[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
[104th Congress]
[House Document 103-342]
[Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
[Pages 115-311]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 115]]


========================================================================


========================================================================

[[Page 117]]


                           JEFFERSON'S MANUAL


           JEFFERSON'S MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE a




 
                               __________


                SEC. I.--IMPORTANCE OF ADHERING TO RULES.


[[Page 118]]
and experienced Members, that nothing tended more to throw power into 
the hands of administration, and those who acted with the majority of 
the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of 
proceeding; that these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated 
as a check and control on the actions of the majority, and that they 
were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority, 
against the attempts of power.'' So far the maxim is certainly true, and 
is founded in good sense, that as it is always in the power of the 
majority, by their numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed on 
the part of their opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can 
defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power are the 
forms and rules of proceeding 

[[Page 119]]
which have been adopted as they were found necessary, from time to 
time, and are become the law of the House, by a strict adherence to 
which the weaker party can only be protected from those irregularities 
and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the 
wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and 
successful majorities, 2 Hats., 171, 172.


Sec. 283. Rules as related to the privileges of 
minorities.

  Mr.  Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of 
Commons, used to say, ``It was a maxim he had often heard when he was a 
young man, from old 




Sec. 284. The Manual as a statement of parliamentary law.

  a Jefferson's Manual was prepared by Thomas Jefferson for his own 
guidance as President of the Senate in the years of his Vice Presidency, 
from 1797 to 1801. In 1837 the House, by rule which still exists, 
provided that the provisions of the Manual should ``govern the House in 
all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not 
inconsistent with the standing rules and orders of the House and joint 
rules of the Senate and House of Representatives.'' Rule XLII; Sec. 938, 
infra. In 1880 the committee which revised the Rules of the House 
declared in their report that the Manual, ``compiled as it was for the 
use of the Senate exclusively and made up almost wholly of collations of 
English parliamentary practice and decisions, it was never especially 
valuable as an authority in the House of Representatives, even in its 
early history, and for many years past has been rarely quoted in the 
House'' (V, 6757). This statement, although sanctioned by high 
authority, is extreme, for in certain parts of the Manual are to be 
found the foundations of some of the most important portions of the 
House's practice.
   
The Manual is regarded by English parliamentarians as the best statement 
of what the law of Parliament was at the time Jefferson wrote it. 
Jefferson himself says, in the preface of the work:


  ``I could not doubt the necessity of quoting the sources of my 
information, among which Mr. Hatsel's most valuable book is preeminent; 
but as he has only treated some general heads, I have been obliged to 
recur to other authorities in support of a number of common rules of 
practice, to which his plan did not descend. Sometimes each authority 
cited supports the whole passage. Sometimes it rests on all taken 
together. Sometimes the authority goes only to a part of the text, the 
residue being inferred from known rules and principles. For some of the 
most familiar forms no written authority is or can be quoted, no writer 
having supposed it necessary to repeat what all were presumed to know. 
The statement of these must rest on their notoriety.

  ``I am aware that authorities can often be produced in opposition to 
the rules which I lay down as parliamentary. An attention to dates will 
generally remove their weight. The proceedings of Parliament in ancient 
times, and for a long while, were crude, multiform, and embarrassing. 
They have been, however, constantly advancing toward uniformity and 
accuracy, and have now attained a degree of aptitude to their object 
beyond which little is to be desired or expected.

  ``Yet I am far from the presumption of believing that I may not have 
mistaken the parliamentary practice in some cases, and especially in 
those minor forms, which, being practiced daily, are supposed known to 
everybody, and therefore have not been committed to writing. Our 
resources in this quarter of the globe for obtaining information on that 
part of the subject are not perfect. But I have begun a sketch, which 
those who come after me will successively correct and fill up, till a 
code of rules shall be formed for the use of the Senate, the effects of 
which may be accuracy in business, economy of time, order, uniformity, 
and impartiality.''



Sec. 286. Relations of the parliamentary law to the early 
practice of Congress.

  Jefferson also says in his preface, as to the source most desirable at 
that time from which to draw principles of procedure:
   ``But to what system of rules is he to recur, 
as supplementary to those of the Senate? To this there can be but one 
answer: To the system of regulations adopted for the government of some 
one of the parliamentary bodies within these States, or of that which 
has served as a prototype to most of them. This last is the model which 
we have all studied, while we are little acquainted with the 
modifications of it in our several States. It is deposited, too, in 
publications possessed by many, and open to all. Its rules are probably 
as wisely constructed for governing the debates of a deliberative body, 
and obtaining its true sense, as any which can become known to us; and 
the acquiescence of the Senate, hitherto, under the references to them, 
has given them the sanction of the approbation.''


  Those portions of the Manual which refer exclusively to Senate 
procedure or which refer to English practice wholly inapplicable to the 
House of Representatives have been omitted. Paragraphs from the 
Constitution of the United States have also been omitted, as the 
Constitution is printed in full in this volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 120]]
cency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body. 2 Hats., 
149.



Sec. 285. Necessity of rules of action.

  And  whether these 
forms be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great 
importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go 
by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding 
in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of 
the members. It is very material that order, de






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 120-138]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-37]

 
         *            *            *            *            *        


                          SEC. III.--PRIVILEGE.


[[Page 121]]
one instance, indeed, it has been relaxed by the 10 G. 3, c. 50, which 
permits judiciary proceedings to go on against them. That these 
privileges must be continually progressive, seems to result from their 
rejecting all definition of them; the doctrine being, that ``their 
dignity and independence are preserved by keeping their privileges 
indefinite; and that `the maxims upon which they proceed, together with 
the method of proceeding, rest entirely in their own breast, and are not 
defined and ascertained by any particular stated laws.' '' 1 Blackst., 
163, 164.


Sec. 287. Privileges of members of 
Parliament.

  The  privileges of members of Parliament, from small and 
obscure beginnings, have been advancing for centuries with a firm and 
never yielding pace. Claims seem to have been brought forward from time 
to time, and repeated, till some example of their admission enabled them 
to build law on that example. We can only, therefore, state the points 
of progression at which they now are. It is now acknowledged, 1st. That 
they are at all times exempted from question elsewhere, for anything 
said in their own House; that during the time of privilege, 2d. Neither 
a member himself, his, order H. of C. 1663, July 16, wife, nor his 
servants (familiares sui), for any matter of their own, may be, Elsynge, 
217; 1 Hats., 21; 1 Grey's Deb., 133, arrested on mesne process, in any 
civil suit: 3d. Nor be detained under execution, though levied before 
time of privilege: 4th. Nor impleaded, cited, or subpoenaed in any 
court: 5th. Nor summoned as a witness or juror: 6th. Nor may their lands 
or goods be distrained: 7th. Nor their persons assaulted, or characters 
traduced. And the period of time covered by privilege, before and after 
the session, with the practice of short prorogations under the 
connivance of the Crown, amounts in fact to a perpetual protection 
against the course of justice. In 



[[Page 122]]
seems to stand at present on the following ground: 1. The act of arrest 
is void, ab initio. 2 Stra., 989. 2. The member arrested may be 
discharged on motion, 1 Bl., 166; 2 Stra., 990; or by habeas corpus 
under the Federal or State authority, as the case may be; or by a writ 
of privilege out of the chancery, 2 Stra., 989, in those States which 
have adopted that part of the laws of England. Orders of the House of 
Commons, 1550, February 20. 3. The arrest being unlawful, is a trespass 
for which the officer and others concerned are liable to action or 
indictment in the ordinary courts of justice, as in other cases of 
unauthorized arrest. 4. The court before which the process is returnable 
is bound to act as in other cases of unauthorized proceeding, and 
liable, also, as in other similar cases, to have their proceedings 
stayed or corrected by the superior courts.


Sec. 288. Privilege of Members of Congress under the 
Constitution.

  It  was probably from this view of the encroaching character 
of privilege that the framers of our Constitution, in their care to 
provide that the laws shall bind equally on all, and especially that 
those who make them shall not exempt themselves from their operation, 
have only privileged ``Senators and Representatives'' themselves from 
the single act of ``arrest in all cases except treason, felony, and 
breach of the peace, during their attendance at the session of their 
respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same, and from 
being questioned in any other place for any speech or debate in either 
House.'' Const. U.S. Art I, Sec. 6. Under the general authority ``to 
make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the 
powers given them,'' Const. U.S., Art. II, Sec. 8, they may provide by 
law the details which may be necessary for giving full effect to the 
enjoyment of this privilege. No such law being as yet made, it 



[[Page 123]]
road very nicely, nor forfeit his protection for a little deviation 
from that which is most direct; some necessity perhaps constraining him 
to it. 2 Stra., 986, 987.


Sec. 289. Privilege as to going and returning.

  The  time 
necessary for going to, and returning from, Congress, not being defined, 
it will, of course, be judged of in every particular case by those who 
will have to decide the case. While privilege was understood in England 
to extend, as it does here, only to exemption from arrest, eundo, 
morando, et redeundo, the House of Commons themselves decided that ``a 
convenient time was to be understood.'' (1580,) 1 Hats., 99, 100. Nor is 
the law so strict in point of time as to require the party to set out 
immediately on his return, but allows him time to settle his private 
affairs, and to prepare for his journey; and does not even scan his 





Sec. 290. Privilege of Members as related to rights of 
courts to summon witnesses and jurors.

  This  privilege from arrest, 
privileges, of course, against all process the disobedience to which is 
punishable by an attachment of the person; as a subpoena ad 
respondendum, or testificandum, or a summons on a jury; and with reason, 
because a Member has superior duties to perform in another place. When a 
Representative is withdrawn from his seat by summons, the 40,000 people 
whom he represents lose their voice in debate and vote, as they do on 
his voluntary absence; when a Senator is withdrawn by summons, his State 
loses half its voice in debate and vote, as it does on his voluntary 
absence. The enormous disparity of evil admits no comparison.



