system was a key factor in the transition to a more
regularized process for hiring employees for House
operations.(29) As discussed above, employment in the House
in the latter half of the 20th century gradually became more
professionalized, and the House itself became subject to Federal laws
and regulations applicable to other parts of the Federal government and
private employers. Thus, the former patronage system represents a
bygone era no longer applicable to the administration of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Fair Employment Practices
Sec. 28.1 The House adopted a resolution: reiterating the prohibition
contained in former clause 9 of rule XLIII(30) against
discrimination in employment practices; establishing a grievance
procedure for consideration of alleged violations; and creating an
Office of Fair Employment Practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 1101 (2019). This rule specified
that a ``Member, officer, or employee of the House of
Representatives shall not discharge or refuse to hire any
individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual
with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment, because of such individual's race, color,
religion, sex (including marital or parental status), handicap,
age, or national origin, but may take into consideration the
domicile or political affiliation of such individual.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 3, 1988,(31) the following resolution was
adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. 134 Cong. Rec. 27840-41, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES RESOLUTION
Mr. [Leon] PANETTA [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 558)
providing for fair employment practices in the House of
Representatives.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 558
Resolved,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This resolution may be cited as the ``Fair Employment Practices
Resolution''.
SEC. 2. NONDISCRIMINATION IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EMPLOYMENT.
(a) In General.--Personnel actions affecting employment positions in the
House of Representatives shall be made free from discrimination based on
race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including marital or parental
status), handicap, or age.
(b) Interpretations.--Interpretations under subsection (a) shall reflect
the principles of current law, as generally applicable to employment.
(c) Construction.--Subsection (a) does not prohibit the taking into
consideration of--
(1) the domicile of an individual with respect to a position under the
clerk-hire allowance; or
(2) the political affiliation of an individual with respect to a position
under the clerk-hire allowance or a position on the staff of a committee.
SEC. 3. PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.
The procedure for consideration of alleged violations of section 2
consists of 3 steps as follows:
(1) Step I, Counseling and Mediation, as set forth in section 5.
(2) Step II, Formal Complaint, Hearing, and Review by the Office of Fair
Employment Practices, as set forth in section 6.
(3) Step III, Final Review by Review Panel, as set forth in section 7.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
There is established an Office of Fair Employment Practices (hereafter in
this resolution referred to as the ``Office''), which shall carry out
functions assigned under this resolution. Employees of the Office shall be
appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the Chairman and the ranking
minority party member of the Committee on House Administration, acting
jointly, and shall be under the administrative direction of the Clerk of
the House of Representatives. The Office shall be located in the District
of Columbia and shall begin operation not more than 30 days after the date
on which this resolution is agreed to.
SEC. 5. STEP I: COUNSELING AND MEDIATION.
(a) Counseling.--An individual aggrieved by an alleged violation of
section 2 may request counseling by counselors in the Office, who shall
provide information with respect to rights and related matters under that
section. A request for counseling shall be made not later than 180 days
after the alleged violation and may be oral or written, at the option of
the individual. The period for counseling is 30 days. The Office may not
notify the employing authority of the counseling before the beginning of
mediation or the filing of a formal complaint, whichever occurs first.
(b) Mediation.--If, after counseling, the individual desires to proceed,
the Office shall attempt to resolve the alleged violation through mediation
between the individual and the employing authority.
SEC. 6. STEP II: FORMAL COMPLAINT, HEARING, AND REVIEW BY THE OFFICE OF
FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.
(a) Formal Complaint and Request for Hearing.--Not later than 15 days
after the end of the counseling period, the individual may file a formal
complaint with the Office. Not later than 10 days after filing the formal
complaint, the individual may file with the Office a written request for a
hearing on the complaint.
(b) Hearing.--The hearing shall be conducted--
(1) not later than 10 days after filing of the written request under
subsection (a), except that the Office may authorize a delay of not more
than 30 days for investigation;
(2) on the record by an employee of the Office, and
(3) to the greatest extent practicable, in accordance with the principles
and procedures set forth in sections 555 and 556 of title 5, United States
Code.
(c) Decision.--Not later than 20 days after the hearing, the Office shall
issue a written decision to the parties. The decision shall clearly state
the issues raised by the complaint, and shall contain a determination as to
whether a violation of section 2 has occurred.
SEC. 7. STEP III: FINAL REVIEW BY REVIEW PANEL.
(a) In General.--Not later than 20 days after issuance of the decision
under section 6, any party may seek final review of the decision by filing
a written request with the Office. The final review shall be conducted by a
panel constituted at the beginning of each Congress and composed of--
(1) 2 elected officers of the House of Representatives, appointed by the
Speaker;
(2) 2 employees of the House of Representatives appointed by the minority
leader of the House of Representatives;
(3) 2 members of the Committee on House Administration (one of whom shall
be appointed as chairman of the panel), appointed by the Chairman of that
Committee; and
(4) 2 members of the Committee on House Administration, appointed by the
ranking minority party member of that Committee. If any member of the panel
withdraws from a particular review, the appointing authority for such
member shall appoint another officer, employee, or Member of the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, to be a temporary member of the panel
for purposes of that review only.
(b) Review and Decision.--The review under this section shall consist of
a hearing (conducted in the manner described in section 6(b)(3)), if such
hearing is considered necessary by the panel, and an examination of the
record, together with any statements or other documents the panel deems
appropriate. A tie vote by the panel is an affirmation of the decision of
the Office. The panel shall complete the review and submit a written
decision to the parties and to the Committee on House Administration not
later than 30 days after filing of the request under subsection (a).
SEC. 8. RESOLUTION BY AGREEMENT.
If, after a formal complaint is filed under section 6, the parties
resolve the issues involved, the parties shall enter into a written
agreement, which shall be effective--
(1) in the case of a matter under review by the Office under section 6,
if approved by the Office; and
(2) in the case of a matter under review by a panel under section 7, if
approved by the panel.
SEC. 9. REMEDIES.
The Office or a review panel, as the case may be, may order the following
remedies:
(1) Monetary compensation, to be paid from the contingent fund of the
House of Representatives.
(2) In the case of a serious violation, a payment in addition to
compensation under paragraph (2), to be paid from the clerk-hire allowance
of a Member of the House, or from personnel funds of a committee of the
House or other entity, as appropriate.
(3) Injunctive relief.
(4) Costs and attorney fees.
(5) Employment, reinstatement to employment, or promotion (with or
without back pay).
SEC. 10. COSTS OF ATTENDING HEARINGS.
An individual with respect to whom a hearing is held under this
resolution shall be reimbursed for actual and reasonable costs of attending
the hearing, if the individual resides outside the District of Columbia.
SEC. 11. PROHIBITION OF INTIMIDATION.
Any intimidation of, or reprisal against, any person by an employing
authority because of the exercise of a right under this resolution is a
violation of section 2.
SEC. 12. CLOSED HEARING AND CONFIDENTIALITY.
All hearings under this resolution shall be closed. All information
relating to any procedure under this resolution is confidential, except
that a decision of the Office under section 6 or a decision of a review
panel under section 7 shall be published, if the decision constitutes a
final disposition of the matter.
SEC. 13. EXCLUSIVITY OF PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES.
The procedures and remedies under this resolution are exclusive except to
the extent that the Rules of the House of Representatives and the rules of
the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct provide for additional
procedures and remedies.
SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this resolution--
(1) the term ``employment position'' means, with respect to the House of
Representatives, a position the pay for which is disbursed by the Clerk of
the House of Representatives, and any employment position in a legislative
service organization or other entity that is paid through funds derived
from the clerk-hire allowance;
(2) the term ``employing authority'' means, the Member of the House of
Representatives or elected officer of the House of Representatives with the
power to appoint the employee;
(3) the term ``Member of the House of Representatives'' means a
Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
and
(4) the term ``elected officer of the House of Representatives'' means an
elected officer of the House of Representatives (other than the Speaker and
the Chaplain).
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(32) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Sonny Montgomery (MS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Pat] ROBERTS [of Kansas]. Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, a second will be
considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
``Application of Certain Laws''
Sec. 28.2 The House adopted a resolution: applying certain employment
laws to House employment processes; establishing an Office of
Compliance to issue regulations implementing such laws; and
providing procedures by which alleged violations would be
adjudicated and resolved.
On October 7, 1994,(33) the House adopted the following
resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. 140 Cong. Rec. 29314-18, 29326, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 579, AMENDING
THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. [John] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts], from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H.R. 579),
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
H. Res. 579
Resolved, That House Resolution 578 is hereby adopted.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 579 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The SPEAKER.(34) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Thomas Foley (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution.
Mr. SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House now consider House
Resolution 579?
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 579.
The text of House Resolution 578 is as follows:
H. Res. 578
Resolved,
SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LAWS TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
The Rules of the House of Representatives are amended by adding at the
end the following new rule:
``Rule LII.
``Application of Certain Laws.
``1. There is established an Office of Compliance which shall have a
Board of Directors consisting of 5 individuals appointed jointly by the
Speaker and the minority leader. Appointments of the first 5 members of the
Board of Directors shall be completed not later than 120 days after the
beginning of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.
``2. (a) The Office of Compliance shall carry out the duties and
functions set forth in sections 2 through 16 of House Resolution _______,
One Hundred Third Congress, including the issuance of regulations, to
implement the requirements of the following laws to the House of
Representatives:
``(1) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.),
effective at the beginning of the second session of the One Hundred Fourth
Congress.
``(2) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et
seq.), effective at the beginning of the second session of the One Hundred
Fourth Congress.
``(3) The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et
seq.), effective at the beginning of the second session of the One Hundred
Fourth Congress.
``(4) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et
seq.) (including remedies available to private employees), effective at the
beginning of the second session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.
``(5) Titles I and V of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29
U.S.C. 2611 et seq.), effective at the beginning of the second session of
the One Hundred Fourth Congress.
``(6) The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (other than section
19) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) (subject to paragraph (c)), effective at the
beginning of the One Hundred Fifth Congress.
``(7) Chapter 71 (relating to Federal labor management relations) of
title 5, United States Code, effective at the beginning of the One Hundred
Fifth Congress.
``(8) The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. 2001 et
seq.), effective at the beginning of the second session of the One Hundred
Fourth Congress, except that this Act shall not apply to the United States
Capitol Police.
``(9) The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C.
2101 et seq.), effective at the beginning of the second session of the One
Hundred Fourth Congress.
``(10) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), effective at the
beginning of the second session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.
``(b) Any provision of Federal law shall, to the extent that it relates
to the terms and conditions of employment (including hiring, promotion or
demotion, salary and wages, overtime compensation, benefits, work
assignments or reassignments, termination, protection from discrimination
in personnel actions, health and safety of employees, and family and
medical leave) of employees apply to the House in accordance with this
rule.
``(c) The House shall comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 as follows: If a citation of a violation of such Act is received,
action to abate the violation shall take place as soon as possible, but no
later than the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the citation
is issued, subject to the availability of funds appropriated for that
purpose after the receipt of the citation.
``3. (a)(1) The Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Office shall
appoint, may establish the compensation of, and may terminate, subject to
the approval of the Board of Directors, an Executive Director (referred to
in this rule as the `executive director'). The compensation of the
executive director may not exceed the compensation for level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code. The
executive director shall be an individual with training or expertise in the
application of the laws referred to in clause 2. The appointment of the
first executive director shall be completed no later than 120 days after
the initial appointment of the Board of Directors.
``(2) The executive director may not be an individual who holds or may
have held the position of Member of the House of Representatives or
Senator. The executive director may not be an individual who holds the
position of employee of the House or the Senate but the executive director
may be an individual who held such a position at least 4 years before
appointment as executive director. The term of office of the executive
director shall be a single term of 5 years.
``(b)(1)(A) No individual who engages in, or is otherwise employed in,
lobbying of the Congress and who is required under the Federal Regulation
of Lobbying Act to register with the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk
shall be considered eligible for appointment to, or service on, the Board
of Directors.
``(B) No member of the Board of Directors may hold or may have held the
position of Member of the House of Representatives or Senator, may hold the
position of employee of the House or Senate, or may have held such a
position within 4 years of the date of appointment.
``(2) If during a term of office a member of the Board of Directors
engages in an activity described in subparagraph (1)(A), such position
shall be declared vacant and a successor shall be selected in accordance
with paragraph (a)(1).
``(3) A vacancy in the Board of Directors shall be filled in the manner
in which the original appointment was made.
``(c)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), membership on the Board
of Directors shall be for 5 years. A member shall only be eligible for
appointment for a single term of office.
``(2) Of the members first appointed to the Board of Directors--
``(A) 1 shall have a term of office of 3 years,
``(B) 2 shall have a term of office of 4 years, and
``(C) 2 shall have a term of office of 5 years,
as designated at the time of appointment by the persons specified in
paragraph (a)(1).
``(3) Any member of the Board of Directors may be removed from office by
a majority decision of the appointing authorities described in paragraph
(a)(1) and only for--
``(A) disability that substantially prevents the member from carrying out
the duties of the member,
``(B) incompetence,
``(C) neglect of duty,
``(D) malfeasance, or
``(E) a felony or conduct involving moral turpitude.
``(d) The Chairperson of the Board of Directors shall be appointed from
the members of the Board of Directors by the members of the Board.''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in sections 2 through 16:
(1) The term ``employee of the House'' means any individual (other than a
Member) whose pay is disbursed by the Director of Non-legislative and
Financial Services or any individual to whom supervision and all other
employee-related matters were transferred to the Sergeant at Arms pursuant
to direction of the Committee on Appropriations in House Report 103-517 of
the One Hundred Third Congress, and such term includes an applicant for the
position of employee and a former employee.
(2) The term ``employing authority'' means, with respect to an employee,
the Member of the House of Representatives or elected officer of the House
of Representatives, or the Director of the Congressional Budget Office,
with the power to appoint the employee.
(3) The term ``Member of the House of Representatives'' means a
Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
(4) The term ``elected officer of the House of Representatives'' means an
elected officer of the House of Representatives (other than the Speaker and
the Chaplain).
(5) The term ``Office'' refers to the Office of Compliance established by
rule LII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF LAWS.
(a) The laws set forth in clause 2 of rule LII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives shall apply, as prescribed by that rule, to the House of
Representatives.
(b) The laws referred to in rule LI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives which apply on December 31, 1994, to House employees shall
continue to apply to such employees until the effective date such laws are
made applicable in accordance with this resolution.
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS RELATING TO THE OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE.
(a)(1) Each member of the Board of Directors shall be compensated at a
rate equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties of the Board.
(2) Each member of the Board of Directors shall receive travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for
employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day the member is engaged in the performance of
duties away from the home or regular place of business of the member.
(b) The executive director may appoint and fix the compensation of such
staff, including hearing officers, as are necessary to carry out this
resolution.
(c) The executive director may, with the prior consent of the Government
department or agency concerned, use the services of any such department or
agency, including the services of members or personnel of the General
Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board.
(d) The executive director may procure the temporary (not to exceed 1
year) or intermittent services of individual consultants or organizations
thereof.
SEC. 5. STUDY AND REGULATIONS.
(a) The Board of Directors shall conduct a study of the manner in which
the laws referred to in clause 2(a) of rule LII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives should apply to the House of Representatives. The Board
of Directors shall complete such study and report the results to House of
Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of the first
appointment of the first executive director.
(b) On an ongoing basis the Board of Directors--
(1) shall determine which of the laws referred to in clause 2(b) of rule
LII of the Rules of the House of Representatives should apply to the House
of Representatives and if it should, the manner in which it should be made
applicable;
(2) shall study the application to the House of provisions of Federal law
referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 2 of rule LII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives that are enacted after the date of adoption
of this resolution;
(3) may propose regulations with respect to such application in
accordance with subsection (c); and
(4) may review the regulations in effect under subsection (e)(1) and make
such amendments as may be appropriate in accordance with subsection (c).
(c)(1)(A) Not later than 180 days after the date of the completion of the
study under subsection (a), the Board of Directors shall, in accordance
with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, propose regulations to
implement the requirements of the laws referred to in clause 2(a) of rule
LII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The Board of Directors
shall provide a period of at least 30 days for comment on the proposed
regulations.
(B) In addition to publishing a general notice of proposed rulemaking
under section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, the Board of Directors
shall concurrently submit such notice for publication in the Congressional
Record.
(C) When proposing regulations under subparagraph (A) to implement the
requirements of a law referred to in clause 2(a) of rule LII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Board of Directors shall recommend to
the House of Representatives changes in or repeals of existing law to
accommodate the application of such law to the House.
(D) The Board of Directors shall, in accordance with such section 553,
issue final regulations not later than 60 days after the end of the comment
period on the proposed regulations.
(2)(A) Not later than 180 days after the date of the completion of the
study or a determination under subsection (b), the Board of Directors
shall, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code,
propose regulations that specify which of the provisions of Federal law
considered in such study shall apply to the House of Representatives. The
Board of Directors shall provide a period of at least 30 days for comment
on the proposed regulations.
(B) In addition to publishing a general notice of proposed rulemaking
under section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, the Board of Directors
shall concurrently submit such notice for publication in the Congressional
Record.
(C) When proposing regulations under subparagraph (A) specifying which of
the provisions of Federal law referred to in clause 2(b) of rule LII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to the House of
Representatives, the Board of Directors shall recommend to the House of
Representatives changes in or repeals of existing law to accommodate the
application of such law to the House.
(D) The Board of Directors shall, in accordance with such section 553,
issue final regulations not later than 60 days after the end of the comment
period on the proposed regulations.
(3) Regulations under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be consistent with the
regulations issued by an agency of the executive branch of the Federal
Government under the provision of law made applicable to the House of
Representatives, including portions relating to remedies.
(4) If a regulation is disapproved by a resolution considered under
subsection (e), not later than 60 days after the date of the disapproval,
the Board of Directors shall propose a new regulation to replace the
regulation disapproved. The action of the Board of Directors under this
paragraph shall be in accordance with the applicable requirements of this
subsection.
(d) A final regulation issued under subsection (c) shall be transmitted
to the House of Representatives for consideration under paragraph (e).
(e)(1) Subject to subsection (f), a final regulation which is issued
under subsection (c) shall take effect upon the expiration of 60 days from
the date the final regulation is issued unless disapproved by the House of
Representatives by resolution.
