[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