[[Page 124]]
to produce in court, in obedience to a summons, an original paper from 
the files, but has given the court facilities for making copies (III, 
2664, 2666; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4552; Apr. 29, 1948, pp. 5161, 5162; May 
6, 1948, p. 5432; Jan. 18, 1950, p. 565; Feb. 8, 1950, p. 1695; Feb. 13, 
1950, p. 1765; Sept. 22, 1950, p. 15636; Apr. 6, 1951, p. 3403; Apr. 12, 
1951, p. 3800; Oct. 20, 1951, p. 13777; Jan. 22, 1953, p. 498; May 25, 
1953, p. 5523; Jan. 28, 1954, pp. 964-65; Feb. 25, 1954, pp. 2281-82; 
July 1, 1955, pp. 9818-19; Apr. 12, 1956, p. 6258; Apr. 24, 1958, p. 
7262; Apr. 29, 1958, p. 7636; Sept. 16, 1974, p. 31123; Jan. 19, 1977, 
pp. 1728-29), but on one occasion, where the circumstances warranted 
such action, the Clerk was permitted to respond and take with him 
certified copies of certain documents described in the subpoena (H. Res. 
601, Oct. 29, 1969, p. 32005); and on the rare occasions where the House 
has permitted the production of an original paper from its files, it has 
made explicit provision for its return (H. Res. 1022, 1023, Jan. 16, 
1968, pp. 80-81; H. Res. 1429, July 27, 1976, pp. 24089-90). No officer 
or employee, except by authority of the House, should produce before any 
court a paper from the files of the House, nor furnish a copy of any 
paper except by authority of the House or a statute (III, 2663; VI, 587; 
Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4552; Apr. 30, 1948, pp. 5161, 5162; May 6, 1948, p. 
5432; Jan. 18, 1950, p. 565; Feb. 8, 1950, p. 1695; Feb. 13, 1950, p. 
1765; Sept. 22, 1950, p. 15636; Apr. 6, 1951, p. 3403; Apr. 12, 1951, p. 
3800; Oct. 20, 1951, p. 13777; Mar. 10, 1954, pp. 3046-47; Feb. 7, 1955, 
p. 1215; May 7, 1956, p. 7588; Dec. 18, 1974, p. 40925). In the 98th 
Congress, the House adopted a resolution denying compliance with a 
subpoena issued by a Federal Court for the production of records in the 
possession of the Clerk (documents of a select committee from the prior 
Congress), where the Speaker and joint leadership had instructed the 
Clerk in the previous Congress not to produce such records and where the 
Court refused to stay the subpoena or to allow the select committee to 
intervene to protect its interest; the resolution directed the Counsel 
to the Clerk to assert the rights and privileges of the House and to 
take all steps necessary to protect the rights of the House (Apr. 28, 
1983, p. 10417). On appeal from a subsequent district court judgment 
finding the Clerk in contempt, the Court of Appeals reversed on the 
ground that a subpoena to depose a nonparty witness under the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure may only be served in the district (of 
Maryland) where it was issued. In re Guthrie, 733 F.2d 634 (4th Cir. 
1984). Where an official of both Houses of Congress is subpoenaed in his 
official capacity, the concurrence of both Houses by concurrent 
resolution is required to permit compliance (H. Con. Res. 342, July 16, 
1975, pp. 23144-46).


Sec. 291a. Attitude of the House as to demands of the 
courts.

  The  House has decided that the summons of a court to Members to 
attend and testify constituted a breach of privilege, and directed them 
to disregard the mandate (III, 2661); but in other cases wherein Members 
informed the House that they had been summoned before the District Court 
of the United States for the District of Columbia or other courts, the 
House authorized them to respond (III, 2662; Feb. 23, 1948, p. 1557; 
Mar. 5, 1948, p. 2224; Apr. 8, 1948, p. 4264; Apr. 12, 1948, p. 4347; 
Apr. 14, 1948, p. 4461; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4529; Apr. 28, 1948, p. 5009; 
May 6, 1948, pp. 5433, 5451; Feb. 2, 1950, p. 1399; Apr. 4, 1951, p. 
3320; Apr. 9, 1951, p. 3525; Apr. 12, 1951, pp. 3751, 3752; Apr. 13, 
1951, p. 3915; June 4, 1951, p. 6084; June 22, 1951, p. 7001; Sept. 18, 
1951, p. 11571; Sept. 27, 1951, p. 12292; Mar. 5, 1953, p. 1658; Mar. 
18, 1953, p. 2085; Mar. 11, 1954, p. 3102; July 19, 1954, p. 10904; Apr. 
9, 1956, p. 5970; Apr. 10, 1956, p. 5991). The House, however, has 
declined to make a general rule permitting Members to waive their 
privilege, preferring that the Member in each case should apply for 
permission (III, 2660). Also in maintenance of its privilege the House 
has refused to permit the Clerk or other officers 



[[Page 125]]
thereof through the Clerk of the House (see for example H. Res. 12, 
Jan. 3, 1973, pp. 30-31). In the 95th Congress, the House for the first 
time by resolution permitted this same type of general response whether 
or not the House is in session or in adjournment if a court has found 
that specific documents in possession of the House are material and 
relevant to judicial proceedings. The House reserved to itself the right 
to revoke this general permission in any specific case where the House 
desires to make a different response (H. Res. 10, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 73; 
H. Res. 10, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 19). The permission did not apply to 
executive session material, such as a deposition of a witness in 
executive session of a committee, which could be released only by a 
separate resolution passed by the House (H. Res. 296, June 4, 1979, p. 
13180). H. Res. 10 of the 96th Congress was clarified and revised later 
in that Congress by H. Res. 722 (Sept. 17, 1980, pp. 25777-90) and 
became the basis for rule L added in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 
5, 1981, pp. 98-113, see Sec. 946, infra).
  A resolution routinely adopted up to the 95th Congress provided that 
when the House had recessed or adjourned Members, officers and employees 
were authorized to appear in response to subpoenas duces tecum, but 
prohibited the production of official papers in response thereto; the 
resolution also provided that when a court found that official papers, 
other than executive session material, were relevant, the court could 
obtain copies 


[[Page 126]]
applications to courts in connection with their investigations (H. Res. 
252, Feb. 9, 1977, pp. 3966-75; H. Res. 760, Sept. 28, 1977, pp. 31329-
36; H. Res. 67, Mar. 4, 1981, pp. 3529-33).


Sec. 291b. Judicial appearances on behalf of 
House.

  While  the statutes provide that the Department of Justice may 
represent any officer of the House or Senate in the event of judicial 
proceedings against such officer in relation to the performance of 
official duties (see 2 U.S.C. 118), and that the Department of Justice 
shall generally represent the interests of the United States in Court 
(28 U.S.C. 517), the House has on occasion authorized special 
appearances on its own behalf by special counsel when the prerogatives 
or powers of the House have been questioned in the courts. The House has 
adopted privileged resolutions authorizing the chairman of a 
subcommittee to intervene in any judicial proceeding concerning 
subpoenas duces tecum issued by that committee, authorizing the 
appointment of a special counsel to carry out the purposes of such a 
resolution, and providing for the payment from the contingent fund of 
expenses to employ such special counsel (H. Res. 1420, Aug. 26, 1976, 
pp. 1858-59; H. Res. 334, May 9, 1977, pp. 13949-52), authorizing the 
Sergeant at Arms to employ a special counsel to represent him in a 
pending action in federal court in which he was named as a defendant, 
and providing for the payment from the contingent fund of expenses to 
employ such counsel (H. Res. 1497, Sept. 2, 1976, p. 28937), and 
authorizing the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration to 
intervene as a party in a pending civil action in the U.S. Court of 
Claims, to defend on behalf of the House the constitutional authority to 
make laws necessary and proper for executing its constitutional powers, 
authorizing the employment of special counsel for such purpose, and 
providing for the payment from the contingent fund of expenses to employ 
such counsel (H. Res. 884, Nov. 2, 1977, p. 36661). The House has 
authorized the Speaker to take any steps he considered necessary, 
including intervention as a party or by submission of briefs amicus 
curiae, in order to protect the interests of the House before the court 
(H. Res. 49, Jan. 29, 1981, p. 1304). The House has also on occasion 
adopted privileged resolutions, reported from the Committee on Rules, 
authorizing standing or select committees to make 





Sec. 292. Attitude of one House as to demands of the 
other for attendance or papers.

  When  either House desires the attendance of 
a Member of the other to give evidence it is the practice to ask the 
House of which he is a Member that the Member have leave to attend, and 
the use of a subpoena is of doubtful propriety (III, 1794). But in one 
case, at least, the Senate did not consider that its privilege forbade 
the House to summon one of its officers as a witness (III, 1798). But 
when the Secretary of the Senate was subpoenaed to appear before a 
committee of the House with certain papers from the files of the Senate, 
the Senate discussed the question of privilege before empowering him to 
attend (III, 2665). For discussion of the means by which one House may 
prefer a complaint against a Member or officer of the other, see 
Sec. 373, infra.





Sec. 293. Power of the House to punish for contempts.

  So  far 
there will probably be no difference of opinion as to the privileges of 
the two Houses of Congress; but in the following cases it is otherwise. 
In December, 1795, the House of Representatives committed two persons of 
the name of Randall and Whitney for attempting to corrupt the integrity 
of certain Members, which they considered as a contempt and breach of 
the privileges of the House; and the facts being proved, Whitney was 
detained in confinement a fortnight and Randall three weeks, and was 
reprimanded by the Speaker. In March, 1796, the House of Representatives 
voted a challenge given to a Member of their House to be a breach of the 
privileges of the House; but satisfactory apologies and acknowledgments 
being made, no further proceeding was had. * * *




[[Page 127]]
discussion by the Supreme Court of the United States of the right of 
the House to punish for contempts, and a decision that the House by 
implication has the power to punish, since ``public functionaries must 
be left at liberty to exercise the powers which the people have 
intrusted to them,'' and ``the interests and dignity of those who 
created them require the exertion of the powers indispensable to the 
attainment of the ends of their creation. Nor is a casual conflict with 
the rights of particular individuals any reason to be urged against the 
exercise of such powers'' (II, 1607; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheaton 204). 
In 1828 an assault on the President's secretary in the Capitol gave rise 
to a question of privilege which involved a discussion of the inherent 
power of the House to punish for contempt (II, 1615). Again in 1832, 
when the House censured Samuel Houston, a citizen, for assault on a 
Member for words spoken in debate (II, 1616), there was a discussion by 
the House of the doctrine of inherent and implied power as opposed to 
the other doctrine that the House might exercise no authority not 
expressly conferred on it by the Constitution or the laws of the land 
(II, 1619). In 1865 the House arrested and censured a citizen for 
attempted intimidation and assault on a member (II, 1625); in 1866, a 
citizen who had assaulted the clerk of a committee of the House in the 
Capitol was arrested by order of the House, but as there was not time to 
punish in the few remaining days of the session, the Sergeant-at-Arms 
was directed to turn the prisoner over to the civil authorities of the 
District of Columbia (II, 1629); and in 1870 one Woods, who had 
assaulted a Member on his way to the House, was arrested on warrant of 
the Speaker, arraigned at the bar, and imprisoned for a term extending 
beyond the adjournment of the session, although not beyond the term of 
the existing House (II, 1626-1628).


Sec. 294. Decision of the court in Anderson's 
case.

  The  cases of Randall and Whitney (II, 1599-1603) were followed in 
1818 by the case of John Anderson, a citizen, who for attempted bribery 
of a Member was arrested, tried, and censured by the House (II, 1606). 
Anderson appealed to the courts and this procedure finally resulted in a 



[[Page 128]]
in the case of Chapman, another contumacious witness, the Supreme Court 
affirmed the undoubted right of either House of Congress to punish for 
contempt in cases to which its power properly extends under the 
expressed terms of the Constitution (II, 1614; In Re Chapman, 166 U.S. 
661). The nature of the punishment which the House may inflict was 
discussed by the Court in Anderson's case (II, 1607; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 
Wheaton 204).