(2) A resolution referred to in paragraph (1) may be introduced in the
House of Representatives within 5 legislative days after the date on which
the Board of Directors issues the final regulation to which the resolution
applies. The matter after the resolving clause of the resolution shall be
as follows: ``That the House of Representatives disapproves the issuance of
final regulations of the Office of Compliance as issued on ___ (the blank
space being appropriately filled in).''.
(3) A resolution referred to in paragraph (1) shall be referred to the
appropriate committee. If no resolution is reported within 15 legislative
days after the Board of Directors issues final regulations under subsection
(c)(1)(D) or (c)(2)(D), the committee to which the resolution was referred
shall be discharged from further consideration of the first such resolution
introduced and the resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
Any meeting of a committee on a resolution shall be open to the public.
Within 5 legislative days after the resolution is reported or discharged,
it shall be in order as a privileged matter to move to proceed to its
consideration and such motion shall not be debatable. The resolution shall
be debatable for not to exceed 4 hours equally divided between proponents
and opponents and it shall not be subject to amendment.
(f) Any meeting of the Board of Directors held in connection with a study
under subsection (a) or (b) shall be open to the public. Any meeting of the
Board of Directors in connection with a regulation under subsection (c)
shall be open to the public.
SEC. 6. OTHER FUNCTIONS.
(a) The executive director shall adopt rules governing the procedures of
the Office, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, including
the procedures of hearing boards, which shall be submitted for publication
in the Congressional Record. The rules may be amended in the same manner.
The executive director may consult with the Chairman of the Administrative
Conference of the United States and the General Counsel of the House of
Representatives on the adoption of rules.
(b) The executive director shall have authority to conduct such
investigations as the executive director requires to implement sections 7
through 10.
(c) The Office shall--
(1) carry out a program of education for Members of the House of
Representatives and other employing authorities of the House of
Representatives respecting the laws made applicable to them and a program
to inform individuals of their rights under laws applicable to the House of
Representatives and under sections 7 through 10,
(2) in carrying out the program under paragraph (1), distribute the
telephone number and address of the Office, procedures for action under
sections 7 through 10, and any other information the executive director
deems appropriate for distribution, distribute such information to Members
and other employing authorities of the House in a manner suitable for
posting, provide such information to new employees of the House, distribute
such information to the residences of employees of the House, and conduct
seminars and other activities designed to educate employers and employees
in such information,
(3) compile and publish statistics on the use of the Office by employees
of the House, including the number and type of contacts made with the
Office, on the reason for such contacts, on the number of employees who
initiated proceedings with the Office under sections 7 through 10 and the
result of such proceedings, and on the number of employees who filed a
complaint under section 10, the basis for the complaint, and the action
taken on the complaint, and
(4) within 180 days of the initial appointment of the executive director
and in conjunction with the Clerk, develop a system for the collection of
demographic data respecting the composition of employees of the House,
including race, sex, and wages, and a system for the collection of
information on employment practices, including family leave and flexible
work hours, in House offices.
(d) Within one year of the date the system referred to in subsection
(c)(4) is developed and annually thereafter, the Board of Directors shall
submit to the House of Representatives a report on the information
collected under such system. Each report after the first report shall
contain a comparison and evaluation of data contained in the previous
report.
SEC. 7. PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.
The procedure for consideration of alleged violations of laws made
applicable to the House of Representatives under this rule consists of 3
steps as follows:
(1) Step I, counseling, as set forth in section 8.
(2) Step II, mediation, as set forth in section 9.
(3) Step III, formal complaint and hearing by a hearing board, as set
forth in section 10.
SEC. 8. STEP I: COUNSELING.
(a) An employee of the House alleging a violation of a law made
applicable to the House of Representatives under rule LII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives may request counseling through the Office. The
Office shall provide the employee with all relevant information with
respect to the rights of the employee. A request for counseling shall be
made not later than 180 days after the alleged violation forming the basis
of the request for counseling occurred.
(b) The period for counseling shall be 30 days unless the employee and
the Office agree to reduce the period. The period shall begin on the date
the request for counseling is received.
SEC. 9. STEP II: MEDIATION.
(a) Not later than 15 days after the end of the counseling period under
section 8, the employee who alleged a violation of a law made applicable to
the House of Representatives under rule LII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives may file a request for mediation with the Office.
Mediation--
(1) may include the Office, the employee, the employing authority, and
individuals who are recommended by organizations composed primarily of
individuals experienced in adjudicating or arbitrating personnel matters,
and
(2) shall be a process involving meetings with the parties separately or
jointly for the purpose of resolving the dispute between the employee and
the employing authority.
(b) The mediation period shall be 30 days beginning on the date the
request for mediation is received and may be extended for an additional 30
days at the discretion of the Office. The Office shall notify the employee
and the head of the employing authority when the mediation period has
ended.
SEC. 10. STEP III: FORMAL COMPLAINT AND HEARING.
(a) Not later than 30 days after receipt by the employee of the House of
notice from the Office of the end of the mediation period under section 9,
the employee of the House may file a formal complaint with the Office
against the head of the employing authority involved. No complaint may be
filed unless the employee has made a timely request for counseling and has
completed the procedures set forth in sections 8 and 9.
(b) A board of 3 independent hearing officers (hereinafter in this
resolution referred to as a ``hearing board''), who are not Members,
officers, or employees of the House, chosen by the executive director (one
of whom shall be designated by the executive director as the presiding
hearing officer) shall be assigned to consider each complaint filed under
subsection (a). The executive director shall appoint hearing officers from
candidates who are recommended by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service or the Administrative Conference of the United States. A hearing
board shall act by majority vote.
(c) Prior to a hearing under subsection (d), a hearing board may dismiss
any claim that it finds to be frivolous.
(d) A hearing shall be conducted--
(1) in closed session on the record by a hearing board; and
(2) no later than 30 days after filing of the complaint under subsection
(a), except that the Office may, for good cause, extend up to an additional
60 days the time for conducting a hearing.
(e) Reasonable prehearing discovery may be permitted at the discretion of
the hearing board.
(f)(1) A hearing board may authorize subpoenas, which shall be issued by
the presiding hearing officer on behalf of the hearing board under the seal
of the House of Representatives for the attendance of witnesses at
proceedings of the hearing board and for the production of correspondence,
books, papers, documents, and other records. The attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence may be required from any place within the
United States.
(2) If a person refuses to obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1),
the hearing board may report the refusal to the Committee on Rules which
may take any action it deems appropriate, which shall be authorized by the
Chairman and ranking minority member acting jointly. Such action may
include--
(A) a referral to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct if the
refusal is by a current Member of the House of Representatives or officer
or employee of the House of Representatives, or
(B) a report to the House of Representatives of a resolution to certify a
contempt pursuant to sections 102 and 104 of the Joint Resolution of June
22, 1938 (2 U.S.C. 192, 194) if the failure is by someone other than a
current Member of the House of Representatives or officer or employee of
the House of Representatives.
(3) The subpoenas of the hearing board shall be served in the manner
provided for subpoenas issued by a United States district court under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States district courts.
(4) All process of any court to which application is to be made under
paragraph (2) may be served in the judicial district in which the person
required to be served resides or may be found.
(5) The hearing board is an agency of the United States for the purpose
of part V of title 18, United States Code (relating to immunity of
witnesses).
(g) As expeditiously as possible, but in no case more than 45 days after
the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing board shall make a decision in
the matter for which the hearing was held. The decision of the hearing
board shall be transmitted by the Office to the employee of the House and
the employing authority. The decision shall state the issues raised by the
complaint, describe the evidence in the record, and contain a determination
as to whether a violation of a law made applicable to the House of
Representatives under this rule has occurred. Any decision of the hearing
board shall contain a written statement of the reasons for the hearing
board's decision. A final decision of the hearing board shall be made
available to the public by the Office.
(h) If the decision of the hearing board under subsection (g) is that a
violation of a law made applicable to the House of Representatives under
rule LII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, it shall order the
remedies under such law as made applicable to the House of Representatives
under that rule, except that no Member of the House of Representatives or
any other head of an employing authority, or agent of such a Member shall
be personally liable for the payment of compensation. The hearing board
shall have no authority to award punitive damages.
(i)(1) A House employee or an employing authority may request the Board
of Directors to review a decision of the hearing board under subsection (g)
(including a decision after a remand under paragraph (2)(A)). Such a
request shall be made within 30 days of the date of the decision of the
hearing board. Review by the Board of Directors shall be based on the
record of the hearing board.
(2) The Board of Directors shall issue a decision not later than 60 days
after the date of the request under paragraph (1). The decision of the
Board of Directors may--
(A) remand to the hearing board the matter before the Board of Directors
for the purpose of supplementing the record or for further consideration;
(B) reverse the decision of the hearing board and enter a new decision
and order in accordance with subsection (h); or
(C) direct that the decision and order of the hearing board be considered
as the final decision.
(j) There shall be established in the House of Representatives a fund
from which compensation (including attorney's fees) may be paid in
accordance with an order under subsection (h) or (i). From the outset of
any proceeding in which compensation may be paid from a fund of the House
of Representatives, the General Counsel of the House of Representatives may
provide the respondent with representation.
SEC. 11. RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINT.
If, after a formal complaint is filed under section 10, the employee and
the employing authority resolve the issues involved, the employee may
withdraw the complaint or the parties may enter into a written agreement,
subject to the approval of the executive director.
SEC. 12. PROHIBITION OF INTIMIDATION.
Any intimidation of, or reprisal against, any employee of the House by
any Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives because of
the exercise of a right under this resolution constitutes an unlawful
employment practice, which may be remedied in the same manner under this
resolution as is a violation of a law made applicable to the House of
Representatives under rule LII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
SEC. 13. CONFIDENTIALITY.
(a) All counseling shall be strictly confidential except that the Office
and the employee may agree to notify the head of the employing authority of
the allegations.
(b) All mediation shall be strictly confidential.
(c) Except as provided in subsection (d), the hearings and deliberations
of the hearing board shall be confidential.
(d) At the discretion of the executive director, the executive director
may provide to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct access to the
records of the hearings and decisions of the hearing boards, including all
written and oral testimony in the possession of the hearing boards,
concerning a decision under section 10(g). The executive director shall not
provide such access until the executive director has consulted with the
individual filing the complaint at issue in the hearing, and until the
hearing board has issued the decision.
(e) The executive director shall coordinate the proceedings with the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to ensure effectiveness, to
avoid duplication, and to prevent penalizing cooperation by respondents in
their respective proceedings.
SEC. 14. POLITICAL AFFILIATION AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE.
(a) It shall not be a violation of a law made applicable to the House of
Representatives under rule LII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
to consider the--
(1) party affiliation,
(2) domicile, or
(3) political compatibility with the employing authority, of an employee
of the House with respect to employment decisions.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a), the term ``employee'' means--
(1) an employee on the staff of the House of Representatives leadership,
(2) an employee on the staff of a committee or subcommittee,
(3) an employee on the staff of a Member of the House of Representatives,
(4) an officer or employee of the House of Representatives elected by the
House of Representatives or appointed by a Member of the House of
Representatives, other than those described in paragraphs (1) through (3),
or
(5) an applicant for a position that is to be occupied by an individual
described in paragraphs (1) through (4).
SEC. 15. EXCLUSIVITY OF PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES.
The procedures and remedies under rule LII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives are exclusive except to the extent that the Rules of the
House of Representatives and the rules of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct provide for additional procedures and remedies.
SEC. 16. STUDY.
(a) The Office shall conduct a study--
(1) of the ways that access by the public to information held by the
House of Representatives may be improved and streamlined, and of the
application of section 552 of title 5, United States Code to the House of
Representatives; and
(2) of the application of the requirement of section 552a of title 5,
United States Code, to the House of Representatives.
(b) The study conducted under subsection (a) shall examine--
(1) information that is currently made available under such section 552
by Federal agencies and not by the House of Representatives;
(2) information held by the nonlegislative offices of the House of
Representatives, including--
(A) the Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services,
(B) the Clerk,
(C) the Inspector General,
(D) the Sergeant at Arms,
(E) the Doorkeeper,
(F) the United States Capitol Police, and
(G) the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards;
(3) financial expenditure information of the House of Representatives;
and
(4) provisions for judicial review of denial of access to information
held by the House of Representatives.
(c) The Office shall conduct the study prescribed by subsection (a) and
report the results of the study to the House of Representatives not later
than one year after the date of the initial appointment of the Board of
Directors.
SEC. 17. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TRANSITION RULES.
(a) The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect on November 1,
1994.
(b) Effective at the beginning of the second session of the One Hundred
Fourth Congress, rule LI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
repealed and rule LII of such Rules is redesignated as rule LI and all
references to rule LII in sections 2 through 16 of this resolution are
deemed to be references to rule LI of such Rules.
(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), until the beginning of the second
session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress, the functions under rule LI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives that are the responsibility of
the Office of Fair Employment Practices shall continue to be the
responsibility of that Office.
(d) Any formal complaint filed under rule LI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives before the close of the first session of the One Hundred
Fourth Congress which has not been finally disposed of shall be transferred
to the Office of Compliance for completion of all pending proceedings
relating to that complaint. The Office of Compliance may make regulations
to provide for the orderly transfer and disposition of such complaints.
(e) In appointing staff under section 4(b), the executive director should
give full consideration to employees of the Office of Fair Employment
Practices.
(f) Sections 1 through 16 and subsections (a) through (e) of this section
shall have no force or effect upon the enactment by the One Hundred Third
Congress of the Congressional Accountability Act, whether by enactment of
the bill H.R. 4822, by incorporation of the text of that bill in another
measure, or otherwise.
Sec. 18. The Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
House Administration, acting jointly, shall study and report
recommendations to the Speaker and minority leader, no later than January
3, 1995, for changes in House Rule LII to be adopted by the House to
reconcile such rule with the existing jurisdiction of the Committee on
House Administration.
Sec. 19. The General Counsel of the House shall conduct a study to be
submitted to the Speaker, Minority Leader, and the chairmen and ranking
minority members of the Committees on House Administration and Rules no
later than January 3, 1995 on further changes in House rules to provide to
employees of the House (as defined in section 2) the ability to bring a
civil action in Federal district court against an employing authority (as
defined in section 2) for an alleged violation under Federal law to the
extent that such violation relates to the terms and conditions of
employment, until the statutory provisions contained in H.R. 4822, as
passed by the House, are enacted.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier] pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to dispel the
image that it is above the laws it makes for others. Members of
Congress should be as accountable for their actions in the
workplace as private citizens and other public officials are in
their workplaces, and congressional employees should be assured
fair, efficient review of their complaints.
On August 2, 1994, the Rules Committee reported H.R. 4822, the
Congressional Accountability Act, which would assure legislative
branch employees the same employment protections currently enjoyed
by private sector and executive branch employees. On August 10, the
House passed the measure by a vote of 427 to 4, and since then has
been awaiting Senate action on the bill.
With adjournment impending, it is unlikely the Senate will take
action on the measure. The House must therefore take alternative
action to ensure, at the very least, that House employees will
receive the broad protections under the laws designated in H.R.
4822.
House Resolution 578 accomplishes by House Rule what H.R. 4822
would do by public law. While narrower in scope--applicable only to
the House--the provisions in this resolution are nonetheless
similar to those in H.R. 4822, as passed by the House: The
constitution of the Office of Compliance and the policies and
procedures that this Office would follow are largely the same.
The resolution extends to House employees the same 10 employee
protection and antidiscrimination laws outlined in H.R. 4822, and
provides for the continual review of other laws that should apply.
A new House Office of Compliance would study and propose
regulations prescribing how these laws should apply. The procedure
for review and adoption of the regulations are similar to those in
H.R. 4822. With the exception of judicial review, the consideration
of employee complaints would be the same.
Since access to Federal courts requires statutory
authorization, House Resolution 578 does not provide House
employees with the opportunity to seek judicial review of their
complaints. Instead, the resolution allows dissatisfied parties to
request review of a hearing board decision by the Board of
Directors.
Statutory authorization is also required for judicial
enforcement of subpoenas affecting employees, officers or Members
of the House. The resolution therefore confers such enforcement
authority upon the chairman and ranking member of the House Rules
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is indefensible that congressional employees
currently do not receive the same protections under the law as
private sector or executive branch employees. House Resolution 578
will rectify this inequity, at least in the House.
Given the late hour, and the dim hope that the Senate will
complete action on H.R. 4822 before we adjourn, I urge my
colleagues to support House Resolution 579. The Senate's failure to
act on H.R. 4822 should not deprive House employees of the
protections they deserve. . . .
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The Previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Phillip] Sharp [of Indiana]). The
question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
348, nays 3, not voting 84 as follows:
[Roll No. 505] . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Congressional Accountability Act; Office of Compliance
Sec. 28.3 The House passed a bill--the Congressional Accountability Act
of 1995--applying specific employment laws to Congress and its
employees, and establishing an Office of Compliance to adjudicate
alleged violations of such laws.
On January 17, 1995,(35) the following bill was passed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. 141 Cong. Rec. 1315-17, 1323-24, 1328, 1350-51, 104th Cong. 1st
Sess. The Congressional Accountability Act (2 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1301 et seq.) applies to the House several labor,
workplace safety, and civil rights laws including the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 621 et seq.); The Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 12101 et seq.); Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2000e et seq.);
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 2001 et seq.); The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 201 et seq.); The Family and Medical Leave
Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2611 et seq.); Chapter 71
(relating to federal service labor-management relations) of
Title 5 of the U.S. Code; The Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 651 et seq.); The
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 701 et seq.);
Chapter 43 (relating to veterans' employment and reemployment)
of Title 38 of the U.S. Code; The Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2101 et seq.);
and The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (2 U.S.C.
Sec. 1316a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995
Mr. [William] THOMAS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2) to make certain
laws applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal
Government.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
TITLE I--GENERAL
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Application of laws.
TITLE II--EXTENSION OF RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS
Part A--Employment Discrimination, Family and Medical Leave, Fair Labor
Standards, Employee Polygraph Protection, Worker Adjustment and Retraining,
Employment and Reemployment of Veterans, and Intimidation
Sec. 201. Rights and protections under title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title I of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
Sec. 202. Rights and protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1993.
Sec. 203. Rights and protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.
Sec. 204. Rights and protections under the Employee Polygraph Protection
Act of 1988.
Sec. 205. Rights and protections under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.
Sec. 206. Rights and protections relating to veterans' employment and
reemployment.
Sec. 207. Prohibition of intimidation or reprisal.
Part B--Public Services and Accommodations Under the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990
Sec. 210. Rights and protections under the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 relating to public services and accommodations; procedures for
remedy of violations.
Part C--Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
Sec. 215. Rights and protections under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970; procedures for remedy of violations.
Part D--Labor-Management Relations
Sec. 220. Application of chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to Federal service labor-management relations; procedures for
remedy of violations.
Part E--General
Sec. 225. Generally applicable remedies and limitations.
Part F--Study
Sec. 230. Study and recommendations regarding General Accounting Office,
Government Printing Office, and Library of Congress.
TITLE III--OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
Sec. 301. Establishment of Office of Compliance.
Sec. 302. Officers, staff, and other personnel.
Sec. 303. Procedural rules.
Sec. 304. Substantive regulations.
Sec. 305. Expenses.
TITLE IV--ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE-RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
Sec. 401. Procedure for consideration of alleged violations.
Sec. 402. Counseling.
Sec. 403. Mediation.
Sec. 404. Election of proceeding.
Sec. 405. Complaint and hearing.
Sec. 406. Appeal to the Board.
Sec. 407. Judicial review of Board decisions and enforcement.
Sec. 408. Civil action.
Sec. 409. Judicial review of regulations.
Sec. 410. Other judicial review prohibited.
Sec. 411. Effect of failure to issue regulations.
Sec. 412. Expedited review of certain appeals.
Sec. 413. Privileges and immunities.
Sec. 414. Settlement of complaints.
Sec. 415. Payments.
Sec. 416. Confidentiality.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
Sec. 502. Political affiliation and place of residence.
Sec. 503. Nondiscrimination rules of the House and Senate.
Sec. 504. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 505. Judicial branch coverage study.
Sec. 506. Savings provisions.
Sec. 507. Use of frequent flyer miles.
Sec. 508. Sense of Senate regarding adoption of simplified and
streamlined acquisition procedures for Senate acquisitions.
Sec. 509. Severability. . . .
(3) Reports of congressional committees.--Each report accompanying any
bill or joint resolution relating to terms and conditions of employment or
access to public services or accommodations reported by a committee of the
House of Representatives or the Senate shall--
(A) describe the manner in which the provisions of the bill or joint
resolution apply to the legislative branch; or
(B) in the case of a provision not applicable to the legislative branch,
include a statement of the reasons the provision does not apply.
On the objection of any Member, it shall not be in order for the Senate
or the House of Representatives to consider any such bill or joint
resolution if the report of the committee on such bill or joint resolution
does not comply with the provisions of this paragraph. This paragraph may
be waived in either House by majority vote of that House. . . .
(c) Approval of Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Regulations referred to in paragraph (2)(B)(i) of
subsection (a) may be approved by the Senate by resolution or by the
Congress by concurrent resolution or by joint resolution. Regulations
referred to in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) of subsection (a) may be approved by
the House of Representatives by resolution or by the Congress by concurrent
resolution or by joint resolution. Regulations referred to in paragraph
(2)(B)(iii) may be approved by Congress by concurrent resolution or by
joint resolution.
(2) Referral.--Upon receipt of a notice of adoption of regulations under
subsection (b)(3), the presiding officers of the House of Representatives
and the Senate shall refer such notice, together with a copy of such
regulations, to the appropriate committee or committees of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate. The purpose of the referral shall be to
consider whether such regulations should be approved, and, if so, whether
such approval should be by resolution of the House of Representatives or of
the Senate, by concurrent resolution or by joint resolution.
(3) Joint referral and discharge in the senate.--The presiding officer of
the Senate may refer the notice of issuance of regulations, or any
resolution of approval of regulations, to one committee or jointly to more
than one committee. If a committee of the Senate acts to report a jointly
referred measure, any other committee of the Senate must act within 30
calendar days of continuous session, or be automatically discharged.
(4) One-house resolution or concurrent resolution.--In the case of a
resolution of the House of Representatives or the Senate or a concurrent
resolution referred to in paragraph (1), the matter after the resolving
clause shall be the following: ``The following regulations issued by the
Office of Compliance on _______ are hereby approved:'' (the blank space
being appropriately filled in, and the text of the regulations being set
forth).
(5) Joint resolution.--In the case of a joint resolution referred to in
paragraph (1), the matter after the resolving clause shall be the
following: ``The following regulations issued by the Office of Compliance
on _______ are hereby approved and shall have the force and effect of
law:'' (the blank space being appropriately filled in, and the text of the
regulations being set forth). . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(36) Pursuant to the rule,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] will be recognized for
20 minutes and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] will be
recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. William Barrett (NE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question
of suspending the rules and passing the Senate bill, S. 2. The
Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is one the motion offered
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] that the House
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2, on which the yeas
and nays are ordered. . . .
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the rules were
suspended and the Senate bill was passed. The result of the vote
was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 28.4 The House adopted a resolution approving regulations
promulgated by the Office of Compliance under section 304 of the
Congressional Accountability of Act of 1995 insofar as those
regulations were applicable to House employees.
On April 15, 1996,(37) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. 142 Cong. Rec. 7468-70, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 142 Cong.
Rec. 7470-72, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 15, 1996). For another
example of the House agreeing to a resolution approving
regulations promulgated by the Office of Compliance, see 141
Cong. Rec. 37590, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Dec. 19, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] THOMAS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 400)
approving regulations to implement the Congressional Accountability
Act of 1995 with respect to employing offices and covered employees
of the House of Representatives.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 400
Resolved,
SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The regulations listed in subsection (b) are hereby
approved, insofar as such regulations apply to employing offices and
covered employees of the House of Representatives.
(b) Regulations Approved.--The regulations referred to in subsection (a)
are the following regulations issued by the Office of Compliance on January
22, 1996, as published in the Congressional Record on January 22, 1996
(Volume 142, daily edition), each beginning on the page indicated:
(1) Regulation on rights and protections under the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993, page S200.
(2) Regulation on rights and protections under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, page S238.
(3) Regulation on use of lie detector tests by the Capitol Police, page
S261.
(4) Regulation on rights and protections under the Employee Polygraph
Protection Act of 1988, page S263.
(5) Regulation on rights and protections under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, page S271.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(38) The gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas] and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] each will be recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Frank Riggs (CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr.
Thomas]. . . .
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Accountability Act--
Public Law 104-1--became effective on January 23, 1996. This law
created the Office of Compliance, an independent office within the
legislative branch, which is responsible for educating
Congressional offices on how to comply with the laws made
applicable to the Congress, as well as for providing a procedure
for resolution of employee grievances, and for adopting regulations
to implement these laws. These regulations must be approved by the
House.
The Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance adopted
regulations which were published in the Congressional Record on
January 22, 1996. In anticipation of these regulations, on December
19, 1995, the House agreed to House Resolution 31 and House
Concurrent Resolution 123, which provided for provisional approval
of these regulations until the Committees of jurisdiction could
review them and make a final recommendation to the House.
On March 12, 1996, the Committee on House Oversight considered
these regulations, and voted to recommend their approval to the
House. The regulations were also considered by the Committee on
Educational and Economic Opportunities, which has jurisdiction over
most of the laws made applicable to Congress by the act. The two
House Resolutions which will be considered by the House today are
the product of consultation by the two committees. . . .
In addition House Resolution 400 provides for approval of the
regulations adopted by the Office of Compliance which are
applicable to House employing offices and covered employees, as
contemplated by section 304(c)(4) of the act. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution
400.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 28.5 Pursuant to law,(39) appointments to the Board of
Directors of the Office of Compliance are made jointly by the
Speaker and Minority Leader of the House, and the Majority and
Minority Leaders of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Parliamentarian's Note: Section 301(e)(1) of the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. Sec. 1381(e)(1))
originally provided that members of this board may not serve
for more than two terms, but this limitation was altered by
subsequent statutes. See P.L. 111-114, 123 Stat. 3028 and P.L.
114-6, 129 Stat. 81. All three members appointed on this day
were appointed to their fourth terms, as were the remaining two
board members reappointed on May 13, 2015. See 161 Cong. Rec.
6655, 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 23, 2015,(40) the following appointments were
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. 161 Cong. Rec. 4014, 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT REAPPOINTMENT OF INDIVIDUALS TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(41) The Chair announces, on
behalf of the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the United
States Senate, their joint reappointment, pursuant to section 301
of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1381), as
amended by Public Law 114-6, of the following individuals on March
23, 2015, each to a 2-year term on the Board of Directors of the
Office of Compliance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Bradley Walker (NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Alan V. Friedman, Los Angeles, California
Ms. Susan S. Robfogel, Rochester, New York
Ms. Barbara Childs Wallace, Ridgeland, Mississippi
Sec. 29. Salaries and Benefits of House Officers, Officials, and
Employees
Salaries for officers, officials, and employees of the House are
paid out of the Treasury pursuant to discretionary appropriation, i.e.,
annual appropriation bills passed by Congress to fund the legislative
branch.(1) The Chief Administrative Officer of the House is
charged with making the requisite disbursements to these officers,
officials, and employees.(2) Pursuant to statute, all House
employees are to be paid a single gross per annum salary.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Traditionally, Congress enacts 12 different general appropriation
bills each fiscal year, one of which provides funds for the
legislative branch. For more on appropriation bills and the
appropriation process generally, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
25 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 25.
2. Rule II, clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 861 (2019).
3. This provision of law was originally found in the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970, which has since been codified at 2
U.S.C. Sec. 4533.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rate of compensation for officers, officials and employees of
the House is regulated by statute. One of the earliest statutes
establishing rates of pay for House employees was the Legislative Pay
Act of 1929.(4) Subsequent acts occasionally provided for ad
hoc adjustments to these compensation rates.(5)
Additionally, statutes would sometimes provide authority for the
Speaker of the House to make adjustments in House salaries for officers
and employees in order to achieve parity with respect to similar
positions in the Senate or the executive branch.(6) In
recent years, this type of adjustment authority has been the primary
source for determining the compensation of officers and other officials
of the House. Provisions in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 1988,(7) subsequently enacted as permanent
law,(8) authorize the Speaker of the House to issue pay
orders that determine the rate of compensation of certain House
officers, officials, and employees.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 46 Stat. 32.
5. See, e.g., the Federal Employee Pay Act of 1945 (59 Stat. 295), the
Federal Employee Pay Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 216), the Federal
Legislative Salary Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-426, 78 Stat. 413), and
the Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-504, 80
Stat. 294).
6. See, e.g., the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (P.L. 90-206, 81 Stat.
624) and the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-
656, 84 Stat. 1946).
7. P.L. 100-202, 101 Stat. 1329.
8. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4532.
9. Orders of this sort have been issued by Speakers since the 100th
Congress. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4532 note. For example, a recent
order was issued by Speaker Pelosi on January 9, 2009
(subsequently amended by Speaker Boehner on January 3, 2011,
and Speaker Ryan on September 28, 2017). A separate provision
of law sets the rate of compensation for the Chaplain of the
House (2 U.S.C. Sec. 5521) but the Chaplain's salary has also
been adjusted via pay orders issued by the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive branch employees are provided with annual cost-of-living
adjustments pursuant to statute,(10) and similar provisions
of law apply to House employees as well. The Chief Administrative
Officer of the House is authorized to make comparable adjustments to
the salaries of House employees whenever a cost-of-living adjustment is
made for executive branch employees.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5303.
11. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on House Administration is authorized by statute to
implement certain wage schedules for House employees.(12)
Pursuant to the House Employees Position Classification Act (originally
enacted in 1964),(13) the Committee on House Administration
is authorized to establish a ``House Employee Schedule'' that sets
compensation rates for different employees of the House.(14)
The Committee also establishes a ``House Wage Schedule'' for House
employee positions that fall under the jurisdiction of the Clerk,
Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer.(15)
These officers may, with the approval of the committee, create their
own position descriptions for employees under their
purview.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 293.
13. P.L. 88-652, 78 Stat. 1079.
14. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 293.
15. Id. This provision also covers employees under the Inspector
General of the House. See Sec. 20, supra.
16. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation for committee staff is also regulated by statute. Each
standing committee is authorized to approve the compensation of
committee employees,(17) subject to regulations issued by
the Committee on House Administration regarding the availability of
appropriations for this purpose.(18) Compensation for
``minority employees'' of the House is also regulated by
statute.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4311.
18. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4312. This provision does not apply to the Committee
on Appropriations.
19. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5143. See Sec. 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to salary, the House provides its employees with a
variety of additional benefits, such as retirement benefits, health
insurance, student loan repayment programs, transit subsidies,
etc.(20) Pursuant to law,(21) employees of the
House are eligible for certain death gratuities (payable to the
deceased employees' widow, widower, or heirs). From time to time, the
House has provided additional funds for increased staff or equipment
support for the Speaker or other leadership offices.(22)
More recently, the House adopted a resolution in the 115th Congress
providing an ad hoc increase in the Member's Representational Allowance
(MRA)(23) for expenses relating to office
security.(24) Ad hoc disbursements to widows of Members and
employees of the House are also occasionally authorized by House
resolution.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, e.g., Health Benefits for Members of Congress and Designated
Congressional Staff: In Brief, CRS Report R43194 (Jan. 13,
2017) and Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress, CRS
Report RL30631 (Dec. 5, 2017).
21. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4553 and 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1851.
22. See Sec. Sec. 29.1, 29.4, infra. Certain statutes provide for the
compensation of office staff for House leadership offices. See,
e.g., 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5103.
23. For salaries and benefits of Members, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
7 and Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 7.
24. H. Res. 411, 163 Cong. Rec. H5202 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong. 1st
Sess. (June 27, 2017). This resolution was agreed to in the
wake of a shooting that occurred at a charity congressional
baseball practice in June 2017. Also in response to the
shooting, Congress passed the Wounded Officers Recovery Act of
2017 (P.L. 115-45, 131 Stat. 956) which authorized payments
from the United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund for
employees killed in the line-of-duty or sustaining serious
line-of-duty injuries. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 note. For more on
the Capitol Police, see Sec. 25, supra.
25. See Sec. Sec. 29.5, 29.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 29.1 The House adopted a privileged resolution, providing for
additional employee and equipment allowances for certain House
leadership offices.
On April 12, 1973,(26) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. 119 Cong. Rec. 12185-86, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne] HAYS [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on House Administration, I call up House Resolution 342,
a privileged resolution, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 342
Resolved, That, until otherwise provided by law, effective April 1, 1973,
there shall be paid out of the ``contingent fund''(27) of the
House for office personnel and for rental or lease of necessary equipment
for the conduct of the business of the office of each of the following
officials of the House of Representatives the following per annum amounts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Parliamentarian's Note: References to the ``contingent fund'' were
eliminated in the 104th Congress. See rule X, clause 1(k)(1),
House Rules and Manual Sec. 724 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Speaker, $40,000.
(2) The majority leader, $30,000.
(3) The minority leader, $30,000.
(4) The majority whip, $30,000.
(5) The minority whip, $30,000.
(6) The chief deputy majority whip,$40,000.
(7) The chief deputy minority whip, $40,000. Such amounts shall be in
addition to all other amounts to which such officials may be entitled. . .
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 29.2 The House passed a Senate bill relating to civil service
annuity benefits for widows of employees, with an amendment
increasing the base for computation of the annuities of the Speaker
and other Members in leadership positions.
On March 19, 1974,(28) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. 120 Cong. Rec. 7206-207, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thaddeus] DULSKI [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2174) to amend the
civil service retirement system with respect to the definitions of
widow and widower, as amended.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 2174
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) clauses (1) (A) and (2)
(A) of section 8341(a) of title 5, United States Code, are amended by
striking out ``2 years'' wherever it appears and inserting in lieu thereof
``1 year''. (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) of this section shall
not apply in the cases of employees, Members, or annuitants who died before
the date of enactment of this Act. The rights of such individuals and their
survivors shall continue in the same manner and to the same extent as if
such amendments had not been enacted.
Sec. 2. (a) Section 8339(f) (2) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by deleting ``greater'' and inserting ``greatest'' in place thereof;
(2) by deleting the word ``or'' immediately after the semicolon at the
end of clause (A):
(3) by redesignating clause (B) as clause (C); and
(4) by inserting immediately below clause (A) the following new clause
(B):
``(B) the average pay of the Member; or''.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) of this section shall apply to
annuities paid for months beginning after the date of enactment of this
Act.
The SPEAKER.(29) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold] GROSS [of Iowa]. Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, a second will be considered as
ordered.
There was no objection. . .
. -------------------
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT TO S. 2174
The amendment to the bill is intended to correct a deficiency
in the provisions of the retirement law (5 U.S.C. 8339(f)(2)),
relating to a maximum civil service annuity. The deficiency arises
because of the method of computing the annuity.
Under existing law, an annuity may not exceed 80 percent of the
``average pay'' in the case of an employee, and 80 percent of the
``final basic pay'' in the case of most Members.
The ``final basic pay'' of most Members currently is $42,500,
and in the case of Members serving in the leadership positions, is
$62,500 for the Speaker, and $49,500 for the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate.
However, when a Member who has served in one of the leadership
positions subsequently serves as a Member, but not in a leadership
position, his final basic pay currently is $42,500. Consequently,
such a Member loses all rights to have the higher rate of pay he
received as a Member in a leadership position considered in
determining his maximum annuity.
The amendment to the bill will permit the pay received while in
a leadership position to be used in determining the maximum annuity
to which a Member is entitled when he serves as a Member subsequent
to service in a leadership position.
Sec. 29.3 In a provision of law authorizing the President pro tempore
of the Senate to adjust salary levels of Senate staff, the Speaker
was granted discretionary authority to adjust the pay of House
personnel to assure comparability of compensation with Senate staff
whose pay had been adjusted.
On December 21, 1987,(30) the House adopted the
conference report on House Joint Resolution 395 (making further
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1988). This joint resolution
contained the following provisions allowing the Speaker of the House to
adjust certain pay levels:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. 133 Cong. Rec. 37189, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
Sec. 311. (a) The first sentence of section 4(a) of Public Law 91-656 (2
U.S.C. 60a-1) is amended by striking out the period at the end and
inserting ``and adjust the rates of such personnel by such amounts as
necessary to restore the same pay relationships that existed on December
31, 1986, between personnel and Senators and between positions.''.