Sec. 295. Views of the court in Kilbourn's case.

  In  1876 the 
arrest and imprisonment by the House of Hallet Kilbourn, a contumacious 
witness, resulted in a decision by the Supreme Court of the United 
States that the House had no general power to punish for contempt, as in 
a case wherein it was proposing to coerce a witness in an inquiry not 
within the constitutional authority of the House. The Court also 
discussed the doctrine of inherent power to punish, saying in 
conclusion, ``We are of opinion that the right of the Houses of 
Representatives to punish the citizen for a contempt of its authority or 
a breach of its privileges can derive no support from the precedents and 
practices of the two Houses of the English Parliament, nor from the 
adjudged cases in which the English courts have upheld these practices. 
Nor, taking what has fallen from the English judges, and especially the 
later cases on which we have just commented, is much aid given to the 
doctrine, that this power exists as one necessary to enable either House 
of Congress to exercise successfully their function of legislation. This 
latter proposition is one that we do not propose to decide in the 
present case, because we are able to decide it without passing upon the 
existence or nonexistence of such a power in aid of the legislative 
function'' (103 U.S. 189; II, 1611). In 1894, 




Sec. 296. Decision of the court in Marshall v. Gordon.

  In the case of Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521, the Court stated:
   
Appellant while United States Attorney for the Southern District of New 
York conducted a grand jury investigation which led to the indictment of 
a Member of the House of Representatives. Acting on charges of 
misfeasance and nonfeasance made by the Member against appellant in part 
before the indictment and renewed with additions afterward, the House by 
resolution directed its Judiciary Committee to make inquiry and report 
concerning appellant's liability to impeachment. Such inquiry being in 
progress through a subcommittee, appellant addressed to the 
subcommittee's chairman, and gave to the press, a letter, charging the 
subcommittee with an endeavor to probe into and frustrate the action of 
the grand jury, and couched in terms calculated to arouse the 
indignation of the members of that committee and those of the House 
generally. Thereafter, appellant was arrested in New York by the 
Sergeant at Arms pursuant to a resolution of the House whereby the 
letter was characterized as defamatory and insulting and as tending to 
bring that body into public contempt and ridicule, and whereby appellant 
in writing and publishing such letter was adjudged to be in contempt of 
the House in violating its privileges, honor, and dignity. He applied 
for habeas corpus.


  The court held that the proceedings concerning which the alleged 
contempt was committed were not impeachment proceedings; that, whether 
they were impeachment proceedings or not, the House was without power by 
its own action, as distinct from such action as might be taken under 
criminal laws, to arrest or punish for such acts as were committed by 
appellant.


[[Page 129]]
the legislative authority expressly granted. Being, however, a power of 
self-preservation, a means and not an end, the power does not extend to 
infliction of punishment, as such; it is a power to prevent acts which 
in and of themselves inherently prevent or obstruct the discharge of 
legislative duty and to compel the doing of those things which are 
essential to the performance of the legislative functions. As pointed 
out in Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat., 204 this implied power in its 
exercise is limited to imprisonment during the session of the body 
affected by the contempt.
  No express power to punish for contempt was granted to the House of 
Representatives save the power to deal with contempts committed by its 
own Members (art. I, sec. 5). The possession by Congress of the 
commingled legislative and judicial authority to punish for contempts 
which was exerted by the House of Commons is at variance with the view 
and tendency existing in this country when the Constitution was adopted, 
as evidenced by the manner in which the subject was treated in many 
State constitutions, beginning at or about that time and continuing 
thereafter. Such commingling of powers would be destructive of the basic 
constitutional distinction between legislative, executive, and judicial 
power, and repugnant to limitations which the Constitution fixes 
expressly; hence there is no warrant whatever for implying such a dual 
power in aid of other powers expressly granted to Congress. The House 
has implied power to deal directly with contempt so far as is necessary 
to preserve and exercise 

  The authority does not cease when the act complained of has been 
committed, but includes the right to determine in the use of legitimate 
and fair discretion how far from the nature and character of the act 
there is necessity for repression to prevent immediate recurrence, i.e., 
the continued existence of the interference or obstruction to the 
exercise of legislative power. In such case, unless there be manifest an 
absolute disregard of discretion, and a mere exertion of arbitrary power 
coming within the reach of constitutional limitations, the exercise of 
the authority is not subject to judicial interference. The power is the 
same in quantity and quality whether exerted on behalf of the 
impeachment powers or of the others to which it is ancillary. The 
legislative power to provide by criminal laws for the prosecution and 
punishment of wrongful acts is not here involved.

  The Senate may invoke its civil contempt statute (2 U.S.C. 288d) to 
direct the Senate legal counsel to bring an action in Federal court to 
compel a witness to comply with the subpoena of a committee of the 
Senate. The House, in contrast, may either certify such a witness to the 
appropriate United States Attorney for possible indictment under the 
criminal contempt statute (2 U.S.C. 192) or exercise its inherent power 
to commit for contempt by detaining the recalcitrant witness in the 
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.


  (See also McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135; Sinclair v. United 
States, 279 U.S. 263; Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125; Groppi v. 
Leslie, 404 U.S. 496.)


[[Page 130]]
inherent right to do all acts necessary to keep themselves in a 
condition to discharge the trusts confided to them; that whenever 
authorities are given, the means of carrying them into execution are 
given by necessary implication; that thus we see the British Parliament 
exercise the right of punishing contempts; all the State Legislatures 
exercise the same power, and every court does the same; that, if we have 
it not, we sit at the mercy of every intruder who may enter our doors or 
gallery, and, by noise and tumult, render proceeding in business 
impracticable; that if our tranquillity is to be perpetually disturbed 
by newspaper defamation, it will not be possible to exercise our 
functions with the requisite coolness and deliberation; and that we must 
therefore have a power to punish these disturbers of our peace and 
proceedings. * * *


Sec. 297. Jefferson's statement of arguments for 
inherent power to punish for contempt.

  * * *  The editor of the Aurora 
having, in his paper of February 19, 1800, inserted some paragraphs 
defamatory of the Senate, and failed in his appearance, he was ordered 
to be committed. In debating the legality of this order, it was 
insisted, in support of it, that every man, by the law of nature, and 
every body of men, possesses the right of self-defense; that all public 
functionaries are essentially invested with the powers of self-
preservation; that they have an 



[[Page 131]]
that Congress have no such natural or necessary power, nor any powers 
but such as are given them by the Constitution; that that has given 
them, directly, exemption from personal arrest, exemption from question 
elsewhere for what is said in their House, and power over their own 
members and proceedings; for these no further law is necessary, the 
Constitution being the law; that, moreover, by that article of the 
Constitution which authorizes them ``to make all laws necessary and 
proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution 
in them,'' they may provide by law for an undisturbed exercise of their 
functions, e.g., for the punishment of contempts, of affrays or tumult 
in their presence, &c. but, till the law be made, it does not exist; 
and does not exist, from their own neglect; that, in the meantime, 
however, they are not unprotected, the ordinary magistrates and courts 
of law being open and competent to punish all unjustifiable disturbances 
or defamations, and even their own sergeant, who may appoint deputies ad 
libitum to aid him 3 Grey, 59, 147, 255,  is equal to small 
disturbances; that in requiring a previous law, the Constitution had 
regard to the inviolability of the citizen, as well as of the Member; 
as, should one House, in the regular form of a bill, aim at too broad 
privileges, it may be checked by the other, and both by the President; 
and also as, the law being promulgated, the citizen will know how to 
avoid offense. But if one branch may assume its own privileges without 
control, if it may do it on the spur of the 

[[Page 132]]
occasion, conceal the law in its own breast, and, after the fact 
committed, make its sentence both the law and the judgment on that fact; 
if the offense is to be kept undefined and to be declared only ex re 
nata, and according to the passions of the moment, and there be no 
limitation either in the manner or measure of the punishment, the 
condition of the citizen will be perilous indeed. * * *


Sec. 298. Statement of arguments against the inherent 
power to punish for contempts.

  * * *  To this it was answered, that the 
Parliament and courts of England have cognizance of contempts by the 
express provisions of their law; that the State Legislatures have equal 
authority because their powers are plenary; they represent their 
constituents completely, and possess all their powers, except such as 
their constitutions have expressly denied them; that the courts of the 
several States have the same powers by the laws of their States, and 
those of the Federal Government by the same State laws adopted in each 
State, by a law of Congress; that none of these bodies, therefore, 
derive those powers from natural or necessary right, but from express 
law; 





Sec. 299. Jefferson's suggestion that a law might define 
procedure in cases of contempt.

  * * *  Which of these doctrines is to 
prevail, time will decide. Where there is no fixed law, the judgment on 
any particular case is the law of that single case only, and dies with 
it. When a new and even a similar case arises, the judgment which is to 
make and at the same time apply to the law, is open to question and 
consideration, as are all new laws. Perhaps Congress in the mean time, 
in their care for the safety of the citizen, as well as that for their 
own protection, may declare by law what is necessary and proper to 
enable them to carry into execution the powers vested in them, and 
thereby hang up a rule for the inspection of all, which may direct the 
conduct of the citizen, and at the same time test the judgments they 
shall themselves pronounce in their own case.



[[Page 133]]
from the floor as privileged, since the privileges of the House are 
involved, and a committee report to accompany the resolution may 
therefore be presented to the House without regard to the 3-day 
availability requirement for other reports (see clause 2(l)(6) of rule 
XI; July 13, 1971, pp. 24720-23). A resolution with two resolve clauses 
separately directing the certification of the contemptuous conduct of 
two individuals is subject to a demand for a division of the question as 
to each individual (contempt proceedings against Ralph and Joseph 
Bernstein, Feb. 27, 1986, p. 3061). In the 97th Congress, the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce filed a report (H. Rept. 97-898) on proceedings 
against the Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt for withholding 
subpoenaed documents and for failure to answer questions relating to 
reciprocity under the Mineral Lands Leasing Act. Also in the 97th 
Congress, the House adopted a resolution directing the Speaker to 
certify to the United States Attorney the failure of an official of the 
executive branch (Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator, Environmental 
Protection Agency) to submit executive branch documents to a House 
subcommittee pursuant to a subcommittee subpoena; this was the first 
occasion on which the House cited an executive official for contempt of 
Congress (H. Res. 632, Dec. 16, 1982, p. 31754). In the following 
Congress, the 98th, the House adopted (as a question of privilege) a 
resolution reported from the same committee certifying to the United 
States Attorney the fact that an agreement has been entered into between 
the committee and the Executive Branch for access by the committee to 
the documents which Anne Gorsuch had failed to submit and which were the 
subject of the contempt citation (where the contempt had not yet been 
prosecuted) (Aug. 3, 1983, p. 22692). In other cases where subsequent 
compliance had been accomplished in the same Congress, the House has 
adopted privileged resolutions certifying the facts to the United States 
Attorney to the end that contempt proceedings be discontinued (see 
Deschler's Precedents, vol. 4, ch. 15, sec. 21). In the 98th Congress, 
the House adopted a privileged resolution directing the Speaker to 
certify to the United States Attorney the refusal of a former official 
of the executive branch to obey a subpoena to testify before a 
subcommittee (H. Res. 200, May 18, 1983, p. 12720).-
  In 1837 the House declined to proceed with a bill ``defining the 
offense of a contempt of this House, and to provide for the punishment 
thereof'' (II, 1598). Congress has, however, prescribed that a witness 
summoned to appear before a committee of either House who does not 
respond or who refuses to answer a question pertinent to the subject of 
the inquiry shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor (2 U.S.C. 192). A 
resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney the 
refusal of a witness to respond to a subpoena issued by a House 
committee may be offered 




Sec. 300. Status of Memberelect as to privilege, 
oath, committee service, etc.

  Privilege  from arrest takes place by force of the 
election; and before a return be made a Member elected may be named of a 
committee, and is to every extent a Member except that he cannot vote 
until he is sworn, Memor., 107, 108. D'Ewes, 642, col. 2; 643, col. 1. 
Pet. Miscel. Parl., 119. Lex. Parl., c. 23.2 Hats., 22, 62.



[[Page 134]]
to and returning therefrom. In a case wherein a Member was imprisoned 
during a recess of Congress, he remained in confinement until the House, 
on assembling, liberated him (III, 2676).
  The Constitution of the United States limits the broad Parliamentary 
privilege to the time of attendance on sessions of Congress, and of 
going 


  It is recognized in the practice of the House that a Member may be 
named to a committee before he is sworn, and in some cases Members have 
not taken the oath until long afterwards (IV, 4483), although in the 
modern practice Members-elect have been elected to standing committees 
effective only when sworn (H. Res. 26, 27; Jan. 6, 1983, p. 132). In one 
case, wherein a Member did not appear to take the oath, the Speaker with 
the consent of the House appointed another Member to the committee place 
(IV, 4484). The status of a Member-elect under the Constitution 
undoubtedly differs greatly from the status of a Member-elect under the 
law of Parliament. In various inquiries by committees of the House this 
question has been examined, with the conclusions that a Member-elect 
becomes a Member from the very beginning of the term to which he was 
elected (I, 500), that he is as much an officer of the Government before 
taking the oath as afterwards (I, 185), and that his status is 
distinguished from that of a Member who has qualified (I, 183, 184). 
Members-elect may resign or decline before taking the oath (II, 1230-
1233, 1235); they have been excluded (I, 449, 464, 474, 550, 551; VI, 
56; Mar. 1, 1967, pp. 4997-5038), and in one case a Member-elect was 
expelled (I, 476; II, 1262). The names of Members who have not been 
sworn are not entered on the roll from which the yeas and nays are 
called for entry on the Journal (V, 6048; VIII, 3122), nor are such 
Members-elect permitted to vote or introduce bills.



Sec. 301. Relations of Members and others to 
privilege.

  Every  man must, at his peril, take notice who are members of 
either House returned of record. Lex. Parl., 23; 4 Inst., 24.


  On Complaint of a breach of privilege, the party may either be 
summoned, or sent for in custody of the sergeant. 1 Grey, 88, 95.


  The privilege of a Member is the privilege of the House. If the Member 
waive it without leave, it is a ground for punishing him, but cannot in 
effect waive the privilege of the House. 3 Grey, 140, 222.


[[Page 135]]
with them while on the way to attend the sessions of the House (II, 
1626), have been arrested by order of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms, 
``Wherever to be found.'' The House has declined to make a general rule 
to permit Members to waive their privilege in certain cases, preferring 
to give or refuse permission in each individual case (III, 2660-2662).
  Although the privilege of Members of the House of Representatives is 
limited by the Constitution, these provisions of the Parliamentary law 
are applicable, and persons who have attempted to bribe Members (II, 
1599, 1606), assault them for words spoken in debate (II, 1617, 1625) or 
interfere 


  In United States v. Helstoski, 42 U.S. 477 (1979), the Supreme Court 
discussed the ability of either an individual Member or the entire 
Congress to waive the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause. The 
Court found first, that the Member's conduct in testifying before a 
grand jury and voluntarily producing documentary evidence of legislative 
acts protected by the Clause did not waive its protection. Assuming, 
without deciding, that a Member could waive the Clause's protection 
against being prosecuted for a legislative act, the Court said that such 
a waiver could only be found after an explicit and unequivocal 
renunciation of its immunity, which was absent in this case. Second, 
passage of the official bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, did not amount 
to an institutional waiver of the Speech or Debate Clause for individual 
Members. Again assuming without deciding whether Congress could 
constitutionally waive the Clause for individual Members, such a waiver 
could be shown only by an explicit and unequivocal expression of 
legislative intent, and there was no evidence of that in the legislative 
history of the statute.



Sec. 302. Parliamentary law as to questioning a Member in 
another place for speech or debate.

  For  any speech or debate in either 
House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. Const. U.S., I, 
6; S. P. protest of the Commons to James I, 1621; 2 Rapin, No. 54, pp. 
211, 212. But this is restrained to things done in the House in a 
parliamentary course. 1 Rush, 663. For he is not to have privilege 
contra morem parliamentarium, to exceed the bounds and limits of his 
place and duty. Com. p.



[[Page 136]]



Sec. 303. Relation of the courts to parliamentary 
privilege.

  If  an offense be committed by a member in the House, of which 
the House has cognizance, it is an infringement of their right for any 
person or court to take notice of it till the House has punished the 
offender or referred him to a due course. Lex. Parl., 63. 





Sec. 304. Breach of privilege to refuse to put a question which 
is in order.

  Privilege is in the power of the House, and is a restraint to the 
proceeding of inferior courts, but not of the House itself. 2 Nalson, 
450; 2 Grey, 399. For whatever is spoken in the House is subject to the 
censure of the House; and offenses of this kind have been severely 
punished by calling the person to the bar to make submission, committing 
him to the tower, expelling the House, &c. Scob., 72; L. Parl., c. 22.
   It is a breach of order for the Speaker to refuse to 
put a question which is in order. 1 Hats., 175-6; 5 Grey, 133.



  Where the Clerk, presiding during organization of the House, declined 
to put a question, a Member put the question from the floor (I, 67).


[[Page 137]]
the House till conviction; for it may be any man's case, who is 
guiltless, to be accused and indicted of felony, or the like crime. 23 
El., 1580; D'Ewes, 283, col. 1; Lex. Parl., 133.



Sec. 305. Parliamentary law of privilege as related to 
treason, felony, etc.

  And  even in cases of treason, felony, and breach of 
the peace, to which privilege does not extend as to substance, yet in 
Parliament a member is privileged as to the mode of proceeding. The case 
is first to be laid before the House, that it may judge of the fact and 
of the ground of the accusation, and how far forth the manner of the 
trial may concern their privilege; otherwise it would be in the power of 
other branches of the government, and even of every private man, under 
pretenses of treason, &c., to take any man from his service in the 
House, and so, as many, one after another, as would make the House what 
he pleaseth. Dec'l of the Com. on the King's declaring Sir John Hotham a 
traitor. 4 Rushw., 586. So, when a member stood indicted for felony, it 
was adjudged that he ought to remain of 


  Where Members of the House of Representatives have been arrested by 
the State authorities the cases have not been laid first before the 
House; but when the House has learned of the proceedings, it has 
investigated to ascertain if the crime charged was actually within the 
exceptions of the Constitution (III, 2673), and in one case where it 
found a Member imprisoned for an offense not within the exceptions it 
released him by the hands of its own officer (III, 2676).



Sec. 306. Practice as to Members indicted or 
convicted.

  The  House has not usually taken action in the infrequent 
instances where Members have been indicted for felony, and in one or two 
instances Members under indictment or pending appeal on conviction have 
been appointed to committees  (IV,  4479).  The  House  has,  however, 
adopted a resolution expressing the sense of the House that Members 
convicted of certain felonies should refrain from participation in 
committee business and from voting in the House until the presumption of 
innocence is reinstated or until re-elected to the House (see H. Res. 
128, Nov. 14, 1973, p. 36944), and that principle has been incorporated 
in the Code of Official Conduct (clause 10 of rule XLIII). A Senator 
after indictment was omitted from committees at his own request (IV, 
4479), and a Member who had been convicted in one case did not appear in 
the House during the Congress (IV, 4484, footnote). A Senator in one 
case withdrew from the Senate pending his trial (II, 1278), and on 
conviction resigned (II, 1282). In this case the Senate, after the 
conviction, took steps looking to action although an application for 
rehearing on appeal was pending (II, 1282).



[[Page 138]]



Sec. 307. Parliamentary law as to arrest of a 
Member.

  When  it is found necessary for the public service to put a Member 
under arrest, or when, on any public inquiry, matter comes out which may 
lead to affect the person of a member, it is the practice immediately to 
acquaint the House, that they may know the reasons for such a 
proceeding, and take such steps as they think proper. 2 Hats., 259. Of 
which see many examples. Ib., 256, 257, 258. But the communication is 
subsequent to the arrest. 1 Blackst., 167.




Sec. 308. A breach of privilege for one House to encroach 
or interfere as to the other.

  It  is highly expedient, says Hatsel, for 
the due preservation of the privileges of the separate branches of the 
legislature, that neither should encroach on the other, or interfere in 
any matter depending before them, so as to preclude, or even influence, 
that freedom of debate which is essential to a free council. They are, 
therefore, not to take notice of any bills or other matters depending, 
or of votes that have been given, or of speeches which have been held, 
by the members of either of the other branches of the legislature, until 
the same have been communicated to them in the usual parliamentary 
manner. 2 Hats., 252; 4 Inst., 15; Seld. Jud., 53.





Sec. 309. Relations of the Sovereign to the Parliament 
and its Members.

  Thus  the King's taking notice of the bill for suppressing 
soldiers, depending before the House; his proposing a provisional clause 
for a bill before it was presented to him by the two Houses; his 
expressing displeasure against some persons for matters moved in 
Parliament during the debate and preparation of a bill, were breaches of 
privilege, 2 Nalson, 743; and in 1783, December 17, it was declared a 
breach of fundamental privileges, &c., to report any opinion or 
pretended opinion of the King on any bill or proceeding depending in 
either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the 
members, 2 Hats., 251, 6.








[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 139]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-38]

[[Page 139]]

 
         *            *            *            *            *        


                            SEC. VI.--QUORUM.