(b) Section 4(b) of such public law is amended by striking out the period
at the end and inserting ``, except in cases in which it is necessary to
restore and maintain the same pay relationships that existed on December
31, 1986, between personnel and Senators and between positions.''.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other
provision of law, subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be
effective in the case of pay orders issued by the President pro tempore of
the Senate on or after January 1, 1988.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, or any other
provision of law, rule, or regulation, hereafter each time the President
pro tempore of the Senate exercises any authority pursuant to any of the
amendments made by this section with respect to rates of pay or any other
matters relating to personnel whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives may, with respect
to personnel whose pay is disbursed by the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, exercise the same authority to the extent necessary to
ensure parity of treatment between personnel of the respective Houses of
Congress having comparable duties and responsibilities.
Sec. 29.4 By unanimous consent, the House considered and adopted a
resolution authorizing additional funding for the Office of
Speaker.
On June 14, 1989,(31) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. 135 Cong. Rec. 11748, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER
Mr. [Victor] FAZIO [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 175) providing funds for the Office of Speaker,
and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Peter] DeFazio [of Oregon]). The
Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 175
Resolved, That, effective June 14, 1989, there shall be authorized the
additional sum of $60,000 for the compensation of personnel and other
expenses of the Office of Speaker. . . .
Mr. FAZIO. That is correct.
The resolution is necessary to provide for the humanitarian
transition of staff who are involved in the change in the Office of
Speaker.
It provides that $60,000 be added to the authorization of the
Office of Speaker for office personnel and expenses.
No new funds are appropriated here. The $60,000 will have to
come from any excess funds that may be available out of funds
already appropriated. If such excess funds are found, and if they
are needed by the Office of Speaker, the Committee on
Appropriations will take action to transfer those funds under
existing transfer authority.
This is necessary because the budget of that office cannot
absorb the entire cost, however temporary, of two staff groups.
These funds are needed to defray those expenses for a short time
while the outgoing staff find new positions. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 29.5 By unanimous consent, the House considered and adopted a
resolution paying a gratuity to the widow of a congressional
employee.
On December 15, 1977,(32) the following resolution was
considered and adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. 123 Cong. Rec. 38998-99, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. For more on death
benefits for widows of Members, see Deschler's Precedents Ch.
38 Sec. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF GRATUITY TO MARGARET WOODWORTH, WIDOW
OF LAURENCE N. WOODWORTH
Mr. [Albert] ULLMAN [of Oregon]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 936) providing for payment of a gratuity to
Margaret Woodworth, widow of Laurence N. Woodworth, and ask
unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 936
Resolved, That there shall be paid from the contingent fund of the House
as a gratuity to Margaret Woodworth, widow of Laurence N. Woodworth, a sum
equal to the annual compensation which was payable by the House to the said
Laurence N. Woodworth as Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Such annual compensation shall be determined by reference to the monthly
rate for such position in effect for December 1976. . . .
The SPEAKER.(33) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [Frank] EVANS of Colorado). Is
there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 29.6 By unanimous consent, the House considered and adopted a
resolution providing a lump-sum payment for accrued annual leave
for certain House employees involuntarily separated from
employment.
On January 17, 1995,(34) the following resolution was
considered and adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. 141 Cong. Rec. 1314-15, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR LUMP SUM PAYMENT FOR ACCRUED ANNUAL LEAVE TO
ELIGIBLE FORMER EMPLOYEES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. [William] THOMAS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be
discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res.
35) providing for payment of a lump sum for accrued annual leave to
eligible former employees of the House of Representatives, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [David] Dreier [of California]).
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. [Steny] HOYER [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, under my reservation, I will be glad to yield to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the
Committee on House Oversight, for the purpose of explaining the
objectives of this legislation.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California. . . .
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object,
I understand the gentleman has no further speakers on this issue.
If that is the case, I will withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 35
Resolved,
SECTION 1. LUMP-SUM PAYMENT FOR ACCRUED ANNUAL LEAVE.
(a) In General.--An eligible employee of the House of Representatives--
(1) who is separated from employment involuntarily;
(2) whose last day of employment is during the period beginning on
January 3, 1995, and ending on June 30, 1995; and
(3) who is not reemployed by the House of Representatives, the Senate, or
an agency of the legislative branch within 30 days after such last day of
employment;
shall be paid a lump sum for the accrued annual leave of the employee.
(b) Payment.--The lump sum--
(1) shall be paid, as certified under subsection (c), in an amount equal
to the value of the total accrued annual leave of the employee or the value
of 30 days of accrued annual leave of the employee, whichever is less;
(2) shall be paid--
(A) for clerk hire employees, from the clerk hire allowance of the Member
for calendar year 1995;
(B) for committee employees, from amounts appropriated for committees;
and
(C) for other employees, from amounts appropriated to the employing
authority for fiscal year 1995; and
(3) shall be computed using the rate of pay in effect with respect to the
employee on the last day of employment of the employee.
(c) Certification.--For purposes of this resolution, accrued annual leave
of an employee shall be certified by the appropriate employing authority--
(1) as of December 31, 1994, in the case of an employee whose last day of
employment is January 3, 1995; and
(2) as of the last day of employment of the employee, in the case of an
employee whose last day of employment is after January 3, 1995, and before
July 1, 1995.
SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.
The Committee on House Oversight shall have authority to prescribe
regulations to carry out this resolution.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this resolution----
(1) the term ``eligible employee'' means, with respect to the House of
Representatives, an employee whose pay is disbursed by the Clerk of the
House of Representatives or the Chief Administrative Officer of the House
of Representatives, as applicable, except that such term does not include--
(A) an employee under the clerk hire allowance whose appointing Member is
not a Member of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Fourth
Congress; or
(B) a uniformed or civilian support employee under the Capitol Police
Board; and
(2) The term ``agency of the legislative branch'' means the Office of the
Architect of the Capitol, the Botanic Garden, the General Accounting
Office, the Government Printing Office, the Library of Congress, the Office
of Technology Assessment, and the Congressional Budget Office.
amendment offered by mr. thomas
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Thomas: Page 1, line 9, strike out ``January 3,
1995'' and insert in lieu thereof ``December 31, 1994''.
Page 3, beginning on line 5, strike out ``January 3, 1995'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``December 31, 1994, or January 1, 2, or 3, 1995''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
The amendment was agreed to.
The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 29.7 By unanimous consent, the House considered and adopted a
concurrent resolution providing for, inter alia, a survivor's
gratuity to the widows of slain Capitol Police officers.
On July 27, 1998,(35) the following resolution was
considered and adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. 144 Cong. Rec. 17438-40, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZING USE OF ROTUNDA OF CAPITOL FOR MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR
DETECTIVE JOHN MICHAEL GIBSON AND PRIVATE FIRST CLASS JACOB
JOSEPH CHESTNUT OF UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE
Mr. [Thomas] DeLAY [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from
further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res.
310) and I ask for its immediate consideration and adoption by the
House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(36) The Clerk will report
the concurrent resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. Howard Coble (NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 310
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING USE OF ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL FOR MEMORIAL SERVICE
FOR DETECTIVE JOHN MICHAEL GIBSON AND PRIVATE FIRST CLASS JACOB JOSEPH
CHESTNUT.
The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used for a memorial
service and proceedings related thereto for Detective John Michael Gibson
and Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut of the United States Capitol
Police on Tuesday, July 28, 1998, under the direction of the United States
Capitol Police Board.
SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF PLAQUE IN CAPITOL IN MEMORY OF DETECTIVE GIBSON AND
PRIVATE FIRST CLASS CHESTNUT.
The Architect of the Capitol shall place a plaque in honor of the memory
of Detective John Michael Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Joseph
Chestnut of the United States Capitol Police at an appropriate site in the
United States Capitol, with the approval of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
SEC. 3. PAYMENT OF FUNERAL EXPENSES FOR JOHN GIBSON AND JACOB JOSEPH
CHESTNUT.
(a) In General.--The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives is
authorized and directed to make such arrangements as may be necessary for
funeral services for Detective John Michael Gibson and Private First Class
Jacob Joseph Chestnut of the United States Capitol Police, including
payments for travel expenses of immediate family members, and for the
attendance of Members of the House of Representatives at such services,
including payments for expenses incurred by Members in attending such
services.
(b) Source and Manner of Making Payments.--Any payment made under
subsection (a) shall be made from the applicable accounts of the House of
Representatives, using vouchers approved in a manner directed by the
Committee on House Oversight.
SEC. 4. PAYMENT OF SURVIVOR'S GRATUITY TO WIDOWS OF JOHN GIBSON AND JACOB
JOSEPH CHESTNUT.
(a) In General.--In accordance with the first sentence of the last
undesignated paragraph under the center heading ``HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES'' in the first section of the Legislative Branch
Appropriation Act, 1955 (2 U.S.C. 125), the Chief Administrative Officer of
the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to pay, from the
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives--
(1) a gratuity to the widow of Detective John Michael Gibson of the
United States Capitol Police in the amount of $51,866.00; and
(2) a gratuity to the widow of Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut
of the United States Capitol Police in the amount of $47,280.00.
(b) Treatment as Gift.--Each gratuity paid under subsection (a) shall be
held to have been a gift.
SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITOL POLICE
MEMORIAL FUND.
It is the sense of Congress that there should be established under law a
United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund for the surviving spouse and
children of members of the United States Capitol Police who are slain in
the line of duty.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. [Steny] HOYER [of Maryland]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, obviously I will not object, but at this time I
yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the
majority whip, who lost a good and true friend, as all of us lost
two good and true friends.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [John] Shimkus [of Illinois]). Is
there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 30. Creating and Eliminating Offices; Reorganizations
The internal organization of the House is not addressed by the
Constitution, and the House is therefore free to establish whatever
offices the membership desires, in whatever structure is deemed
suitable for the efficient administration of House operations. As noted
earlier,(1) the only officer of the House mandated by the
Constitution is the Speaker of the House, and a variety of officer
positions have been created and terminated by the House over the course
of its history.(2) The House has also experimented with a
number of lesser administrative officials to oversee different House
functions.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 13, supra.
2. Id.
3. See Sec. Sec. 13-23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since World War II, the House has undergone a number of
reorganizations and reforms in its administration that have occasioned
the creation, the consolidation, and the abolition of offices, thereby
creating and/or eliminating employee positions. The first major reform
effort in the post-war era, undertaken by a Joint Committee on the
Organization of Congress, led to the enactment of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946.(4) This act reformed the
committee structure in the House (eliminating or consolidating numerous
committees), strengthened oversight capabilities, and provided for
increases in Member and committee staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 60 Stat. 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1960s, another joint committee was formed to investigate
congressional procedure and operations in both the House and the Senate
and to recommend reforms.(5) As a result of these efforts,
Congress enacted the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970.(6) This act made further reforms to the committee
system (including the ability of the minority party to hire committee
staff), created the Congressional Research Service (as a successor to
the Legislative Reference Service), and made additional changes to
floor procedure and budget processes.(7) The act further
paved the way for later innovations, such as the electronic voting
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See S. Con. Res. 2, 111 Cong. Rec. 4780, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar.
11, 1965). The final report of the joint committee was issued
on July 28, 1966. See S. Rept. 1414, 89th Cong.
6. P.L. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1142.
7. The congressional budget process was significantly overhauled in
the 93d Congress with the enactment of the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (codified at 2 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 601-688). For more on the congressional budget
process, including amendments to the original Budget Act, see
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 93d Congress in 1973, the House created a Select Committee
on Committees (otherwise known as the ``Bolling
Committee'').(8) Although this select committee recommended
comprehensive changes to the committee system, the House ultimately
adopted a less extensive version of the proposal (known as the ``Hansen
Alternative'') recommended by the majority party caucus.(9)
This version reorganized committee jurisdictions, strengthened
subcommittees and regularized subcommittee procedures, and provided
more opportunities for the minority to access committee resources.
Another Select Committee on Committees (known as the ``Patterson
Committee'') was formed in the 96th Congress in 1979, but the House did
not ultimately adopt its recommendations.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-67, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct.
8, 1974).
9. The Hansen alternative language was introduced in the 94th Congress
as House Resolution 1248. On September 30, 1974, the House
adopted a special order of business (H. Res. 1395) to structure
consideration of the original Bolling resolution. 120 Cong.
Rec. 32953, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. That special order provided for
consideration of the Hansen resolution as an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The amendment was adopted and the
underlying resolution agreed to on October 8, 1974. See 120
Cong. Rec. 34447-67, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. H. Res. 118, 125 Cong. Rec. 5423-24, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mar. 19,
1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 102d Congress, the Committee on House Administration and the
Committee on Rules recommended a variety of changes to House operations
that eventually led to the adoption of the House Administrative Reform
Amendments of 1992.(11) These reforms had a significant
impact on House operations by: (1) abolishing the Office of the
Postmaster; (2) making the Clerk, the Doorkeeper, and the Sergeant-at-
Arms subject to removal by the House or by the Speaker; (3)
transferring certain job functions and entities of those elected
officers to a new Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services;
(4) establishing an Office of Inspector General; and (5) placing the
elected officers and a General Counsel under the oversight of the
Committee on House Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 423, 138 Cong. Rec. 9039-40, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 9,
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in the 102d Congress, another Joint Committee on the
Organization of Congress was formed,(12) and its successor
committee in the following Congress recommended a variety of
institutional reforms.(13) Legislation (known as the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994) was introduced in both the
House and the Senate but never considered by either
body.(14) However, in the 104th Congress, some of the
recommendations from these prior joint committees were incorporated
into the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA).(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Con. Res. 192, 138 Cong. Rec. 21961-62, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
(Aug. 6, 1992).
13. The joint committee's final report was issued in December, 1993.
See H. Rept. 103-413, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
14. The introduced bills were H.R. 3801 in the House and S. 1824 in the
Senate.
15. See Sec. 28, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional changes to the House's institutional structure were made
by the new Republican majority at the beginning of the 104th Congress.
The former Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services was
replaced by a new elected officer position: the Chief Administrative
Officer. The Office of the Doorkeeper was also abolished and most of
its functions transferred to the jurisdiction of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Additional changes were made to the committee structure as certain
committees were consolidated and renamed.(16) The only
significant reform to the House's committee system since that time was
the advent of the Committee on Homeland Security in the 108th Congress
in 2005.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 30.4, infra.
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 723a (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 104th Congress, the House has not undertaken a
comprehensive reorganization of its administration. However, additional
offices have occasionally been created to address specific needs. In
the 104th Congress, for example, the House created a Corrections
Calendar Office to coordinate legislation to be considered under
expedited procedures.(18) However, both Corrections Calendar
procedures and the Corrections Calendar Office were discontinued in the
109th Congress. An Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and
Operations was created in the 107th Congress to coordinate emergency
preparedness, crisis management, and recovery
operations.(19) However, the functions of this office were
transferred to the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms in the 112th
Congress. In the 108th Congress, the Office of Interparliamentary
Affairs was created.(20) Its mission is to respond to
inquiries from foreign governments pertaining to official visits
between House Members (and other officials) and their counterparts in
other international legislatures. In the 115th Congress, the Office of
Employee Advocacy was created to provide legal representation to House
employees pursuing claims under the Congressional Accountability
Act.(21) In the 116th Congress, an Office of Diversity and
Inclusion and an Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman were created via
separate orders contained in the resolution adopting the standing
rules.(22) Also in the 116th Congress, a Select Committee on
the Modernization of Congress was formed to review a wide range of
House procedures and operations and to recommend improvements to House
administration, particularly in the area of information
technology.(23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Parliamentarian's Note: The former Corrections Calendar was created
in the 104th Congress to provide expedited consideration of
bills aimed at ``correcting'' laws or regulations (replacing
the seldom-used Consent Calendar). The Speaker in consultation
with the Minority Leader could place reported legislation on
the Corrections Calendar, where it would be subject to a
supermajority vote requirement. The Corrections Calendar and
the Corrections Calendar Office were abolished in the 109th
Congress. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 898 (2019). See also
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 22.
19. See P.L. 112-74, 125 Stat. 786. See also House Rules and Manual
Sec. 1125c (2019) and Sec. 15, supra.
20. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5582. See also House Rules and Manual Sec. 1124
(2019).
21. See H. Res. 724, 164 Cong. Rec. H813, H814 [Daily Ed.], 115th Cong.
2d Sess. (Feb. 6, 2018).
22. 165 Cong. Rec. H22 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3,
2019).
23. 165 Cong. Rec. H23 [Daily Ed.], 116th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 3,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Corrections Calendar Office
Sec. 30.1 By unanimous consent, the House considered and agreed to a
resolution establishing a Corrections Calendar Office, authorizing
the Speaker (in consultation with the Minority Leader) to appoint
five employees to maintain the Office and set their rates of pay.
On January 7, 1997,(24) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 143 Cong. Rec. 142, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTABLISHING THE CORRECTIONS CALENDAR OFFICE
Mr. [John] BOEHNER [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution
(H. Res. 7) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 7
Resolved,
SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS CALENDAR OFFICE.
There is established in the House of Representatives an office to be
known as the Corrections Calendar Office, which shall have the
responsibility of assisting the Speaker in the management of the
Corrections Calendar under the Rules of the House of Representatives. The
Office shall have not more than five employees--
(1) who shall be appointed by the Speaker, in consultation with the
minority leader; and
(2) whose annual rate of pay shall be establish by the Speaker, but may
not exceed 75 percent of the maximum annual rate under the general
limitation specified by the order of the Speaker in effect under section
311(d) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1988 (2 U.S.C. 60a
2a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(25) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Ray LaHood (IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Former Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services
Sec. 30.2 Pursuant to section 7(b) of the House Administrative Reform
Resolution of 1992,(26) the Committee on House
Administration transferred ultimate responsibility for the
operation of the House Finance Office from the Clerk to the
Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services.(27)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. H. Res. 423, 138 Cong. Rec. 9039-40, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Apr. 9,
1992).
27. Parliamentarian's Note: This resolution amended the standing rules
to achieve administrative reforms across a wide range of House
operations. Under the resolution, the transfer of the financial
responsibilities described here was to occur within 90 days
after the adoption of the resolution. The House, by unanimous
consent, extended this deadline on several occasions. See 138
Cong. Rec. 18307, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (July 8, 1992) and 138
Cong. Rec. 24372-73, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 10, 1992). See
also 138 Cong. Rec. 27726-27, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 25,
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 4, 1993,(28) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. 139 Cong. Rec. 2512, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication
from the Honorable Charlie Rose, chairman of the Committee on House
Administration:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 1, 1993.
Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker, House of Representatives, H-204 The Capitol, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the authority vested in the
Committee on House Administration by House Rule X, Clause 4(d)(3),
and upon recommendation of the Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight of the Committee on House Administration pursuant to
Clause 3(j)(2), the Committee has directed the following, effective
on February 1, 1993:
``The responsibility for the operation of the House Finance
Office is transferred to the Director of Non-Legislative and
Financial Services, subject to the oversight of the Subcommittee on
Administrative Oversight of the Committee on House
Administration.''
It is intended that the House Finance Office continue to
operate under the existing statutory authority of the Clerk of the
House, but at the direction of the Director of Non-Legislative and
Financial Services, until such time as the necessary statutory
changes are enacted.
Upon receipt of a copy of this letter, the Clerk of the House
is directed to continue to carry out the ministerial functions
imposed by statue with regard to the operation of the House Finance
Office subject to the direction of the Director of Non-Legislative
and Financial Services, and to work cooperatively with the Director
and the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight of the Committee
on House Administration to ensure that all functions and operations
of the House Finance Office are timely executed.
Sincerely,
Charlie Rose
Chairman.
Bill Thomas,
Ranking Republican Member.
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress
Sec. 30.3 By unanimous consent, the House agreed to a Senate amendment
to a House concurrent resolution establishing a Joint Committee on
the Organization of Congress.(29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Parliamentarian's Note: Although the joint committee provided
recommendations, no institutional reform measures were
considered by either House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 6, 1992,(30) the following concurrent
resolution (as amended) was adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. 138 Cong. Rec. 21961-62, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. For initial House
consideration of the concurrent resolution, see 138 Cong. Rec.
15411-49, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. (June 18, 1992). For House
appointments to this joint committee, see 138 Cong. Rec. 24627,
102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Sept. 14, 1992) and 138 Cong. Rec. 34802,
102d Cong. 2d Sess. (Oct. 9, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTABLISHING A JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS
Mr. [John] MOAKLEY [of Massachusetts]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 192) to establish a Joint Committee on the
Organization of Congress, with a Senate amendment thereto, and
concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Senate Amendment: Strike out all after resolving clause and
insert:
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment and Membership.--There is established an ad hoc Joint
Committee on the Organization of the Congress (referred to as the
``Committee'') to be composed of--
(1) 12 members of the Senate--
(A) 6 to be appointed by the Majority Leader; and
(B) 6 to be appointed by the Minority Leader; and
(2) 12 members of the House of Representatives--
(A) 6 to be appointed by the Speaker; and
(B) 6 to be appointed by the Minority Leader. . . .
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Reforms of the 104th Congress
Sec. 30.4 By unanimous consent, the House considered and passed a bill
changing references in law to committees and officers of the House
to reflect the reorganization of House operations that occurred at
the beginning of the 104th Congress.(31)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Parliamentarian's Note: The rules package for the 104th Congress
contained a number of institutional and organizational changes
for the House, including the creation and abolition of officer
positions and a reorganization of the committee structure.
Thus, it was necessary to amend laws that made reference to
such positions or committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 6, 1995,(32) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. 141 Cong. Rec. 10698-99, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] THOMAS [of California]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (H.R.
1421) to provide that references in the statutes of the United
States to any committee or officer of the House of Representatives
the name or jurisdiction of which was changed as part of the
reorganization of the House of Representatives at the beginning of
the 104th Congress shall be treated as referring to the currently
applicable committee or officer of the House of Representatives.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(33) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Scott McInnis (CO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 1421
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REFERENCES IN LAW TO COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) References to Committees With New Names.--Except as provided in
subsection (c), any reference in any provision of law enacted before
January 4, 1995, to--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives shall
be treated as referring to the Committee on National Security of the House
of Representatives;
(2) the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of the House of
Representatives shall be treated as referring to the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services of the House of Representatives;
(3) the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives
shall be treated as referring to the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities of the House of Representatives;
(4) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives
shall be treated as referring to the Committee on Commerce of the House of
Representatives;
(5) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
shall be treated as referring to the Committee on International Relations
of House of Representatives;
(6) the Committee on Government Operations of the House of
Representatives shall be treated as referring to the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives;
(7) the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives
shall be treated as referring to the Committee on House Oversight of the
House of Representatives;
(8) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives
shall be treated as referring to the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives;
(9) the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of
Representatives shall be treated as referring to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; and
(10) the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives shall be treated as referring to the Committee on Science
of the House of Representatives.
(b) References to Abolished Committees.--Any reference in any provision
of law enacted before January 4, 1995, to--
(1) the Committee on District of Columbia of the House of Representatives
shall be treated as referring to the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight of the House of Representatives;
(2) the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service of the House of
Representatives shall be treated as referring to the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives, except
that a reference with respect to the House Commission on Congressional
Mailings Standards (the ``Franking Commission'') shall be treated as
referring to the Committee on House Oversight of the House of
Representatives; and
(3) the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of
Representatives shall be treated as referring to--
(A) the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, in the
case of a provision of law relating to inspection of seafood or seafood
products;
(B) the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives,
in the case of a provision of law relating to interoceanic canals, the
Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies, or national security
aspects of merchant marine;
(C) the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, in the
case of a provision of law relating to fisheries, wildlife, international
fishing agreements, marine affairs (including coastal zone management)
except for measures relating to oil and other pollution of navigable
waters, or oceanography;
(D) the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, in the case
of a provision of law relating to marine research; and
(E) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives, in the case of a provision of law relating to a matter
other than a matter described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (D).
(c) References to Committees With Jurisdiction Changes.--Any reference in
any provision of law enacted before January 4, 1995, to--
(1) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives
shall be treated as referring to--
(A) the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, in the
case of a provision of law relating to inspection of seafood or seafood
products;
(B) the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the House of
Representatives, in the case of provision of law relating to bank capital
markets activities generally or to depository institution securities
activities generally; and
(C) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives, in the case of a provision of law relating to railroads,
railway labor, or railroad retirement and unemployment (except revenue
measures related thereto); and
(2) the Committee on Government Operations of the House of
Representatives shall be treated as referring to the Committee on the
Budget of the House of Representatives in the case of a provision of law
relating to the establishment, extension, and enforcement of special
controls over the Federal budget.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES IN LAW TO OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Any reference in any provision of law enacted before January 4, 1995, to a
function, duty, or authority--
(1) of the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall be treated as
referring, with respect to that function, duty, or authority, to the
officer of the House of Representatives exercising that function, duty, or
authority, as determined by the Committee on House Oversight of the House
of Representatives;
(2) of the Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives shall be treated as
referring, with respect to that function, duty, or authority, to the
officer of the House of Representatives exercising that function, duty, or
authority, as determined by the Committee on House Oversight of the House
of Representatives;
(3) of the Postmaster of the House of Representatives shall be treated as
referring, with respect to that function, duty, or authority, to the
officer of the House of Representatives exercising that function, duty, or
authority, as determined by the Committee on House Oversight of the House
of Representatives; and
(4) of the Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services of the
House of Representatives shall be treated as referring, with respect to
that function, duty, or authority, to the officer of the House of
Representatives exercising that function, duty, or authority, as determined
by the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was
read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
Other Transfers of Authority
Sec. 30.5 The Chair laid before the House a communication from the
chair of the Committee on House Oversight (now the Committee on
House Administration) informing the House that the committee had
directed that the operational and financial responsibility for the
House Document Room (formerly under the Doorkeeper)(34)
be assigned to the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Parliamentarian's Note: The Office of the Doorkeeper was eliminated
in the 104th Congress, and the duties of the Doorkeeper shifted
to other elected House officer positions. See Sec. 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 28, 1995,(35) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. 141 Cong. Rec. 9489-90, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE ON HOUSE OVERSIGHT
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the chairman of the Committee on House
Oversight.
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Oversight,
Washington, DC, March 24, 1995.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, House of Representatives, the Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: In my letters to you of January 18, 1995
assigning various functions to the House Officers, I indicated that
assignment of these responsibilities constituted a first step in
the ongoing restructuring of House operations, and that further
changes may be directed as they become necessary.
Based on further review, and pursuant to the authority vested
in the Committee on House Oversight by House Rule X, clause 1(h)
and clause 4(d)(2), the Committee directs that operational and
financial responsibility for the House Document Room is assigned to
the Clerk of the House of Representatives effective on March 27,
1995.
Best regards,
Bill Thomas,
Chairman.
Sec. 31. Minority Party Employees
``Minority employees'' of the House refer to certain statutory
positions traditionally filled by the candidates for the elected
officer positions selected by the minority party on opening day of a
new Congress.(1) As discussed above,(2) these
candidates are nominated via an amendment to the majority party's
resolution electing officers.(3) Such amendment has never
been adopted. By tradition, these unsuccessful candidates for officer
positions are instead chosen to fill certain minority party positions
established in law.(4) The purpose of these positions is to
provide professional staff for the minority party who can develop and
retain institutional knowledge and thus provide continuity should
control of the House switch from one party to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For more on ``minority employees'' in the context of party
organization, see Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 2. See also
Deschler's Precedents Ch. 6 Sec. 26.
2. See Sec. 13, supra.
3. See Sec. 13.1, supra.
4. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5143. Minority employees of this kind were first
provided for in the 71st Congress in the Legislative Pay Act of
1929 (46 Stat. 32). Current law incorporates by reference
various House resolutions enumerating the six minority
employees and establishing their rates of pay. For more
information on the legislative history of these provisions, see
Precedents (Wickham) Ch. 3 Sec. 2 (fn. 17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While current law enumerates six minority employees, the Minority
Leader is authorized to appoint up to three additional minority
employees and set their rates of pay.(5) Unlike the elected
officers of the House, the resignation of a minority employee is not
subject to acceptance by the House.(6) Under clause 2(a)(5)
of rule IV,(7) minority employees are accorded floor
privileges, but the standing rules provide no other special
prerogatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See H. Res. 7, 141 Cong. Rec. 547, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. (Jan. 4,
1995) (made permanent law by P.L. 104-53, 109 Stat. 514).
6. Parliamentarian's Note: In the past, the resignation of a minority
employee would be laid before the House for the information of
Members. See Sec. Sec. 31.2, 31.3, infra.
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 678 (2019). Former minority employees
are also granted floor privileges pursuant to clause 2(a)(15)
of rule IV. However, this privilege may not be exercised if the
minority employee engages in certain lobbying activities
defined under clause 4(a) of rule IV. See House Rules and
Manual Sec. 680 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 31.1 By unanimous consent, the House considered and adopted a
resolution naming six minority party employees, establishing their
rates of pay, and authorizing the Minority Leader to appoint up to
three additional minority employees.
On January 6, 2015,(8) the following resolution was
considered and adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 161 Cong. Rec. 56, 114th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN MINORITY EMPLOYEES
Mr. [Xavier] BECERRA [of California]. Madam Speaker, I offer a
resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(9) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Virginia Foxx (NC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 8
Resolved, That pursuant to the Legislative Pay Act of 1929, as amended,
the six minority employees authorized therein shall be the following named
persons, effective January 6, 2015, until otherwise ordered by the House,
to-wit: Nadeam Elshami, George Kundanis, Diane Dewhirst, Richard Meltzer,
Wyndee Parker, and Drew Hammill, each to receive gross compensation
pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 119, Ninety-fifth Congress,
as enacted into permanent law by section 115 of Public Law 95-94. In
addition, the Minority Leader may appoint and set the annual rate of pay
for up to 3 further minority employees.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Former Practice: Resignation of Minority Employees
Sec. 31.2 Under former practice, the resignation of a minority employee
would be laid before the House for the information of Members, but
the House would take no action thereon.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Parliamentarian's Note: Because minority employees are not elected
by the House, the House takes no formal action on their
resignation. Under former practice, the House would adopt a
resolution to fill vacancies in minority employee positions,
and the resignation of a minority employee would be laid before
the House for the information of Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 5, 1986,(11) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 132 Cong. Rec. 1762, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION FROM TIMOTHY J. WYNGAARD, REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
The Speaker pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from Timothy J. Wyngaard of the Republican Policy
Committee:
Republican Policy Committee,
Washington, DC, February 1, 1986.
Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to inform you of my intention to
resign my position as one of the floor assistants to the Republican
leader of the House.
Regards,
Timothy J. Wyngaard.
Former Practice: Filling Vacancies in Minority Employee Positions
Sec. 31.3 When a minority employee resigns the position, the House may
fill the vacancy via the adoption of a simple resolution naming
another individual to the position.
On June 22, 1989,(12) the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 135 Cong. Rec. 12929, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESIGNATION AS FLOOR ASSISTANT
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following resignation as
Floor Assistant to the Minority:
House Republican Policy Committee,
Washington, DC, June 14, 1989.
Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Please accept my resignation as Floor
Assistant to the Minority, effective at the close of business, 30
June 1989.
I very much appreciate the opportunity and honor of serving in
this position, and I offer my thanks to you, to the Minority
Leader, and to all Members of the House for your kindness.