         *            *            *            *            *        




Sec. 310. Necessity of a quorum during business, including 
debate.

  In  general the chair is not to be taken till a quorum for 
business is present; unless, after due waiting, such a quorum be 
despaired of, when the chair may be taken and the House adjourned. And 
whenever, during business, it is observed that a quorum is not present, 
any member may call for the House to be counted, and being found 
deficient, business is suspended. 2 Hats., 125, 126.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 139-140]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-39]

 
  In the House of Representatives the Speaker takes the Chair at the 
hour to which the House stood adjourned and there is no requirement that 
the House proceed immediately to establish a quorum, although the 
Speaker has the authority under clause 6 of rule XV to recognize for a 
call of the House at any time. The question of a quorum is not 
considered unless properly raised (IV, 2733; VI, 624), and it is not in 
order for the Speaker to recognize for a point of no quorum unless he 
has put the pending question or proposition to a vote. While it was 
formerly the rule that a quorum was necessary for debate as well as 
business (IV, 2935-2949), under the procedure put in effect in the 95th 
Congress such is not the case. In the 94th Congress, it was established 
by rule that certain proceedings in the House did not require a quorum 
(clause 6 of rule XV).


                      SEC. VII.--CALL OF THE HOUSE.



Sec. 311. Parliamentary rules for call of the House.

  On  the 
call of the House, each person rises up as he is called, and answereth; 
the absentees are then only noted, but no excuse to be made till the 
House be fully called over. Then the absentees are called a second time, 
and if still absent, excuses are to be heard. Ord. House of Commons, 92.



[[Page 140]]
small a body as the Senate of the United States, the trouble of rising 
cannot be necessary.
  They rise that their persons may be recognized; the voice, in such a 
crowd, being an insufficient verification of their presence. But in so 


  Orders for calls on different days may subsist at the same time. 2 
Hats., 72.


  Rule XV of the House of Representatives provides for a procedure on 
call of the House. Members of the House do not rise on answering.




[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 140-142]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-40]

 
         *            *            *            *            *        


                           SEC. IX.--SPEAKER.


         *            *            *            *            *        




Sec. 312. Election of Speaker.

  When  but one person is 
proposed, and no objection made, it has not been usual in Parliament to 
put any question to the House; but without a question the members 
proposing him conduct him to the chair. But if there be objection, or 
another proposed, a question is put by the Clerk. 2 Hats., 158. As are 
also questions of adjournment. 6 Gray, 406. Where the House debated and 
exchanged messages and answers with the King for a week without a 
Speaker, till they were prorogued. They have done it de die in diem for 
fourteen days. 1 Chand., 331, 335.



[[Page 141]]
the choice of Speaker has been delayed for several weeks by contests 
(I, 222; V, 5356, 6647, 6649; VI, 24).

  The Speaker of the House of Representatives was first chosen by 
ballot, but since 1839 has been chosen by a viva voce vote on a roll 
call (I, 187, 211). The Clerk appoints tellers for this election (I, 
217), but the House, and not the Clerk, decides by what method it shall 
elect (I, 210). The motion to proceed to the election of Speaker is 
privileged (I, 212, 214; VIII, 3883), and debatable unless the previous 
question be ordered (I, 213). In 1860 the voting for Speaker proceeded 
slowly, being interspersed with debate (I, 223), and in one instance the 
House asked candidates for Speaker to state their views before 
proceeding to election (I, 218). In 1809 it was held that the Speaker 
should be elected by a majority of all present (I, 215), and in 1879 
that he might be elected by a majority of those present, if a quorum, 
and that a majority of all the Members was not required (I, 216). In two 
instances the House chose a Speaker by plurality of votes, but confirmed 
the choice by majority vote (I, 221). On several occasions 




Sec. 313. Election of President pro tempore of the 
Senate.

  In  the Senate, a President pro tempore, in the absence of the 
Vice-President, is proposed and chosen by ballot. His office is 
understood to be determined on the Vice-President's appearing and taking 
the chair, or at the meeting of the Senate after the first recess.



  In the later practice the President pro tempore has usually been 
chosen by resolution. In 1876 the Senate determined that the tenure of 
office of a President pro tempore elected at one session does not expire 
at the meeting of Congress after the first recess, the Vice-President 
not having appeared to take the chair; that the death of the Vice-
President does not have the effect to vacate the office of President pro 
tempore; and that the President pro tempore holds office at the pleasure 
of the Senate (II, 1417).



Sec. 314. Parliamentary law as to choice of Speaker pro 
tempore.

  Where  the Speaker has been ill, other Speakers pro tempore have 
been appointed. Instances of this are 1 H., 4. Sir John Cheyney, and Sir 
William Sturton, and in 15 H., 6. Sir John Tyrrel, in 1656, January 27; 
1658, March 9; 1659, January 13.


  Sir Job Charlton ill, Seymour chosen,         

                      1673, February 18.      Not merely pro tem. 1 

   Seymour being ill, Sir Robert Sawyer     Chand., 169, 276, 277.


                 chosen, 1678, April 15.<3-ln }>

  Sawyer being ill, Seymour chosen.



[[Page 142]]

  Thorpe in execution, a new Speaker chosen, 31 H. VI, 3 Grey, 11; and 
March 14, 1694, Sir John Trevor chosen. There have been no later 
instances. 2 Hats., 161; 4 Inst., 8; L. Parl., 263.


  The House of Representatives, by clause 7 of rule I, has provided for 
appointment and election of Speakers pro tempore.




Sec. 315. Removal of the Speaker.

  A  Speaker may be removed 
at the will of the House, and a Speaker pro tempore appointed, 2 Grey, 
186; 5 Grey, 134.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 142]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-41]

 
  The House of Representatives has never removed a Speaker; but it had 
on several occasions removed or suspended other officers, as Clerk and 
Doorkeeper (I, 287-290, 292; II, 1417), who are officers classed by the 
Constitution in the phrase ``the House of Representatives shall choose 
their Speaker and other officers.'' A resolution for the removal of an 
officer is presented as a matter of privilege (I, 284-286; VI, 35), and 
a resolution declaring the office of Speaker vacant presents a question 
of constitutional privilege (VI, 35).


                            SEC. X.--ADDRESS.


         *            *            *            *            *        




Sec. 316. Addresses to the President.

  A  joint address of 
both Houses of Parliament is read by the Speaker of the House of Lords. 
It may be attended by both Houses in a body, or by a Committee from each 
House, or by the two Speakers only. An address of the House of Commons 
only may be presented by the Whole House, or by the Speaker, 9 Grey, 
473; 1 Chandler, 298, 301; or by such particular members as are of the 
privy council. 2 Hats., 278.








[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 143-146]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-42]

[[Page 143]]

 
  In the first years of Congress the President annually delivered an 
address to the two Houses in joint session, and the House of 
Representatives then prepared an address, which the Speaker, attended by 
the House, carried to the President. A joint rule of 1789 also provided 
for the presentation of joint addresses of the two Houses to the 
President (V, 6630). In 1876 the joint rules of the House were 
abrogated, including the joint rule providing for presentation of the 
joint addresses of the two Houses to the President (V, 6782-6787). In 
1801 President Jefferson transmitted a message ``in writing'' and 
discontinued the practice of making addresses in person. From 1801 to 
1913 all messages were sent in writing (V, 6629), but President Wilson 
resumed the custom of making addresses in person on April 8, 1913, and, 
with the exception of President Hoover (VIII, 3333), the custom has been 
followed generally by subsequent Presidents. 


                          SEC. XI.--COMMITTEES.




Sec. 317. Appointment of standing committees; and 
designation and duties of chairmen thereof.

  Standing  committees, as of 
Privileges and Elections, &c., are usually appointed at the first 
meeting, to continue through the session. The person first named is 
generally permitted to act as chairman. But this is a matter of 
courtesy; every committee having a right to elect their own chairman, 
who presides over them, puts questions, and reports their proceedings to 
the House. 4 inst., 11, 12; Scob., 9; 1 Grey, 122.


  Prior to the 62d Congress, standing as well as select committees and 
their chairmen were appointed by the Speaker, but under the present form 
of rule X, adopted in 1911, continued as a part of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, and revised under the Committee Reform 
Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), 
standing committees and their respective chairmen are elected by the 
House (IV. 4448; VIII, 2178). Owing to their number and size, committees 
are not usually elected immediately, but resolutions providing for such 
elections are presented by the majority and minority parties pursuant to 
clause 6 of rule X as soon as they are able to perfect the lists. A 
committee may order its report to be made by the chairman, or by some 
other member (IV, 4669), even by a member of the minority party (IV, 
4672, 4673), or by a delegate, July 1, 1958 (Burns of Hawaii) p. 12871; 
and the chairman sometimes submits a report in which he has not 
concurred (IV, 4670). Clause 2(l)(1)(A) of rule XI requires that a 
report which has been approved by the committee must be filed with the 
House within seven calendar days after a written request from a majority 
of the committee is submitted to the committee clerk.


[[Page 144]]



Sec. 318. Parliamentary law as to debate in standing and 
select committees.

  At  these committees the members are to speak standing, 
and not sitting; though there is reason to conjecture it was formerly 
otherwise. D'Ewes, 630, col. 1; 4 Parl. Hist., 440; 2 Hats., 77.





Sec. 319. Secrecy of committee procedure.

  Their  proceedings 
are not to be published, as they are of no force till confirmed by the 
House. Rushw., part 3, vol. 2, 74; 3 Grey, 401; Scob., 39.* * *


  In the House of Representatives it is entirely within rule and usage 
for a committee to conduct its proceedings in secret (IV, 4558-4564; see 
also clause 2(g) of rule XI), and the House itself may not abrogate the 
secrecy of a committee's proceedings except by suspending the rule (IV, 
4565). The House has no information concerning the proceedings of a 
committee not officially reported by the committee (VII, 1015) and it is 
not in order in debate to refer to executive session proceedings of a 
committee which have not formally been reported to the House (V, 5080-
5083; VIII, 2269, 2485, 2493; June 24, 1958, pp. 12120, 12122; Apr. 5, 
1967, pp. 8411-12). A Member was, however, permitted to refer to the 
unreported executive session proceedings of a subcommittee to justify 
his point of order that a resolution providing for a select committee to 
inquire into action of the subcommittee was not privileged (June 30, 
1958, pp. 12690-91). In one case the House authorized the clerk of a 
committee to disclose by deposition its proceedings (III, 2604). Where a 
committee takes testimony it is sometimes very desirable that the 
proceedings be secret (III, 1694), as in the investigation in the Bank 
of the United States in 1834, when the committee determined that its 
proceedings should be confidential, not to be attended by any person not 
invited or required (III, 1732). It is for the committee, in its 
discretion, to determine whether the proceedings of the committee shall 
be open or not (clause 2(g) of rule XI). Clause 2(k) of rule XI 
establishes the procedure for closing a hearing because of defamatory, 
degrading, or incriminating testimony. Clause 4 of rule XLVIII 
establishes special rules governing the closing of hearings of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.


[[Page 145]]



Sec. 320. Reception of petitions by committees.

  Under clauses 2(a)(1) and 2(g)(1) and (2) of rule XI, all hearings and 
business meetings conducted by standing committees shall be open to the 
public, except when a committee, in open session, by rollcall vote, with 
a majority present, determines to close the meeting or hearing for that 
day.
   * * * Nor 
can they receive a petition but through the House. 9 Grey, 412.





Sec. 321. Parliamentary law of procedure when a committee 
inquiry involves a Member.

  When  a committee is charged with an inquiry, if 
a Member prove to be involved, they can not proceed against him but must 
make a special report to the House; whereupon the Member is heard in his 
place, or at the bar, or a special authority is given to the committee 
to inquire concerning him. 9 Grey, 523.




Sec. 322. Practice of House when a committee inquiry 
involves a Member.

  While  the authority of this principle has not been 
questioned by the House, there have in special instances been deviations 
from it. Thus, in 1832, when a Member had been slain in a duel, and the 
fact was notorious that all the principals and seconds were Members of 
the House, the committee, charged only with investigating the causes and 
whether or not there had been a breach of privilege, reported with their 
findings recommendations for expulsion and censure of the Members found 
to be implicated. There was criticism of this method of procedure as 
deviating from the rule of Jefferson's Manual, but the House did not 
recommit the report (II, 1644). In 1857, when a committee charged with 
inquiring into accusations against Members not named found certain 
Members implicated, they gave them copies of the testimony and 
opportunities to explain to the committee, under oath or otherwise, as 
they individually might prefer (III, 1845), but reported recommendations 
for expulsion without first seeking the order of the House (II, 1275; 
III, 1844). In 1859 and 1892 a similar procedure occurred (III, 1831, 
2637). But the House, in a case wherein an inquiry had incidentally 
involved a Member, evidently considered the parliamentary law as 
applicable, since it admitted as of privilege and agreed to a resolution 
directing the committee to report the charges (III, 1843). And in cases 
wherein testimony taken before a joint committee incidentally impeached 
the official characters of a Member and a Senator, the facts in each 
case were reported to the House interested (III, 1854). A select 
committee, appointed to report upon the right of a Member-elect to be 
sworn (H. Res. 1, 90th Cong., pp. 14-27, Jan. 10, 1967), invited him to 
appear, to testify, and permitted him to be accompanied by counsel (see 
H. Rept. 90-27).




[[Page 146]]



Sec. 323. Inquiries involving Members of other 
House.

  And  where one House, by its committee, has found a Member of the 
other implicated, the testimony has been transmitted (II, 1276; III, 
1850, 1852, 1853). Where such testimony was taken in open session of the 
committee, it was not thought necessary that it be under seal when sent 
to the other House (III, 1851).





Sec. 324. Duty of chairman of a committee when the House 
sits.

  So  soon as the House sits, and a committee is notified of it, the 
chairman is in duty bound to rise instantly, and the members to attend 
the service of the House. 2 Nals., 319.



  For the current practice of the House, see the annotation following 
clause 2(i) of rule XI (Sec. 710, infra).




Sec. 325. Action of joint committees.

  It  appears that on 
joint committees of the Lords and Commons each committee acted 
integrally in the following instances: 7 Grey, 261, 278, 285, 338; 1 
Chandler, 357, 462. In the following instances it does not appear 
whether they did or not: 6 Grey, 129; 7 Grey, 213, 229, 321.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 146-155]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-43]

 
  It is the practice in Congress that joint committees shall vote per 
capita, and not as representatives of the two Houses (IV, 4425), 
although the membership from the House of Representatives is usually, 
but not always (IV 4410), larger than that from the Senate (III, 1946; 
IV, 4426-4431). But ordinary committees of conference appointed to 
settle differences between the two Houses are not considered joint 
committees, and the managers of the two Houses vote separately (V, 
6336), each House having one vote. A quorum of a joint committee seems 
to have been considered to be a majority of the whole number rather than 
a majority of the membership of each House (IV, 4424). The first named 
of the Senate members acted as chairman in one notable instance (IV, 
4424), and in another the joint committee elected its chairman (IV, 
4447).


                   SEC. XII.--COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.


[[Page 147]]
by the House are then referred to one or more select committees, 
according as the subject divides itself into one or more bills. Scob., 
36, 44. Propositions for any charge on the people are especially to be 
first made in a Committee of the Whole. 3 Hats., 127. The sense of the 
whole is better taken in committee, because in all committees everyone 
speaks as often as he pleases. Scob., 49. * * *



Sec. 326. Parliamentary usage as to Committee of the 
Whole.

  The  speech, messages, and other matters of great concernment are 
usually referred to a Committee of the Whole House (6 Grey, 311), where 
general principles are digested in the form of resolutions, which are 
debated and amended till they get into a shape which meets the 
approbation of a majority. These being reported and confirmed 


  This provision is largely obsolete, the House of Representatives 
having by its rules and practice provided specifically for procedure in 
Committee of the Whole, and having also by its rules for the order of 
business left no privileged status for motions to go into Committee of 
the Whole on matters not already referred to that committee. The 
Committee of the Whole no longer originates resolutions or bills, but 
receives such as have been formulated by standing or select committees 
and referred to it; and when it reports, the House usually acts at once 
on the report without reference to select or other committees (IV, 
4705). The practice of referring annual messages of the President to 
Committee of the Whole, to be there considered and reported with 
recommendations for the reference of various portions to the proper 
standing or select committees (V, 6621, 6622), was discontinued in the 
64th Congress (VIII, 3350). The current practice is to refer the annual 
message to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
and order it printed (Jan. 14, 1969, p. 651). Executive communications 
submitted to implement the proposals contained in the State of the Union 
Message are referred by the Speaker to the various committees having 
jurisdiction over the subject matter therein.




Sec. 327. Selection of chairman of Committee of the 
Whole.

  * * *  They generally acquiesce in the chairman named by the Speaker; 
but, as well as all other committees, have a right to elect one, some 
member, by consent, putting the question, Scob., 36; 3 Grey, 301. * * *




[[Page 148]]

  The House of Representatives (by clause 1 of rule XXIII) gives the 
authority to appoint the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to the 
Speaker (IV, 4704).




Sec. 328. Form of going into Committee of the Whole.

  * * *  The form of going from the House into committee, is for the Speaker, 
on motion, to put the question that the House do now resolve itself into 
a Committee of the Whole to take into consideration such a matter, 
naming it. If determined in the affirmative, he leaves the chair and 
takes a seat elsewhere, as any other Member; and the person appointed 
chairman seats himself at the Clerk's table. Scob., 36. * * *



  This is the form in the House of Representatives, except that the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole seats himself in the Speaker's 
chair. In the 97th Congress, clause 1(b) was added to rule XXIII to 
authorize the Speaker, when no other business is pending, to declare the 
House resolved into Committee of the Whole to consider a measure at any 
time after the House has adopted a special order providing for 
consideration of such measure, unless the resolution specifies otherwise 
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34).




Sec. 329. Quorum in Committee of the Whole.

  * * *  Their 
quorum is the same as that of the House; and if a defect happens, the 
chairman, on a motion and question, rises, the Speaker resumes the chair 
and the chairman can make no other report than to inform the House of 
the cause of their dissolution. * * *



  Until 1890 a quorum of the Committees of the Whole was the same as the 
quorum of the House; but in 1890 the rule (clause 2 of rule XXIII) fixed 
it at one hundred (IV, 2966). Clause 2 of rule XXIII and clauses 2 and 5 
of rule XV provide the procedures that are followed in Committees of the 
Whole in case of failure of a quorum.



[[Page 149]]



Sec. 330. Rising of committee for reception of 
messages.

  * * *  If a message is announced during a committee, the Speaker 
takes the chair and receives it, because the committee can not. 2 Hats., 
125, 126.



  In the House of Representatives the committee rises informally to 
receive a message, without question being put (IV, 4786, footnote; Feb. 
8, 1995, p. ----); but at this rising the House may not have the message 
read or transact other business except by unanimous consent (IV, 4787-
4791).




Sec. 331. Quarrels in Committee of the Whole, and duty of 
the Speaker in relation thereto.

  In  a Committee of the Whole, the tellers 
on a division differing as to numbers, great heats and confusion arose, 
and danger of a decision by the sword. The Speaker took the chair, the 
mace was forcibly laid on the table; whereupon the Members retiring to 
their places, the Speaker told the House ``he has taken the chair 
without an order to bring the House into order.'' Some excepted against 
it; but it was generally approved as the only expedient to suppress the 
disorder. And every Member was required, standing up in his place, to 
engage that he would proceed no further in consequence of what had 
happened in the grand committee, which was done. 3 Grey, 128.


  In the House of Representatives the Speaker has on several occasions 
taken the chair ``without an order to bring the House into order'' (II, 
1648-1653), but that being accomplished he may yield to the chairman 
that the committee may rise in due form (II, 1349). In one instance, a 
Member having defied and insulted the chairman, he left the chair, and, 
on the chair being taken by the Speaker, reported the facts to the House 
(II, 1653). In several cases Members who have quarrelled have made 
explanation and reconciled their difficulties (II, 1651), or have been 
compelled by the House to apologize ``for violating its privilege and 
offending its dignity'' (II, 1648, 1650).


[[Page 150]]
and it was decided in the House, without returning into committee. 3 
Grey, 130.



Sec. 332. Effect of breaking up of Committee of the Whole by 
disorder.

  A  Committee of the Whole being broken up in disorder, and the 
chair resumed by the Speaker without an order, the House was adjourned. 
The next day the committee was considered as thereby dissolved, and the 
subject again before the House; 



  This provision is obsolete, since in the practice of the House of 
Representatives there are but two committees of the whole, which are in 
their nature standing committees, with calendars of business. They are 
never dissolved, and bills remain on their calendars until reported in 
the regular manner after consideration (IV, 4705). When the Speaker 
restores order he usually yields the chair to the chairman, thus 
permitting the committee later to rise in due form (II, 1349).


[[Page 151]]
makes the report; but if it be late, the cry is ``to-morrow, to-
morrow,'' or ``Monday,'' etc., or a motion is made to that effect, and a 
question put that it be received to-morrow, &c. Scob., 38.



Sec. 333. Motions for previous question and to adjourn not 
used in Committee of the Whole.