Sincerely,
Gordon S. Jones. -------------------
AUTHORIZING COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN MINORITY EMPLOYEES
Mr. [Robert] MICHEL [of Illinois]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Republican Conference, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 183), and
I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER.(13) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas O'Neill (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 183
Resolved, That pursuant to the Legislative Pay Act of 1929, as amended,
the fifth and sixth of the minority employees authorized therein shall be
Mr. William F. Gavin and Ms. Vicki Love Martyak, effective July 1, 1989,
(to fill two existing vacancies) until otherwise ordered by the House, to
receive gross compensation pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution
119, Ninety-Fifth Congress, as enacted into permanent law by section 115 of
Public Law 95-94.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE
Ch. 6
INDEX-OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES
Adjournment
Clerk's authority to receive messages during periods of
adjournment, Sec. Sec. 14, 14.11
constitutional requirements regarding, Sec. 2
enrollments, Speaker's authority to sign during periods of
adjournment, Sec. 4
messages received by the Clerk during periods of adjournment,
Sec. Sec. 14, 14.11
motion to adjourn during consideration of specified business
restricted, Sec. Sec. 2, 4
motion to adjourn entertained during quorum call, Sec. 2
motion to adjourn to a date and time certain, Sec. 2
quorum call, motion to adjourn entertained during, Sec. 2
recall authorities, Sec. 2
reconvening, see Convening
Speaker pro tempore, temporal limits waived by adjournment
resolution, Sec. 10
Speaker's role at, Sec. 2
Amendments
Clerk's role in distribution, Sec. 14
Parliamentarian's role in reviewing, Sec. 18
Appeals
parliamentary inquiries, Speaker's discretion to entertain not
subject to, Sec. 2
points of order, applicability, Sec. 2
questions of privilege, Speaker's determination as to validity
subject to appeal, Sec. 2
recognition, Speaker's power not subject to appeal, Sec. 2
Architect of the Capitol
appointment by President, Sec. 25
Capitol Police Board, service on, Sec. 25
duties generally, Sec. 25
history of the office, Sec. 25
jurisdiction, Sec. 25
Library of Congress, jurisdiction over, Sec. 25
Superintendent of House office buildings, relationship to, Sec. 25
tributes to, Sec. 25.1
Attending Physician
appointment by President, Sec. 25
duties generally, Sec. 25
history of the office, Sec. 25
Audio-Visual Broadcasting
prohibition on by Members, Sec. 2
Sergeant-at-Arms' role in enforcing prohibition on, Sec. Sec. 2, 15
Speaker's authority over, Sec. 2
Bill Clerks
see Clerk of the House
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG)
duties generally, Sec. 19
General Counsel, relationship to, Sec. 19
Majority Leader's membership on, Sec. 19
Minority Leader's membership on, Sec. 19
Speaker's membership on, Sec. Sec. 2, 19
Boards and Commissions
Majority Leader, role in appointments, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.3
Minority Leader, role in appointments, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.3, 3.5
Speaker pro tempore, appointment authority, Sec. 11
Speaker's appointment authority regarding, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.3-3.5
Budget Process
Congressional Budget Act points of order, Speaker's reliance on
Committee on the Budget, Sec. 4
Director of Congressional Budget Office, appointment of,
Sec. Sec. 3, 3.6
Calendar Wednesday
Clerk's role, Sec. 14
Calendars of the House
Clerk's role in publication and distribution, Sec. 14
Clerk's role regarding Consensus Calendar, Sec. 14
Consensus Calendar, Clerk's role, Sec. 14
Corrections Calendar, history of, Sec. Sec. 30, 30.1
Private Calendar, see Private Calendar
Speaker's duty to initiate proceedings under, Sec. 2
Speaker's referral authority regarding, Sec. 2
Capitol
Architect of the Capitol, jurisdiction over, Sec. 25
Speaker's authority over House portion of, Sec. 2
Capitol Police
Architect of the Capitol, service on Capitol Police Board, Sec. 25
Capitol Police Board, composition, Sec. 25
Capitol Police Chief, Sec. 25
galleries, enforcement of decorum rules, Sec. 6
history, Sec. 25
jurisdiction, Sec. 25
question of privilege, improper use of Capitol Police constitutes,
Sec. 25
Sergeant-at-Arms, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 15, 25
tributes to officers, Sec. 25
Ceremonies
Chaplain, ceremonial functions of, Sec. 16
escort committees, appointment of by Speaker, Sec. 3
joint meetings, Presiding Officer at, Sec. 2
joint meetings, Speaker pro tempore may preside at, Sec. Sec. 11,
11.8, 12
notification committees, appointment of by Speaker, Sec. 3
Speaker managing debate on ceremonial measure, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.1
Speaker pro tempore may preside at joint meetings, Sec. Sec. 11,
11.8, 12
Chamber
see House Chamber
Chaplain
appointment authority of Speaker in case of vacancy, Sec. Sec. 16,
16.3
ceremonial functions, Sec. 16
Chaplain emeritus designations, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.21, 16.22
compensation, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.6
division of the question, application to election of, Sec. Sec. 13,
13.1, 16, 16.1
duties generally, Sec. 16
election of, Sec. Sec. 13, 13.1, 16, 16.1
guest chaplians, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.10-16.13
history of the office, Sec. 16
litigation regarding, Sec. 16
nonpartisan status, Sec. 16
oath of office administered to, Sec. 16
prayer offered by, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.7, 16.8
prayers, publication of, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.20
prayers offered by Members or staff, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.14-16.19
privileged question, resolution electing Chaplain constitutes,
Sec. 16.1
recess, prayer offered following, Sec. Sec. 16.7, 16.8
removal of, Sec. 16
resignation of, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.5
selection of, Sec. 16.2
Senate Chaplain, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.12
tributes to, Sec. 16.4
unanimous-consent request to conduct prayer not entertained,
Sec. 16.9
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
appointment authority of Speaker in case of vacancy, Sec. Sec. 17,
17.6, 17.7
compensation for Members and staff, responsibilities regarding,
Sec. 17
cost-of-living adjustments, authority to make, Sec. 29
Deputy CAOs, appointment of, Sec. Sec. 17, 17.8
duties generally, Sec. 17
election of, Sec. Sec. 13, 13.1, 17, 17.1, 17.2
history of the office, Sec. 17
House Administration, Committee on, relationship to, Sec. 17
oath of office administered to, Sec. 17
privileged question, resolution electing CAO constitutes, Sec. 17.1
removal of, Sec. Sec. 17, 17.5
resignation of, Sec. Sec. 17, 17.3, 17.4
salaries, role in disbursing, Sec. 29
Clerk of the House
activity reports, role in receiving, Sec. 14
adjournment, Clerk's authority to receive messages during,
Sec. Sec. 14, 14.11
administrative functions generally, Sec. 14
amendments considered in Committee of the Whole, role in
distributing, Sec. 14
appointment authority of Speaker in case of vacancy, Sec. Sec. 14,
14.4, 14.6
Bill Clerks, duties of, Sec. 14
Calendar Wednesday, Reading Clerk's role during call of committees,
Sec. 14
calendars of the House, role in publication and distribution,
Sec. 14
certificates of election, role in receiving, Sec. 14
Clerk pro tempore, designation of, Sec. Sec. 14, 14.7
Clerk's roll of Members-elect, Sec. 14
committee reports, role in receiving, Sec. 14
Congressional Record, role regarding, Sec. 14
Consensus Calendar, role regarding, Sec. 14
constitutional authority statements, role in publication, Sec. 14
death of Member, responsibility to administer office following,
Sec. 14
death of Speaker, former role following, Sec. 1
discharge petitions, role as custodian of, Sec. 14
duties generally, Sec. 14
election of, Sec. Sec. 13, 13.1, 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3
electronic availability of House documents, duty to provide,
Sec. 14
electronic voting system, Tally Clerk's role regarding use of,
Sec. 14
Enrolling Clerks, duties of, Sec. 14
enrollment of measures, role regarding, Sec. Sec. 14, 14.8, 14.9
ethics rules, role supervising compliance with, Sec. 14
executive communications, duty to receive, Sec. Sec. 2, 14
financial disclosures, role in receiving, Sec. 14
former Speakers, former role regarding, Sec. Sec. 1, 14
General Counsel, former status under, Sec. 19
history of the office, Sec. 14
House Administration, Committee on, relationship to, Sec. 14
House documents, role as custodian of, Sec. 14
House Page Board, service on, Sec. 24
Journal, role regarding, Sec. 14
Journal Clerks, duties of, Sec. 14
messages, role in receiving and transmitting, Sec. Sec. 14, 14.10,
14.11
morning hour call of committees, Reading Clerk's role during call
of, Sec. 14
oath of office administered to, Sec. 14
oaths of secrecy retained by, Sec. 14
Office of Arts and Archives, relationship to Historian, Sec. 23
Official Reporters of Debate, appointment authority, Sec. Sec. 2,
14
organization, role as Presiding Officer at, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.1, 14
oversight reports, role in receiving, Sec. 14
President notified as to election of Clerk, Sec. 14
presidential messages, duty to receive, Sec. Sec. 2, 14
Presiding Officer, service as, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.1, 14
Private Calendar, Reading Clerk's role during call of, Sec. 14
privileged question, resolution electing Clerk constitutes,
Sec. Sec. 14.1, 14.2, 14.3
quorum calls, role in conducting, Sec. 14
Reading Clerks, duties of, Sec. 14
recess, Clerk's authority to receive messages during, Sec. 14
records of the House, role as custodian of, Sec. 14
referral of measures to committee, role in, Sec. 14
removal of, Sec. 14
resignation of, Sec. Sec. 14, 14.5, 14.6
Senate, messages to, role in transmitting, Sec. Sec. 14, 14.10
Senate messages, duty to receive, Sec. Sec. 2, 14, 14.10
Senate notified as to election of Clerk, Sec. 14
Speaker, death of, former role following, Sec. 1
Speaker, election of, role regarding, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.1, 14
Speaker pro tempore letter, custody of, Sec. Sec. 1, 2, 8, 14
sponsorship of measures, Bill Clerk's role regarding, Sec. 14
Tally Clerks, duties of, Sec. 14
travel reimbursements, role regarding, Sec. 14
votes, role in conducting, Sec. 14
words taken down procedures, Reading Clerk's role in, Sec. 14
Committee Jurisdiction
Parliamentarian's role in arbitrating jurisdictional disputes,
Sec. 18
Committee of the Whole
amendments considered in, Clerk's role in distributing, Sec. 14
Chair appointed by Speaker, Sec. Sec. 2, 3, 8
emergency recess authority, Sec. 2
resolving into, form of question provided by rules, Sec. 4
Speaker appoints Chair, Sec. Sec. 2, 3
Speaker may be recognized to debate in, Sec. 5
Speaker's discretion to resolve into pursuant to special order of
business, Sec. 2
special order of business providing authority for Speaker to
resolve into, Sec. 2
Committee on Ethics
committee report regarding Speaker filed by, Sec. 7.3
House Pages, investigations involving, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.3
Inspector General, relationship to, Sec. 20
investigations of Speaker conduced by, Sec. Sec. 7, 7.1-7.3
investigative subcommittees, appointment authority of Minority
Leader, Sec. 3
investigative subcommittees, appointment authority of Speaker,
Sec. Sec. 3, 4
Speaker subject to investigations by, Sec. Sec. 7, 7.1-7.3
Speaker's appointment authority regarding, Sec. Sec. 3, 4
Committee on House Administration
Clerk of the House, relationship to, Sec. 14
employment by the House, jurisdiction over, Sec. 28
Inspector General, relationship to, Sec. 20
policy direction and oversight of officers provided by,
Sec. Sec. 13, 14, 15, 17
Sergeant-at-Arms, relationship to, Sec. 15
wage schedules established by, Sec. 29
Committee on Rules
Parliamentarian's relationship to, Sec. 18
Speaker's relationship to, Sec. 5
Committee on the Budget
Congressional Budget Act points of order, role in assessing, Sec. 4
points of order under the Congressional Budget Act, role in
assessing, Sec. 4
Speaker's reliance on regarding Congressional Budget Act points of
order, Sec. 4
Committee on the Judiciary
Law Revision Counsel, relationship to, Sec. 22
Committee Reports
activity reports received by Clerk, Sec. 14
Clerk's role in receiving, Sec. 14
ethics investigation of Speaker, report filed by Committee on
Ethics, Sec. 7.3
Legislative Counsel's role in preparing, Sec. 21
oversight reports received by Clerk, Sec. 14
Parliamentarian's role in receiving, Sec. 18
Committees
appointment authority of the Speaker, historical practices,
Sec. Sec. 1, 3
committee assignments, Speaker's authority under caucus rules,
Sec. 5
committee assignments vacated by rule, Speaker's duty to announce,
Sec. 4
committee names in statute, changing references Sec. 30.4
conference committees, see Conferences
joint committees, Speaker pro tempore appointment authority,
Sec. 11
joint committees, Speaker's appointment authority, Sec. 3
joint committees on the organization of Congress, Sec. Sec. 30,
30.3
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, authorizing closed
sessions, Sec. 2
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Speaker's appointment
authority, Sec. 3.2
Select Committee on Committees (''Bolling committee''), Sec. 30
Select Committee on Committees (''Patterson committee''), Sec. 30
Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, Sec. 30
select committees, Speaker pro tempore appointment authority,
Sec. 11
select committees, Speaker's appointment authority, Sec. Sec. 3,
3.1
select committees, Speaker's removal authority, Sec. 3
Speaker's service on, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.6
special ad hoc oversight committees, Speaker's appointment
authority, Sec. 3
staff, compensation of, Sec. 29
Conferences
appointment of conferees, restrictions on, Sec. 4
appointment of conferees, Speaker's authority over, Sec. Sec. 2, 3,
4
appointment of conferees by Speaker pro tempore, Sec. Sec. 11,
11.3, 11.4, 11.5
conference report, points of order raised against, Sec. 3
conference reports, Legislative Counsel's role in preparing,
Sec. 21
conference reports, Speaker's authority to determine validity of,
Sec. 2
motion to instruct conferees, Speaker's authority to schedule
consideration of, Sec. 2
removal of conferees, Speaker's authority over, Sec. 3
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
see Budget Process
Congressional Record
Clerk's role in publication, Sec. 14
interruptions and interjected remarks not transcribed, Sec. 6
Official Reporters of Debate, role in publication, Sec. Sec. 2, 14
Parliamentarian's role reviewing depictions of parliamentary
rulings, Sec. 18
recognition, remarks made while not under, Sec. 6
Speaker's announced policies published in, Sec. 2.5
unparliamentary remarks may be stricken from, Sec. 6
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
creation of, Sec. 30
Contempt of Congress
Speaker's duty to certify, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.1
Convening
place of convening, Speaker's authority to change, Sec. 2
Sergeant-at-Arms, role at, Sec. 2
Speaker's authority generally, Sec. 2
Speaker's authority to change place of convening, Sec. 2
Corrections Calendar
abolition of, Sec. 30
creation of, Sec. Sec. 30, 30.1
procedures under, Sec. 30
Dean of the House
oath of office, role in administering to Speaker, Sec. 1
oath of office, role in administering to Speaker pro tempore,
Sec. Sec. 9, 9.2
Speaker, role in administering oath of office to, Sec. 1
Speaker pro tempore, role in administering oath of office to,
Sec. Sec. 9, 9.2
Speaker pro tempore, service as, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.2
Death
Clerk's role administering office of deceased Member, Sec. 14
gratuities for deceased officers, officials, or employees,
Sec. Sec. 29, 29.5, 29.7
Speaker, Sec. 1
Decorum
appellation, Sec. 6
audio-visual broadcasting or recording, prohibition on improper,
Sec. 6
Chair, all remarks must be addressed to, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.3
comportment in the House Chamber generally, Sec. 6
exhibits, former rule regarding objections to, Sec. 4
exhibits, Speaker's authority to allow, Sec. Sec. 4, 6
gallery occupants, references to prohibited, Sec. 6
gavel, use by Speaker in obtaining order, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.2
interruptions and interjected remarks, Sec. 6
personalities, prohibition on, Sec. 6
President, unparliamentary remarks regarding, Sec. 6
profanity and vulgarity, prohibition on, Sec. 6
recognition, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 2, 6
Senate, unparliamentary remarks regarding, Sec. 6
Sergeant-at-Arms, duties regarding, Sec. Sec. 6, 15, 15.7, 15.9,
15.12
Speaker, unparliamentary remarks regarding, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.3-6.7
Speaker's announced policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 2.5, 6, 6.5
Speaker's duty to abide by decorum rules, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.8, 6.9
Speaker's duty to enforce rules regarding, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.1, 6.2
unparliamentary remarks, Speaker may call Members to order, Sec. 6
unparliamentary remarks may be stricken from the Congressional
Record, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.9
words taken down procedures, Clerk's role, Sec. 14
words taken down procedures generally, Sec. 6
Delegates and Resident Commissioner
election of Speaker, may not vote in, Sec. 1
Speaker pro tempore, may not serve as, Sec. 11
Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services (Former Officer)
see Officers, Officials and Employees
Discharging Matters From Committee
discharge petitions retained by Journal Clerk, Sec. 14
Division of the Question For Voting
see Voting
Doorkeeper (Former Officer)
see Officers, Officials and Employees
Election of Speaker
see Speaker of the House
Electoral College
joint session to count electoral votes, President of the Senate
presides, Sec. 2
President of Senate presides over joint session to count electoral
votes, Sec. 2
Enrolling Clerks
see Clerk of the House
Enrollments
Clerk's role regarding, Sec. Sec. 14, 14.8, 14.9
engrossment and third reading, form of question provided by rules,
Sec. 4
Enrolling Clerks, duties of, Sec. 14
former rule regarding Speaker's authority to sign during periods of
adjournment, Sec. 4
Speaker pro tempore, authority to sign, Sec. Sec. 8, 10, 10.6-10.10
Speaker's duty to sign, Sec. Sec. 2, 4
Ethics
censure, pronouncement entered into the Journal, Sec. 2
censure, Speaker's duty to pronounce, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.2
Clerk's role in supervising compliance with ethics rules, Sec. 14
Committee on, see Committee on Ethics
employment discrimination, prohibitions on, Sec. 28
financial disclosures, Clerk's role in retaining, Sec. 14
House Pages, investigations involving, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.3
Journal, pronouncement of censure entered into, Sec. 2
Office of Congressional Ethics, appointments to, Sec. 3.5
Speaker, investigations of, Sec. Sec. 7, 7.1-7.3
Exhibits
see Decorum
Former Officers
see Officers, Officials and Employees
Galleries
references to occupants, prohibition on, Sec. 6
references to occupants, rule may not be waived, Sec. 4
Sergeant-at-Arms, enforcement of decorum rules in, Sec. Sec. 6, 15,
15.6
Speaker regulates admission to, Sec. 2
Speaker regulates conduct of guests in, Sec. 2
General Counsel
appointment by Speaker, Sec. Sec. 19, 19.1
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), relationship to, Sec. 19
Clerk, former status under, Sec. 19
duties generally, Sec. 19
history of the office, Sec. 19
litigation, role representing House, Sec. Sec. 19, 26
outside counsel, authorization to employ, Sec. Sec. 19, 19.3
resignation of, Sec. 19.2
service of process, role regarding, Sec. Sec. 19, 26
Speaker, relationship to, Sec. 19
subpoenas, role in preparing, Sec. 19
Historian
appointment by Speaker, Sec. Sec. 23, 23.2
duties generally, Sec. 23
history of the office, Sec. Sec. 23, 23.1
Office of Arts and Archives, relationship to, Sec. 23
Office of the Bicentennial, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 23, 23.1
projects authorized by the House, Sec. 23.3
House Chamber
audio-visual broadcasting, prohibition on by Members, Sec. Sec. 2,
6
audio-visual broadcasting, Speaker's authority over, Sec. 2
electronic voting system, see Voting
galleries, admission to regulated by Speaker, Sec. 2
galleries, conduct of guests in regulated by Speaker, Sec. 2