  No  previous question can be put in a 
committee; nor can this committee adjourn as others may; but if their 
business is unfinished, they rise, on a question, the House is resumed, 
and the chairman reports that the Committee of the Whole have, according 
to order, had under their consideration such a matter, and have made 
progress therein; but not having had time to go through the same, have 
directed him to ask leave to sit again. Whereupon a question is put on 
their having leave, and on the time the House will again resolve itself 
into a committee. Scob., 38. But if they have gone through the 
matter <> referred to them, a member moves that the committee may 
rise, and the chairman report their proceedings to the House; which 
being resolved, the chairman rises, the Speaker resumes the chair, the 
chairman informs him that the committee have gone through the business 
referred to them, and that he is ready to make report when the House 
shall think proper to receive it. If the House have time to receive it, 
there is usually a cry of ``now, now,'' whereupon he 


  In the practice of the House the previous question and motion to 
adjourn are not admitted in Committee of the Whole; but the rules 
(clauses 5 and 6 of rule XXIII) provide for closing both the general and 
five-minute debate. When the committee rises without concluding a matter 
the chairman reports that they ``have come to no resolution thereon''; 
but leave to sit again is not asked in the modern practice. The 
permission of the House is not asked when the chairman reports a matter 
concluded in committee. The report is made and received as a matter of 
course, and in thereupon before the House for action. When the House has 
vested control of general debate in certain Members, their control may 
not be abrogated during general debate by another Member moving to rise, 
unless they yield for that purpose (May 25, 1967, p. 14121). A Member 
yielded time in general debate may not yield to another for such motion 
(Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2178). The motion that the Committee of the Whole 
rise is privileged during debate under the five-minute rule, and may be 
offered during debate on a pending amendment, except where a Member has 
the floor (Aug. 13, 1986, p. 21215; Mar. 22, 1995, p. ----). The motion 
to rise may not include restrictions on the amendment process or 
limitations on future debate on amendments (June 6, 1990, p. 13234). For 
a further discussion of the motion to rise, see Sec. 864, infra.


[[Page 152]]
related to the latter bills could be received only by unanimous consent 
(IV, 4911). When a report is ruled out as in excess of the committee's 
power, the accompanying bill stands recommitted (IV, 4784, 4907). A 
report from a Committee of the Whole could not formerly be received in 
the absence of a quorum (VI, 666; see clause 6 of rule XV). The 
Committee of the <> Whole, like any other committee, may amend a proposition either 
by an ordinary amendment or by a substitute amendment (IV, 4899), but 
these amendments must be reported to the House for action. Amendments 
rejected by the committee are not reported (IV, 4877). Ordinarily all 
amendments must be disposed of before the committee may report (IV, 
4752-4758); but sometimes a special order requires a report at a 
specified time, in which case pending amendments are reported (IV, 3225-
3228) or not (IV, 4910) as the terms of the order may direct. In the 
98th Congress, clause 2 of rule XXI was amended to give precedence to 
the motion that the Committee rise and report a general appropriation 
bill at the conclusion of its reading for amendment and prior to or 
between consideration of amendments proposing certain limitations or 
retrenchments (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). The 104th Congress 
further amended clause 2 to permit only the Majority Leader or a 
designee to offer that motion (sec. 215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 
----). The practice of the House, based originally on a rule (IV, 4904), 
requires amendments to be reported from the Committee of the Whole in 
their perfected forms, and this holds good even in the case of an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, which may have been amended 
freely (IV, 4900-4903). If a Committee of the Whole amends a paragraph 
and subsequently strikes out the paragraph as amended, the first 
amendment fails, and is not reported to the House or voted on (IV, 4898; 
V, 6169; VIII, 2421, 2426), and when the Committee of the Whole adopts 
two amendments that are subsequently deleted by an amendment striking 
out and inserting new text, only the latter amendment is reported to the 
House (June 20, 1967, pp. 16497-98). Normally, if the Committee of the 
Whole perfects a bill by adopting certain amendments and then adopts an 
amendment striking out all after section one of the bill and inserting a 
new text, only the bill, as amended by the motion to strike out and 
insert, is reported to the House; but when the bill is being considered 
under a special rule permitting a separate vote in the House on any of 
the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or the 
committee substitute, all amendments adopted in the Committee are 
reported to the House regardless of their consistency (May 26, 1960, pp. 
11302-04). Where a separate vote is demanded in this type of situation 
in the House only on an amendment striking out a section of a committee 
substitute, but not on perfecting amendments which have been previously 
adopted in Committee of the Whole to that section, rejection in the 
House of the motion to strike the section results in a vote on the 
committee substitute in its original form and not as perfected, since 
the perfecting amendments have been displaced in the Committee of the 
Whole and have not 

[[Page 153]]
been revived on a separate vote in the House (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 13, 
1977, pp. 33622-24). But where the Committee of the Whole reports a bill 
to the House with an adopted amendment in the nature of a substitute and 
the special order in question does not provide for separate House votes 
on amendments thereto, a separate vote may not be demanded on an 
amendment to such amendment, since only one amendment in its perfected 
form has been reported back to the House (Nov. 17, 1983, p. 33463).


Sec. 335. Duties of Speaker and House as to reception of 
reports of Committee of the Whole.

  The  Speaker recognizes only reports 
from the Committee of the Whole made by the chairman thereof (V, 6987), 
and a matter alleged to have arisen therein but not reported may not be 
brought to the attention of the House (VIII, 2429, 2430) even on the 
claim that a question of privilege is involved (IV, 4912; V, 6987; VIII, 
2430). In one instance, however, the committee reported with a bill a 
resolution relating to an alleged breach of privilege (V, 6986). When a 
bill is reported the Speaker must assume that it has passed through all 
the stages necessary for the report (IV, 4916). When the committee 
reported not only what it had done but by whom it had been prevented 
from doing other things, the Speaker held that the House might not amend 
the report, which stood (IV, 4909). But a committee may not report a 
recommendation which, if carried into effect, would change a rule of the 
House (IV, 4907, 4908) unless a measure proposing amendments to House 
rules has initially been referred to the Committee of the Whole by the 
House. When an amendment is reported by the committee it may not be 
withdrawn, and a question as to its validity is not considered by the 
Speaker (IV, 4900). When a committee, directed by order of the House to 
consider certain bills, reported also certain other bills, the Speaker 
held that so much of the report as 



[[Page 154]]



Sec. 337. Committee of the Whole amendments in the 
House.

  All  amendments to a bill reported from the Committee of the Whole 
stand on an equal footing and must be voted on by the House (IV, 4871) 
in the order in which they are reported, although they may be 
inconsistent, one with another (IV, 4881, 4882), and are subject to 
amendment in the House unless the previous question is ordered (VIII, 
2419). Two amendments being reported as distinct were considered 
independently, although apparently one was a proviso attaching to the 
other (IV, 4905); and an entire and distinct amendment may not be 
divided, but must be voted on by the House as a whole (IV, 4883-4892; 
VIII, 2426). It is a frequent practice for the House by unanimous 
consent, to act at once on all the amendments to a bill reported from 
the Committee of the Whole, but it is the right of any Member to demand 
a separate vote on any amendment (IV, 4893, 4894; VIII, 2419). Where a 
special rule permits en bloc consideration of certain amendments in 
Committee of the Whole, those amendments if reported back to the House 
may also be considered en bloc for a separate vote in the House on 
demand of any Member (Speaker O'Neill, Sept. 7, 1978, p. 28425). A 
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on an amendment to a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole where the bill is being considered under a 
special rule permitting separate votes in the House on any of the 
amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or 
committee amendment (Sept. 30, 1971, p. 34337), but where a special rule 
``self-executes'' an amendment as a modification of an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to be considered as an original bill, that 
modification is not separately voted on upon demand in the House 
(Speaker Foley, Feb. 3, 1993, p. ----). A Member may withdraw a demand 
for a separate vote in the House on an amendment reported from Committee 
of the Whole prior to the Speaker's putting the question thereon, and 
unanimous consent is not required (May 28, 1987, p. 14030). When demand 
is made for separate votes in the House on several amendments adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole, the amendments are voted on in the House in 
the order in which they appear in the bill (July 24, 1968, pp. 23093-95; 
May 28, 1987, p. 14030), except when amendments have been considered 
under a special rule prescribing the order for their consideration where 
the bill is considered as read, in which case they are voted on upon 
demand in the order in which considered in Committee of the Whole (Mar. 
11, 1993, p. ----; Mar. 25, 1993, p. ----). 


  Depending on the will of the House as expressed on the question of 
ordering the previous question (IV, 4895; V, 5794; VIII, 2419), when a 
bill is reported with amendments, it is in order to submit additional 
amendments after disposition of the committee amendments (IV, 4872-
4876). However, in modern practice the opportunity to submit amendments 
is normally foreclosed by the ordering of the previous question under a 
special rule. The fact that a proposition has been rejected by the 
Committee of the Whole does not prevent it from being offered as an 
amendment when the subject comes up in the House (IV, 4878-4880; VIII, 
2700). A substitute amendment may be offered to a bill reported from 
committee, and then the previous question may be ordered on the 
substitute, on all other amendments, and on the bill to final passage 
(V, 5472). An amendment in the nature of a substitute reported from 
committee is treated like any other amendment (V, 5341), and if the 
House rejects the substitute the original bill without amendment is 
before the House (VIII, 2426).



Sec. 338. Bills from Committee of the Whole in the 
House.

  Where  a series of bills are reported from Committee of the Whole, the 
House considers them in the order in which they are reported (IV, 4869, 
4870; VIII, 2417). A proposition reported for action has precedence over 
an independent resolution on the same subject offered by a Member from 
the floor (V, 6986), and where a bill and a resolution relating to an 
alleged breach of privilege were reported together the question was put 
first on the bill (V, 6986). A bill read in full and considered in 
Committee of the Whole (IV, 3409, 3410), or presumed to have been so 
read (IV, 4916), is not read in full again in the House when reported 
and acted on. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole which reports a 
bill does not become entitled to prior recognition for debate in the 
House (II, 1453); but on an adverse report an opponent is recognized to 
make a motion for disposition of the bill (IV, 4897; VIII, 2430), or for 
debate (VII, 2629). The recommendation of the committee being before the 
House, the motion to carry out the recommendation is usually considered 
as pending without being offered from the floor (IV, 4896), but when a 
bill was reported with a recommendation that it lie on the table, a 
question was raised as to whether or not this motion, which prevents 
debate, should be considered as pending (IV, 4897). The House considers 
an amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole to the preamble of 
a Senate joint resolution following disposition of amendments to the 
text and pending third reading (May 25, 1993, p. ----).



[[Page 155]]

<>   In other things the rules or proceedings are to be the same as in 
the House. Scob., 39.



Sec. 339. Discharge of the Committee of the Whole.

  A  motion 
to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the consideration of a 
matter committed to it is not privileged as against a demand for the 
regular order (IV, 4917). When the committee is discharged from 
consideration of a bill the House, in lieu of the report of the 
chairman, accepts the minutes of the Clerk as evidence of amendments 
agreed to (IV, 4922).