galleries, rule regarding references may not be waived, Sec. 4
smoking, prohibition on, Sec. 6
Speaker's announced policies regarding use when House not in
session, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5, 6
Speaker's authority over, Sec. 2
House Floor
attire, Speaker's announced policies regarding, Sec. 6
badges, prohibition on while under recognition, Sec. 6
electronic devices, use of, Speaker's announced policies regarding,
Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5, 6
floor privileges, Sergeant-at-Arms' role in enforcing,
Sec. Sec. 15, 15.8
floor privileges, Speaker's announced policies regarding,
Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
floor privileges, waiver of rule regarding, Sec. 4
floor privileges generally, Sec. 6
handouts, distribution of, Speaker's announced policies regarding,
Sec. 6
handouts, distribution of, Speaker's announced policies regarding,
Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
hats, prohibition on wearing, Sec. 6
suspension of rules, rule regarding floor privileges may not be
waived by, Sec. 4
unanimous consent, rule regarding floor privileged may not be
waived by, Sec. 4
well of the House, trafficking prohibited, Sec. 6
House General Counsel
see General Counsel
House Office Buildings
Speaker's authority over, Sec. 2
House Pages
Clerk, service on House Page Board, Sec. 24
duties generally, Sec. 24
history of the program, Sec. 24
House Page Board, composition, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.1, 24.2
House Page Board, responsibilities, Sec. 24
investigations, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.3
Sergeant-at-Arms, service on House Page Board, Sec. 24
termination of the program, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.4
House Rules and Manual
Parliamentarian, publication by, Sec. 18
Inspector General
appointment by Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader,
Sec. Sec. 20, 20.1
audits, House may direct conduct of, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.3
creation of office, Sec. 30
duties generally, Sec. 20
Ethics, Committee on, relationship to, Sec. 20
House Administration, Committee on, relationship to, Sec. 20
Majority Leader, role in appointment, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.1
Minority Leader, role in appointment, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.1
nonpartisan status, Sec. 20
resignation of, Sec. 20.2
Speaker, role in appointment, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.1
Interparliamentary Affairs, Office of
creation of, Sec. 30
Director of Interparliamentary Affairs appointed by Speaker,
Sec. Sec. 3, 3.7
Jefferson's Manual
Parliamentarian, publication by, Sec. 18
Joint Meetings
see Ceremonies
Joint Sessions
see Sessions
Journal
approval, Speaker's role in, Sec. 2
censure, pronouncement entered into, Sec. 2
Clerk's role in publication, Sec. 14
Journal Clerks, duties of, Sec. 14
Parliamentarian's role reviewing depictions of parliamentary
rulings, Sec. 18
Law Revision Counsel
appointment by Speaker, Sec. Sec. 22, 22.1
Archivist of the United States, relationship to, Sec. 22
Deputy Law Revision Counsel, designation of, Sec. 22
duties generally, Sec. 22
Judiciary, Committee on the, relationship to, Sec. 22
nonpartisan status, Sec. 22
resignation of, Sec. 22.2
United States Code, role in publication, Sec. 22
Legislative Counsel
appointment by Speaker, Sec. Sec. 21, 21.1
bills and resolutions, role in drafting, Sec. 21
committee reports, role in preparing, Sec. 21
comparative prints (''Ramseyers'') of legislation, role in
preparing, Sec. 21
conference reports, role in preparing, Sec. 21
Deputy Legislative Counsel, appointment of, Sec. 21
duties generally, Sec. 21
history of the office, Sec. 21
nonpartisan status, Sec. 21
resignation of, Sec. 21.2
Library of Congress
Architect of the Capitol, jurisdiction over, Sec. 25
Mace
Sergeant-at-Arms, relationship to, Sec. 15
Majority Leader
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), membership on, Sec. 19
boards and commissions, role in appointment, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.3
Inspector General, role in appointment, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.1
Speaker pro tempore, service as, Sec. Sec. 11, 12.2
Majority Whip
Speaker pro tempore, service as, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.1, 12
Manual
see House Rules and Manual
Messages
adjournment, Clerk's authority to receive messages during, Sec. 14
Clerk's role in receiving and transmitting, Sec. Sec. 2, 14, 14.10,
14.11
President, messages from referred by Speaker, Sec. 2
recess, Clerk's authority to receive messages during, Sec. 14
Senate, messages from received by Clerk, Sec. Sec. 2, 14, 14.11
Senate, messages from referred by Speaker, Sec. 2
Senate, messages to transmitted by Clerk, Sec. Sec. 2, 14, 14.10
Speaker's role in referring Presidential communications, Sec. 2
Speaker's role in referring Senate messages to committee, Sec. 2
Minority Employees
compensation, Sec. Sec. 29, 31
designating, Sec. Sec. 31.1, 31.3
duties generally, Sec. 31
history of, Sec. 31
Minority Leader, appointment authority, Sec. Sec. 31, 31.1
officers, relationship to, Sec. 31
resignation of, Sec. 31.2
unanimous consent, resolution authorizing considered by, Sec. 31.1
Minority Leader
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), membership on, Sec. 19
boards and commissions, appointment authority, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.3,
3.5
Corrections Calendar, former role under, Sec. Sec. 30, 30.1
ethics investigative subcommittees, appointment authority, Sec. 3
House Page Board, appointment authority, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.2
Inspector General, appointment authority, Sec. Sec. 20, 20.1
minority employees, appointment authority, Sec. Sec. 31, 31.1
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (formerly Office of
Compliance), appointment authority, Sec. 28.5
reconvening consultation requirement, Sec. 2
Morning Hour Call of Committees
Clerk's role, Sec. 14
Speaker's duties under, Sec. 2
Motions
adjourn, motion limited under certain procedures, Sec. Sec. 2, 4
adjourn to a date and time certain, motion to, Sec. 2
closed session, motion to resolve into, Sec. 2
dilatory motions not entertained, Sec. Sec. 2, 4
instruct conferees, Speaker's authority to schedule consideration
of motion, Sec. 2
recess, motion to declare, Sec. 2
recommit, priorities in recognition, Sec. 4
recommit, Speaker recognized in opposition to, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.2
Speaker's statement of motion controls, Sec. 2
Non-Legislative Debate
recognition, withdrawal of during special-order speeches,
Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
Speaker may be recognized to engage in, Sec. 5
special-order speeches, Speaker's ability to withdraw recognition
during, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
withdrawal of recognition during special order speeches,
Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
Oaths
Clerk, oaths of secrecy retained by, Sec. 14
Dean of the House, administration of oath of office to Speaker pro
tempore by, Sec. Sec. 9, 9.2
Dean of the House administers oath of office to Speaker, Sec. 1
form of oath of office, Sec. 2
oaths of secrecy retained by the Clerk, Sec. 14
oaths of secrecy retained by the Sergeant-at-Arms, Sec. 14
officers, administration of oath of office to, Sec. Sec. 13, 14,
15, 15.2, 16, 17
Sergeant-at-Arms, oaths of secrecy retained by, Sec. Sec. 14, 15
Speaker, administration of oath of office to Speaker pro tempore
by, Sec. Sec. 9, 9.1
Speaker administered the oath of office upon election, Sec. 1
Speaker pro tempore, administration of oath of office by,
Sec. Sec. 2, 9, 11, 12, 12.4
Speaker pro tempore, administration of oath of office to,
Sec. Sec. 2, 12, 12.1, 12.2
Speaker's authority to deputize another to administer oath of
office, Sec. 2
Speaker's duty to administer oath of office to Members-elect,
Sec. 2
unanimous-consent request to permit Speaker pro tempore to
administer, Sec. Sec. 2, 11
Office of Speaker
see Speaker of the House
Officers, Officials, and Employees
appointment of officers by Speaker in case of vacancy, Sec. Sec. 3,
13, 14, 14.4, 14.6, 15, 16, 16.3, 17, 17.6, 17.7
Chaplain, see Chaplain
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), see Chief Administrative
Officer
Clerk, see Clerk of the House
committee staff, compensation of, Sec. 29
compensation, Sec. Sec. 13, 29, 29.1, 29.2, 29.4, 29.6
Congressional Accountability Act, employment rules under,
Sec. Sec. 28, 28.3, 28.4
death gratuities, Sec. Sec. 29, 29.5, 29.7
Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services, Sec. Sec. 13,
30, 30.2
division of the question for voting, applicability to resolution
electing officers, Sec. Sec. 13, 13.1, 16, 16.1
Doorkeeper, Sec. Sec. 13, 13.2, 15, 30, 30.5
election of officers, Sec. Sec. 13, 13.1, 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 15,
15.1, 16, 16.1, 17, 17.1
employment by the House generally, Sec. 28
employment discrimination, prohibitions on, Sec. Sec. 28, 28.1,
28.2, 28.3
former officers, Sec. Sec. 13, 30
General Counsel, see General Counsel
historical background, Sec. 13
House Administration, Committee on, authority to establish wage
schedules, Sec. 29
House Administration, Committee on, jurisdiction over employment,
Sec. 28
minority employees, see Minority Employees
oath of office administered to officers, Sec. Sec. 13, 14, 15,
15.2, 16, 17
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (formerly Office of
Compliance), Sec. Sec. 28, 28.4, 28.5
Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Sec. 30
Office of Employee Advocacy, Sec. Sec. 28, 30
Office of Fair Employment Practices, Sec. Sec. 28, 28.1
Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman, Sec. 30
officers appointed by Speaker in case of vacancy, Sec. Sec. 3, 13,
14, 14.4, 14.6, 15, 16, 16.3, 17, 17.6, 17.7
officials appointed by the Speaker, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.6, 3.7, 18,
18.3, 19, 19.1
Parliamentarian, see Parliamentarian
patronage system, history of, Sec. 28
Postmaster, Sec. Sec. 13, 13.3, 30
privileged question, resolution electing officers constitutes,
Sec. Sec. 13, 13.1, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 15.1, 16.1, 17.1
qualifications of officers, Sec. 13
removal of officers, Sec. Sec. 13, 14, 15, 17, 17.5
resignation of officers, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.2, 13, 14, 14.5, 14.6, 15,
15.3, 16, 16.5, 17, 17.3, 17.4
resignation of officials, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.2, 19, 19.2, 20.2
salary and benefits, Sec. Sec. 13, 29, 29.1, 29.2, 29.4, 29.6
Sergeant-at-Arms, see Sergeant-at-Arms
service of process on, Sec. Sec. 26, 26.1-26.9
Speaker, see Speaker of the House
Speaker's authority to issue pay orders, Sec. Sec. 29, 29.3
term of office for officers, Sec. 13
vacancies in officer positions, procedure for filling, Sec. 13
Official Reporters of Debate
Clerk of the House appoints, Sec. Sec. 2, 14
Congressional Record, role in publication, Sec. Sec. 2, 14
Speaker of the House, authority regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 14
Order of Business
restrictions imposed by, Sec. 4
special days for the consideration of specified business, Sec. 4
Pages
see House Pages
Parliamentarian
amendments, role in reviewing, Sec. 18
appointment of, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.3
committee jurisdiction, role in arbitrating disputes, Sec. 18
committee reports, role in receiving, Sec. 18
Congressional Record, role in reviewing depictions of parliamentary
rulings, Sec. 18
duties generally, Sec. 18
history of the office, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.1
House Practice, publication by, Sec. 18
House Rules and Manual, publication by, Sec. 18
Jefferson's Manual, publication by, Sec. 18
Journal, role in reviewing depictions of parliamentary rulings,
Sec. 18
nonpartisan status, Sec. 18
Office of Compilation of the Precedents, Sec. 18
points of order, role in advising Chair regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 18
referrals, role in making, Sec. Sec. 4, 18
resignation of, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.2
Rules, Committee on, relationship to, Sec. 18
Senate floor privileges, Sec. 18.4
Speaker, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 2, 4, 18
votes, role in conducting, Sec. 18
Parliamentary Inquiries
appeal, Speaker's discretion to entertain not subject to, Sec. 2
House documents, distribution of, inquiries regarding, Sec. 2.3
prayer, inquiries regarding, Sec. 16.9
Speaker's discretion in entertaining, Sec. 2
Speaker's discretion to entertain not subject to appeal, Sec. 2
Party Organization
committee assignments, Speaker's authority under caucus rules,
Sec. 5
Speaker, election of, role regarding, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.1
Speaker, removal of, rule regarding, Sec. 1
Speaker's authority over committee assignments under caucus rules,
Sec. 5
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
see Committees
Petitions and Memorials
referral by Speaker, Sec. 2
Speaker's authority to refer, Sec. 2
Points of Order
appeals, Sec. 2
conference reports, effect of, Sec. 3
Congressional Budget Act points of order, see Budget Process
Parliamentarian advises Chair regarding, Sec. 2
Speaker's duty to rule on, Sec. 2
timeliness, Sec. 2
Postmaster (Former Officer)
see Officers, Officials and Employees
Postponement
votes, Speaker's authority to postpone, Sec. 2
Prayer
Chaplain's duty regarding, Sec. 16
daily prayer offered by Chaplain, Sec. 16
guest chaplians, prayer offered by, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.10-16.13
Members and staff, prayers offered by, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.14-16.19
publication of prayers, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.20
recess, prayer offered following, Sec. Sec. 16.7, 16.8
President
Architect of the Capitol, appointment authority, Sec. 25
Attending Physician, appointment authority, Sec. 25
Clerk's election, President notified as to, Sec. 14
executive communications received by Clerk, Sec. 2
executive communications referred by Speaker, Sec. 2
messages from received by Clerk, Sec. 2
messages from referred by Speaker, Sec. 2
Sergeant-at-Arms announces arrival at joint session, Sec. 15.10
unparliamentary remarks regarding, prohibition on, Sec. 6
Presidential Messages
see President
Presiding Officer
chair of the Committee of the Whole, see Committee of the Whole
Clerk's service as, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.1, 14
electoral votes, joint session to count, President of the Senate
presides, Sec. 2
joint meetings, Presiding Officer at, Sec. 2
joint session to count electoral votes, President of the Senate
presides, Sec. 2
joint sessions, Presiding Officer at, Sec. 2
Sergeant-at-Arms' service as, Sec. Sec. 15, 15.4
Speaker, see Speaker of the House
Speaker pro tempore, see Speaker Pro Tempore
Private Bills
see Private Calendar
Private Calendar
Clerk's role, Sec. 14
reservation of right to objection, restrictions on, Sec. 4
Speaker's duties regarding, Sec. 2
Privileged Questions
officers, resolution electing constitutes, Sec. Sec. 13, 13.1,
14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 15.1, 16.1, 17.1
recognition, restrictions regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 4
Speaker, election of constitutes, Sec. 1
Questions of Privilege
Capitol Police, improper use of constitutes, Sec. 25
ethics investigation of Speaker, resolution calling for
constitutes, Sec. Sec. 7, 7.1, 7.2
House Pages, resolution calling for investigation constitutes,
Sec. 24.3
personal privilege, relevancy requirement, Sec. 6.4
personal privilege, Speaker may be recognized for question of,
Sec. Sec. 7, 7.4, 7.5
Speaker, removal of constitutes, Sec. 1
Speaker's authority to determine validity of, Sec. 2
Speaker's discretion to schedule consideration of, Sec. 2
Speaker's ministerial duties, failure to undertake gives rise to,
Sec. 4
subpoenas, authorization to respond to constitutes, Sec. 26
subpoenas, delay in notification of receipt constitutes,
Sec. Sec. 26, 26.2
Quorums
call of the House, Speaker's discretion in ordering, Sec. 2
catastrophic quorum failure report, contents announced by Speaker,
Sec. 4
catastrophic quorum failure report provided by Sergeant-at-Arms,
Sec. 2
Clerk's role in conducting quorum calls, Sec. 14
constitutional requirement, Sec. 2
``disappearing quorum'', Sec. 2
motion to adjourn entertained during quorum call, Sec. 2
point of no quorum not entertained under certain circumstances,
Sec. Sec. 2, 4
provisional quorum, Speaker's role in determining, Sec. 2
quorum call, Clerk's role in conducting, Sec. 14
Sergeant-at-Arms' role in obtaining, Sec. 15
Speaker may be included in quorum count, Sec. 2
Speaker's discretion to order call of the House, Sec. 2
Speaker's role in counting, Sec. 2
whole number of the House, Speaker's duty to announce, Sec. 2
Ramseyers
Legislative Counsel's role in preparing, Sec. 21
Reading Clerk
see Clerk of the House
Recess
Clerk's authority to receive messages during, Sec. 14
closed session, recess to facilitate, Sec. 2
emergency recess authority, Sec. 2
former restrictions on Speaker's authority to declare, Sec. 4
messages received during, Clerk's authority regarding, Sec. 14
prayer offered following, Sec. Sec. 16.7, 16.8
Speaker's authority to declare, Sec. 2
Recognition
decorum rules, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 2, 6
interruptions, Sec. 2
limitations on Speaker's authority generally, Sec. 4
priorities in recognition generally, Sec. 4
privileged questions, relationship to Speaker's authority,
Sec. Sec. 2, 4
Speaker's authority, Sec. 2
special-order speeches, withdrawal of recognition during, Sec. 2
withdrawal of, Sec. 2
Recommit
recognition for motion, Sec. 4
Speaker recognized in opposition to, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.2
Reconvening
see Convening
Records of the House
Clerk's role as custodian of, Sec. 14
subpoenas to provide, Sec. 26
Referrals
Clerk, role of, Sec. 14
executive communications, Speaker's authority regarding, Sec. 2
Parliamentarian, role of, Sec. 4
petitions and memorials, Speaker's authority regarding, Sec. 2
presidential messages, Speaker's authority regarding, Sec. 2
Senate amendments, Speaker's authority regarding, Sec. 2
Senate messages, Speaker's authority regarding, Sec. 2
Speaker's authority regarding, Sec. 2
time limitations on, Sec. 2
Resident Commissioner
see Delegates and Resident Commissioner
Resignation
Chaplain, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.5
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Sec. Sec. 17, 17.3, 17.4
Clerk, Sec. Sec. 14, 14.5, 14.6
General Counsel, Sec. 19.2
Inspector General, Sec. 20.2
Law Revision Counsel, Sec. 22.2
Legislative Counsel, Sec. 21.2
minority employees, Sec. 31.2
officers of the House, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.2, 13, 14, 14.5, 14.6, 15,
15.3, 16, 16.5, 17, 17.3, 17.4
Parliamentarian, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.2
Sergeant-at-Arms, Sec. Sec. 15, 15.3
Speaker of the House, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.2
Speaker's resignation from committees upon election, Sec. Sec. 5,
5.6
Senate
amendments, policies regarding unanimous-consent requests to
dispose of, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
amendments, Speaker's discretion to recognize for motions to
dispose of, Sec. 2
Chaplain of the Senate, Sec. Sec. 16, 16.12
Clerk's election, Senate informed as to, Sec. 14
Clerk's role in receiving messages from and transmitting messages
to, Sec. 14
joint session to count electoral votes, President of the Senate
presides, Sec. 2
messages from House transmitted by Clerk, Sec. 14
messages from referred by Speaker, Sec. 2
messages received by Clerk, Sec. Sec. 2, 14
Parliamentarian granted Senate floor privileges, Sec. 18.4
President of Senate presides over joint session to count electoral
votes, Sec. 2
President pro tempore of the Senate, role in appointing director of
Congressional Budget Office, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.6
Sergeant-at-Arms of Senate, service on Capitol Police Board,
Sec. 25
unparliamentary remarks regarding, prohibition on, Sec. 6
Sergeant-at-Arms
announcements by, Sec. 15.1
appointment authority of Speaker in case of vacancy, Sec. 15
audio-visual broadcasting, prohibition enforced by, Sec. Sec. 2, 15
Capitol Police, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 15, 25
Capitol Police Board, service on, Sec. 25
catastrophic quorum failure report, duty to provide, Sec. Sec. 2,
15
convening, role regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 15
decorum rules enforced by, Sec. Sec. 6, 15, 15.7, 15.9, 15.12
Doorkeeper, assumption of responsibilities following abolition of
office, Sec. 15
duties generally, Sec. 15
election of, Sec. Sec. 13, 13.1, 15, 15.1
floor privileges enforced by, Sec. Sec. 15, 15.8
former responsibilities regarding financial operations, Sec. 15
galleries, role in enforcing rules regarding, Sec. Sec. 6, 15, 15.6
history of the office, Sec. 15
House Administration, Committee on, relationship to, Sec. 15
House Page Board, service on, Sec. 24
mace, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 15, 15.13
oath of office administered to, Sec. Sec. 15, 15.2
oaths of secrecy retained by, Sec. Sec. 14, 15
organization, role as Presiding Officer at, Sec. Sec. 15, 15.4
Presiding Officer, service as, Sec. Sec. 15, 15.4
privileged resolution, resolution electing constitutes, Sec. 15.10
quorums, role in obtaining, Sec. 15
reconvening, role in assessing safety, Sec. Sec. 2, 15, 15.5
removal of, Sec. 15
resignation of, Sec. Sec. 15, 15.3
security briefings conducted by, Sec. Sec. 15, 15.11
Speaker, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 15, 15.12
Service of Process
executive session material, status of, Sec. 26.9
former procedures, Sec. Sec. 27, 27.1-27.5
General Counsel, role regarding, Sec. Sec. 19, 26
informal requests, Sec. Sec. 26, 26.6, 26.7
notification requirements, Sec. Sec. 2, 4, 26, 26.1, 26.2
questions of privilege, authorization to respond to subpoena
constitutes, Sec. 26
questions of privilege, delay in notification of receipt of
subpoenas constitutes, Sec. Sec. 26, 26.2
records of the House, subpoenas to obtain, Sec. 26
resolutions authorizing compliance with subpoenas, Sec. Sec. 26,
26.5, 26.8
resolutions prohibiting compliance with subpoenas, Sec. Sec. 26,
26.4
Speaker's duties regarding notification, Sec. Sec. 2, 4, 26, 26.1,
26.2
subpoenas, current procedures for responding to, Sec. 26
subpoenas, former procedures for responding to, Sec. 27
subpoenas, General Counsel's role in preparing, Sec. 19
subpoenas, Speaker duties regarding notification, Sec. Sec. 2, 4,
26, 26.1, 26.2
unanimous consent, response to subpoenas authorized by, Sec. 26.3
Sessions
joint sessions, Sergeant-at-Arms announces arrival of President at,
Sec. 15.10
joint sessions, Speaker pro tempore may preside at, Sec. Sec. 11,
12
Speaker pro tempore may preside at joint session, Sec. Sec. 11, 12
Speaker of the House
adjournment, role at, Sec. 2
administrative duties generally, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.3
announcements by, Sec. 2
appeals generally, Sec. 4
appeals of Speaker's ruling on points of order, Sec. 2
appointment authority, restrictions on generally, Sec. 4
appointment of conferees, authority over, Sec. Sec. 2, 3
appointment of House officials by, Sec. 3
appointment of Members to Committee on Ethics, Sec. 3
appointment of Members to committees, historical practice,
Sec. Sec. 1, 3
appointment of Members to conference committees, Sec. Sec. 3, 4
appointment of Members to escort committees, Sec. 3
appointment of Members to investigative subcommittees, Sec. Sec. 3,
4
appointment of Members to joint committees, Sec. 3
appointment of Members to notification committees, Sec. 3
appointment of Members to select committees, Sec. 3
appointment of Members to special ad hoc oversight committees,
Sec. 3
appointment of officers in case of vacancy, statutory provisions
regarding, Sec. Sec. 3, 13, 14, 14.4, 14.6
appointments to boards and commissions, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.3-3.5
approval of Journal, Speaker's role, Sec. 2
audio-visual broadcasting, prohibition on, Speaker's role,
Sec. Sec. 2, 6
audio-visual broadcasting of House proceedings, authority over,
Sec. 2
authorities generally, Sec. 2
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), membership on, Sec. Sec. 2,
19
boards and commissions, appointment authority, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.3-3.5
calendars, duties regarding, Sec. 2
call of the House, discretion to order, Sec. 2
catastrophic quorum failure report, role in announcing contents of,
Sec. 4
catastrophic quorum failure report, role in receiving from
Sergeant-at-Arms, Sec. 2, 15
censure, duty to pronounce, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.2
Clerk, former role following death of Speaker, Sec. 1
closed session, authorization to declare recess to facilitate,
Sec. 2
committee assignments, Speaker's authority under caucus rules,
Sec. 5
committee assignments vacated by rule, duty to announce, Sec. 4
Committee of the Whole, discretion to resolve into pursuant to
special order of business, Sec. 2
Committee of the Whole, participation in debate, Sec. 5
Committee of the Whole, relationship to, Sec. 4
Committee of the Whole, Speaker appoints Chair, Sec. Sec. 2, 3
committees, Speaker's service on, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.6
compensation and benefits, Sec. 1
conference appointments, authority over, Sec. 3
conference appointments, restrictions on, Sec. 4
conference reports, authority to determine validity of, Sec. 2
Congressional Budget Act points of order, reliance on Committee on
the Budget, Sec. 4
Congressional Record, announced policies of published in, Sec. 2
contempt of Congress, duty to certify, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.1
convening authority, Sec. 2
Corrections Calendar, former role under, Sec. Sec. 30, 30.1
Dean of the House administers oath to, Sec. 1
death of, Sec. 1
debate, authority to engage in, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.1
debate time, tradition regarding, Sec. 5
decorum rules, duty to enforce, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.1, 6.2
dilatory motions not entertained by, Sec. Sec. 2, 4
Director of Interparliamentary Affairs appointed by, Sec. Sec. 3,
3.7
Director of the Congressional Budget Office appointed by,
Sec. Sec. 3, 3.6
Director of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion appointed by,
Sec. 3
drug-testing system, authority to implement, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.4
duties generally, Sec. 2
election of, delegates may not vote in, Sec. 1
election of, precedence, Sec. 1
election of, role of Clerk, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.1
election of, role of party organization, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.1
election of, voting procedure, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.1
election of generally, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.1
emergency recess authority, Sec. 2
enrollments, appointing a Speaker pro tempore to sign, Sec. Sec. 8,
10, 10.6-10.10
enrollments, duty to sign, Sec. 2
enrollments, former restriction on signing during periods of
adjournment, Sec. 4
escort committees, appointment authority, Sec. 3
Ethics, Committee on, appointment authorities, Sec. Sec. 3, 4
ethics investigations of, Sec. Sec. 7, 7.1
ethics investigative subcommittees, appointment authority,
Sec. Sec. 3, 4
executive communications, authority to refer, Sec. 2
exhibits, authority to allow, Sec. Sec. 4, 6
exhibits, former rule regarding objections to, Sec. 4
floor privileges, restrictions on waiving, Sec. 4
form of questions provided by rules, Sec. 4
former Speakers, privileges of, Sec. 1
galleries, Speaker regulates admission to, Sec. Sec. 2, 6
galleries, Speaker regulates conduct of guests in, Sec. Sec. 2, 6
General Counsel appointed by, Sec. Sec. 3, 19, 19.1
generally, Sec. 1
Historian appointed by, Sec. Sec. 3, 23, 23.2
history, Sec. 1
House Chamber, announced policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
House documents, parliamentary inquiries regarding distribution of,
Sec. 2.3
House Page Board, appointment authority, Sec. Sec. 24, 24.2
illness, appointing a Speaker pro tempore on account of,
Sec. Sec. 2, 8, 10, 10.3
Inspector General appointed by, Sec. Sec. 3, 20, 20.1
joint committees, appointment authority, Sec. 3
joint meetings, Presiding Officer at, Sec. 2
joint sessions, Presiding Officer at, Sec. 2
Journal, Speaker's role in approving, Sec. 2
Law Revision Counsel appointed by, Sec. Sec. 3, 22, 22.1
Legislative Counsel appointed by, Sec. Sec. 3, 21, 21.1
limitations on authority generally, Sec. 4
litigation, Speaker's authorities regarding, Sec. 2
matters not subject to ruling by Speaker, Sec. Sec. 4, 4.1, 4.2,
4.3
motion to instruct conferees, authority to schedule consideration
of, Sec. 2
motions, duty to state, Sec. 2
non-legislative debate, engaging in, Sec. 5
notification committees, appointment authority, Sec. 3
oath of office, Speaker's authority to deputize another to
administer, Sec. 2
oath of office administered by, Sec. 2
oath of office administered to, Sec. 1
oath of office administered to Speaker pro tempore by, Sec. Sec. 9,
9.1
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (formerly Office of
Compliance), appointment authority, Sec. 28.5
officers appointed by in case of vacancy, Sec. Sec. 3, 13, 14,
14.4, 14.6, 15, 16, 16.3, 17, 17.6, 17.7
Official Reporters of Debate, authority over, Sec. 2
officials appointed by, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.6, 3.7
order of business, daily, restrictions imposed by, Sec. 4
Parliamentarian, authority to appoint, Sec. Sec. 18, 18.3
Parliamentarian, relationship to, Sec. 4
Parliamentarian appointed by, Sec. 3
parliamentary inquiries, discretion to entertain, Sec. Sec. 2, 4
party organization, relationship to, Sec. 1
pay orders issued by, Sec. Sec. 29, 29.3
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, ex officio status,
Sec. 5
personal privilege, Speaker may be recognized for question of,
Sec. Sec. 7, 7.4, 7.5
petitions and memorials, authority to refer, Sec. 2
place of convening, authority to change, Sec. 2
points of order, appeals from, Sec. 2
points of order, duty to rule on, Sec. 2
points of order under Congressional Budget Act, reliance on
Committee on the Budget, Sec. 4
postponing votes, authority to, Sec. 2
precedents, relationship to, Sec. 4
presidential messages, authority to refer, Sec. 2
Presiding Officer, duties as, Sec. 2
privileged questions, limitations on recognition, Sec. 4
provisional quorum, role in determining, Sec. 2
qualifications, Sec. 1
question of privilege, ethics investigation of Speaker constitutes,
Sec. Sec. 7, 7.2
question of privilege, failure to undertake ministerial duties
constitutes, Sec. 4
question of privilege, removal of Speaker constitutes, Sec. 1
questions of privilege, authority to determine validity of, Sec. 2
questions of privilege, authority to schedule consideration of,
Sec. 2
quorums, circumstances where point of order not entertained,
Sec. Sec. 2, 4
quorums, role in counting, Sec. 2
quorums, Speaker may be counted to establish, Sec. 2
recall authorities, Sec. 2
recess, former restrictions on declaring, Sec. 4
recess authorities, Sec. 2
recognition, authority to confer, Sec. 2
recognition, limitations on generally, Sec. 4
recognition, priorities generally, Sec. 4
recommit, motion to, Speaker recognized in opposition to,
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.2
reconvening authorities, Sec. 2
referral of executive communications, authority over, Sec. 2
referral of measures, authority over, Sec. 2
referral of presidential messages authority over, Sec. 2
referral of Senate amendments, authority over, Sec. 2
referral of Senate messages, authority over, Sec. 2
referrals, role in making, Sec. Sec. 4, 5
removal of, Sec. 1
removal of conferees, authority over, Sec. 3
removal of Members from select committees, Sec. 3
removal of officers by, Sec. 3
resignation from committees upon election, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.6
resignation of, Sec. Sec. 1, 1.2
restrictions on authority generally, Sec. 4
Rules, Committee on, relationship to, Sec. 5
rules of the House, relationship to, Sec. 4
select committee to investigate ethics complaint regarding, Sec. 7
select committees, appointment authority, Sec. 3
select committees, removal authority, Sec. 3
Senate amendments, authority to refer, Sec. 2
Senate amendments, discretion to recognize for motions to dispose
of, Sec. 2
Senate amendments, Speaker's announced policies regarding
disposition of, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
Senate messages, authority to refer, Sec. 2
Sergeant-at-Arms, relationship to, Sec. Sec. 15, 15.12
service of process, duties regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 4, 26, 26.1,
26.2
Speaker pro tempore, see Speaker Pro Tempore
Speaker's announced policies, reiteration following election of new
Speaker, Sec. 2.6
``Speaker's lists'', historical use of, Sec. 2
Speaker's table, business at, Sec. 2
special ad hoc oversight committees, appointment authority, Sec. 3
sponsors and cosponsors, restrictions on adding or deleting, Sec. 4
sponsorship of legislation by, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.3
suspensions, discretion regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 4
teller votes, appointment of tellers by, Sec. 3
term limits, former rule regarding, Sec. 1
term of office, Sec. 1
travel, duty to designate Members for official business, Sec. 2
tributes to, Sec. 1.3
unanimous-consent requests, discretion to recognize for, Sec. 2
unanimous-consent requests, duty to state, Sec. 2
unanimous-consent requests to dispose of Senate amendments,
Speaker's announced policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
unparliamentary remarks, duty to rule on, Sec. 6
unparliamentary remarks by, Sec. Sec. 6.8, 6.9
unparliamentary remarks directed at, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.3-6.7
vacancy in the office of Speaker, Sec. Sec. 1, 2, 8, 10
vacating committee assignments, duty to announce, Sec. 4
veto overrides, duty to transmit measure to Archivist, Sec. 2
voice vote, duty to state question for, Sec. 2
voting by, Sec. Sec. 5. 5.4, 5.5
voting by electronic device, announced policies regarding,
Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
whistleblower ombudsman appointed by, Sec. 3
whole number of the House, duty to announce, Sec. 2
words taken down procedures, role in, Sec. 6
Speaker Pro Tempore
adjournment resolution, waiving temporal limits on appointing
Speakers pro tempore by, Sec. 10
appointed Speaker pro tempore, definition, Sec. 11
appointment of conferees by, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5
appointment of Speaker pro tempore by elected Speaker pro tempore,
Sec. 11
appointment of Speaker pro tempore procedure, Sec. 11
boards and commissions, appointment authority, Sec. 11
conferees, appointment by, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5
Dean of the House, administration of the oath of office by,
Sec. Sec. 9, 9.2
Dean of the House, service as, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.2
definition and nature of office, Sec. 8
delegates and the resident commissioner, inability to serve as
Speaker pro tempore, Sec. 11
designated Speaker pro tempore, appointment authorities, Sec. 11
designated Speaker pro tempore, definition, Sec. 11
elected Speaker pro tempore, appointment authorities, Sec. 12
elected Speaker pro tempore, authority to appoint Speaker pro
tempore, Sec. Sec. 11, 12, 12.3
elected Speaker pro tempore, definition, Sec. 12
election of by House, Sec. Sec. 8, 12, 12.1
enrolled bills and joint resolutions, authority to sign,
Sec. Sec. 8, 10, 10.6-10.10
illness of Speaker, appointment in case of, Sec. Sec. 2, 8, 10,
10.3
joint committees, appointment authority, Sec. 11
joint meetings, presiding at, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.8, 12
joint sessions, presiding at, Sec. Sec. 11, 12
Majority Leader, service as, Sec. Sec. 12, 12.2
Majority Whip, service as, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.1
oath of office administered by, Sec. Sec. 2, 9, 11, 12, 12.4
oath of office administered to, Sec. Sec. 2, 12, 12.1, 12.2
organization, presiding at, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.7
presiding at joint meeting, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.8, 12
presiding at joint session, Sec. Sec. 11, 12
presiding at organization, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.7
select committees, appointment authority, Sec. 11
Speaker, administration of oath of office by, Sec. Sec. 9, 9.1
Speaker's authority to appoint, Sec. Sec. 2, 3, 8, 10, 10.1, 11
temporal limitations, waiver of, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.4, 10.5
term of office, Sec. 10
vacancy in office of Speaker, role regarding, Sec. Sec. 1, 2, 8,
10, 10.2
veto messages, authority to lay down, Sec. Sec. 11, 11.6
withdrawal of Speaker pro tempore designation, Sec. 11
Speaker's Announced Policies
attire, policies regarding, Sec. 6
audio-visual broadcasting or recording, policies regarding, Sec. 6
decorum, policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.5
electronic devices, use of on the floor, policies regarding, Sec. 6
floor privileges, policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5, 6
handouts, distribution, policies regarding, Sec. 6
House Chamber, use of when House not in session, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5,
6
non-legislative debate, policy regarding withdrawal of recognition,
Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
reiteration following election of new Speaker, Sec. 2.6
Senate amendments, policies regarding disposition of, Sec. Sec. 2,
2.5
smoking in the House Chamber, policies regarding, Sec. 6
unanimous-consent requests to dispose of Senate amendments,
policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
voting by electronic device, policies regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5,
6
well of the House, trafficking, policies regarding, Sec. 6
Special Orders of Business
Committee of the Whole, Speaker's discretion to resolve into
pursuant to, Sec. 2
Sponsorship
Bill Clerk's role regarding, Sec. 14
restrictions on adding or deleting sponsors or cosponsors, Sec. 4
Speaker may sponsor legislation, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.3
Suspension of Rules
days on which motion may be entertained, Sec. 4
Speaker's discretion to recognize for motion, Sec. Sec. 2, 4
Tally Clerks
see Clerk of the House
Unanimous-Consent Requests
floor privileges, rule regarding may not be waived by, Sec. 4
gallery occupant references, rule regarding may not be waived by,
Sec. 4
minority employees, resolution establishing positions considered
by, Sec. 31.1
oath of office, requests to permit Speaker pro tempore to
administer, Sec. 2
prayer, requests to conduct not entertained, Sec. 16.9
reservation of the right to object, restrictions under Private
Calendar procedures, Sec. 4
Senate amendments, Speaker's announced policies regarding requests
to dispose of, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
Speaker pro tempore, requests to authorize administration of oath
of office by, Sec. Sec. 2, 11
Speaker pro tempore, requests to authorize appointments, Sec. 11
Speaker pro tempore, temporal limits, requests to waive, Sec. 10.5
Speaker's discretion tor recognize for, Sec. 2
Speaker's statement of the request controls, Sec. 2
subpoenas, response to authorized by, Sec. 26.3
United States Code
Law Revision Counsel, role in publication, Sec. 22
Unparliamentary Remarks
see Decorum
Vacating Proceedings
committee assignments vacated by rule, Speaker's duty to announce,
Sec. 4
Vetoes
Speaker pro tempore, authority to lay down veto message,
Sec. Sec. 11, 11.6
Speaker's duty to transmit measure to Archivist when veto
overridden, Sec. 2
Voting
Clerk's role in conducting, Sec. 14
division of the question, applicability to election of Chaplain,
Sec. Sec. 13, 13.1, 16, 16.1
division votes, procedure, Sec. 2
electronic voting, procedure, Sec. 2
electronic voting, Speaker's announced policies regarding,
Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5, 6
electronic voting system, Tally Clerk's role regarding use of,
Sec. 14
Parliamentarian's role in conducting votes, Sec. 18
postponing votes generally, Speaker's authority, Sec. 2
recorded votes, procedure, Sec. 2
reducing minimum voting time, Speaker's authority, Sec. 2
roll call votes, procedure, Sec. 2
Speaker authorized to vote, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4, 5.5
Speaker's authority to postpone votes, Sec. 2
Speaker's authority to reduce minimum voting time, Sec. 2
Speaker's duty to break tie votes, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4, 5.5
Speaker's duty to state question for vote, Sec. 2
Tally Clerks, duties of, Sec. 14
teller votes, appointment of tellers by Speaker, Sec. 3
teller votes, procedure, Sec. 2
tie votes, Speaker's duty to break, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4, 5.5
voice votes, procedure, Sec. 2
yeas and nays, automatic ordering pursuant to rule, Sec. 2
yeas and nays, constitutional authority to demand vote by, Sec. 2
Whole Number of the House
see Quorums
Withdrawal
recognition, Speaker's power regarding, Sec. Sec. 2, 2.5
Speaker pro tempore designation, withdrawal of, Sec. 11