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 155-160]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-44]

 
  The House of Representatives provides by rule (clause 9 of rule XXIII) 
that the rules of proceeding in the House shall apply in Committee of 
the Whole so far as they may be applicable.


                  SEC. XIII.--EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.




Sec. 341. Common fame as ground for 
investigation.

  Common  fame is a good ground for the House to proceed by 
inquiry, and even to accusation. Resolution House of Commons, 1 Car., 1, 
1625; Rush, L. Parl., 115; Grey, 16-22, 92; 8 Grey, 21, 23, 27, 45.



<>   
Witnesses are not to be produced but where the House has previously 
instituted an inquiry, 2 Hats., 102, nor then are orders for their 
attendance given blank. 3 Grey, 51.

  In the House of Representatives common fame has been held sufficient 
to justify procedure for inquiry (III, 2701), as in a case wherein it 
was stated on the authority of ``common rumor'' that a Member had been 
menaced (III, 2678). The House also has voted to investigate with a view 
to impeachment on the basis of common fame, as in the cases of Judges 
Chase (III, 2342), Humphreys (III, 2385), and Durell (III, 2506).


[[Page 156]]
chairman of the committee or by any other member designated by the 
committee. Sometimes the House authorizes issue of subpoenas during a 
recess of Congress and empowers the Speaker to sign them (III, 1806), 
and in one case the two Houses, by concurrent resolution, empowered the 
Vice President and Speaker to sign during a recess (III, 1763). (See 
Barry v. U.S. ex. rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597; McGrain v. Daugherty, 
273 U.S. 135; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263).

  In the House of Representatives witnesses are summoned in pursuance 
and by virtue of the authority conferred on a committee by the House to 
send for persons and papers (III, 1750). Even in cases wherein the rules 
give to certain committees the authority to investigate without securing 
special permission, authority must be obtained before the production of 
testimony may be compelled (IV, 4316). The rules require that subpoenas 
issued by order of the House be signed by the Speaker (clause 4 of rule 
I) and attested and sealed by the Clerk (clause 3 of rule III). However, 
in clause 2(m) of rule XI the House has authorized any committee or 
subcommittee to issue a subpoena when authorized by a majority of the 
members of the committee or subcommittee voting, a majority being 
present. A committee may also delegate the authority to issue subpoenas 
to the chairman of a full committee. Authorized subpoenas are signed by 
the 




Sec. 343. Examination of witnesses in the House and in 
committee.

  When  any person is examined before a committee or at the bar of 
the House, any Member wishing to ask the person a question must address 
it to the Speaker or chairman, who repeats the question to the person, 
or says to him, ``You hear the question--answer it.'' But if the 
propriety of the question be objected to, the Speaker directs the 
witness, counsel, and parties to withdraw; for no question can be moved 
or put or debated while they are there. 2 Hats., 108. Sometimes the 
questions are previously settled in writing before the witness enters. 
Ib., 106, 107; 8 Grey, 64. The questions asked must be entered in the 
journals. 3 Grey, 81. But the testimony given in answer before the House 
is never written down; but before a committee, it must be, for the 
information of the House, who are not present to hear it. 7 Grey, 52, 
334.



[[Page 157]]
tions and answers of record for report to the House. To sustain a 
conviction of perjury, a quorum of a committee must be in attendance 
when the testimony is given (Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84). 
Certain criminal statutes make it a felony to give perjurious testimony 
before a Congressional committee (18 U.S.C. 1621), to intimidate 
witnesses before committees (18 U.S.C. 1505), or to make false 
statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or 
agency of the United States (18 U.S.C. 1001). The latter statute had 
been interpreted to include false statements made by Members to Congress 
or courts, but in Hubbard v. United States, 94 U.S. 172 (1995), the 
Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. 1001 did not apply to statements made 
to Congress or the courts.
  The Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives was charged 
with an investigation in 1792, but the procedure was wholly exceptional 
(III, 1804), although a statute still empowers the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole, as well as the Speaker, chairmen of select or 
standing committees, and Members to administer oaths to witnesses (2 
U.S.C. 191; III, 1769). Most inquiries, in the modern practice, are 
conducted by select or standing committees, and these in each case 
determine how they will conduct examinations (III, 1773, 1775). Clause 
2(k) of rule XI, contains provisions governing certain procedures at 
investigative hearings by committees (Sec. 712, infra). In one case a 
committee permitted a Member of the House not of the committee to 
examine a witness (III, 2403). Usually these investigations are reported 
stenographically, thus making the ques


  Another provision of the Federal criminal code (18 U.S.C. 6005) 
provides for ``use'' immunity for certain witnesses before either House 
or committees thereof as follows:


                 ``Sec. 6005. Congressional Proceedings.

  ``(a) In the case of any individual who has been or may be called to 
testify or provide other information at any proceeding before either 
House of Congress, or any committee, or any subcommittee of either 
House, or any joint committee of the two Houses, a United States 
district court shall issue, in accordance with subsection (b) of this 
section, upon the request of a duly authorized representative of the 
House of Congress or the committee concerned, an order requiring such 
individual to give testimony or provide other information which he 
refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-
incrimination, such order to become effective as provided in section 
6002 of this part.

  ``(b) Before issuing an order under subsection (a) of this section, a 
United States district court shall find that--

          ``(1) in the case of a proceeding before either House of 

        Congress, the request for such an order has been approved by an 

        affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present of that 

        House;

          ``(2) in the case of a proceeding before a committee or a 

        subcommittee of either House of Congress or a joint committee of 

        both Houses, the request for such an order has been approved by 

        an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the full 

        committee; and

          ``(3) ten days or more prior to the day on which the request 

        for such an order was made, the Attorney General was served with 

        notice of an intention to request the order.



[[Page 158]]

  ``(c) Upon application of the Attorney General, the United States 
district court shall defer the issuance of any order under subsection 
(a) of this section for such period, not longer than twenty days from 
the date of the request for such order, as the Attorney General may 
specify.''.




Sec. 344. Earlier and later practice as to inquiries at 
the bar of the House.

  The  House, in its earlier years, arraigned and 
tried at its bar persons, not Members, charged with violation of its 
privileges, as in the cases of Randall, Whitney (II, 1599-1603), 
Anderson (II, 1606), and Houston (II, 1616); but in the case of Woods, 
charged with breach of privilege in 1870 (II, 1626-1628), the respondent 
was arraigned before the House, but was heard in his defense by counsel 
and witnesses before a standing committee. At the conclusion of that 
investigation the respondent was brought to the bar of the House while 
the House voted his punishment (II, 1628). The House has also arraigned 
at its bar contumacious witnesses before taking steps to punish by its 
own action or through the courts (III, 1685). In examinations at its bar 
the House has adopted forms of procedure as to questions (II, 1633, 
1768), providing that they be asked through the Speaker (II, 1602, 1606) 
or by a committee (II, 1617; III, 1668). And the questions to be asked 
have been drawn up by a committee, even when put by the Speaker (II, 
1633). In the earlier practice the answer of a witness at the bar was 
not written down (IV, 2874); but in the later practice the answers 
appear in the journal (III, 1668). The person at the bar withdraws while 
the House passes on an incidental question (II, 1633; III, 1768). (See 
McGrain v. Dougherty, 273 U.S. 135; Barry v. U.S. ex. rel. Cunningham, 
279 U.S. 597; Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125).




Sec. 345. Procuring attendance of a witness in custody of 
the other House.

  If  either House have occasion for the presence of a 
person in custody of the other, they ask the other their leave that he 
may be brought up to them in custody. 3 Hats., 52.





Sec. 346. Members as witnesses.

  A  Member, in his place, 
gives information to the House of what he knows of any matter under 
hearing at the bar. Jour. H. of C., Jan. 22, 1744-5.



[[Page 159]]
tered the oath to himself and testified (III, 1821). The House, in an 
inquiry preliminary to an impeachment trial, gave leave to its managers 
to examine Members, and leave to its Members to attend for the purpose 
(III, 2033).

  At an examination at the bar of the House in 1795 both the written 
information given by Members and their verbal testimony were required to 
be under oath (II, 1602). In a case not of actual examination at the 
bar, but wherein the House was deliberating on a proposition to order 
investigation, it demanded by resolution that certain Members produce 
papers and information (III, 1726, 1811). Members often give testimony 
before committees of investigation, and in at least one case the Speaker 
has thus appeared (III, 1776). But in a case wherein a committee 
summoned a Member to testify as to a statement made by him in debate he 
protested that it was an invasion of his constitutional privilege (III, 
1777, 1778; see also H. Rept. 1372, 67th Cong. and Cong. Rec. 5, 1923, 
pp. 2415-23). In one instance the chairman of an investigating committee 
adminis




Sec. 347. Method of obtaining testimony of a Member of 
the other House.

  Either  House may request, but not command, the attendance of 
a Member of the other. They are to make the request by message of the 
other House, and to express clearly the purpose of attendance, that no 
improper subject of examination may be tendered to him. The House then 
gives leave to the Member to attend, if he choose it; waiting first to 
know from the Member himself whether he chooses to attend, till which 
they do not take the message into consideration. But when the peers are 
sitting as a court of criminal judicature, they may order attendance, 
unless where it be a case of impeachment by the Commons. There it is to 
be a request. 3 Hats., 17; 9 Grey, 306, 406; 10 Grey, 133.



  The House of Representatives and the Senate have observed this rule; 
but it does not appear that they have always made public ascertainment 
of the willingness of the Member to attend (III, 1790, 1791). In one 
case the Senate laid aside pending business in order to comply with the 
request of the House (III, 1791). In several instances House committees, 
after their invitations to Senators to appear and testify had been 
disregarded, have issued subpoenas. In such cases the Senators have 
either disregarded the subpoenas, refused to obey them, or have appeared 
under protest (III, 1792, 1793). In one case, after a Senator had 
neglected to respond either to an invitation or a subpoena the House 
requested of the Senate his attendance and the Senate disregarded the 
request (III, 1794). Where Senators have responded to invitations of 
House committees, their testimony has been taken without obtaining 
consent of the Senate (III, 1793, 1795, footnote).



[[Page 160]]



Sec. 348. Admission of counsel.

  Counsel  are to be heard only 
on private, not on public, bills and on such points of law only as the 
House shall direct. 10 Grey, 61.


  In 1804 the House admitted the counsel of certain corporations to 
address the House on pending matters of legislation (V, 7298), and in 
1806 voted that a claimant might be heard at the bar (V, 7299); but in 
1808, after consideration, the House by a large majority declined to 
follow again the precedent of 1804 (V, 7300). In early years counsel in 
election cases were heard at the bar at the discretion of the House (I, 
657, 709, 757, 765); but in 1836, after full discussion, the practice 
was abandoned (I, 660), and, with one exception in 1841 (I, 659), has 
not been revived, even for the case of a contestant who could not speak 
the English language (I, 661). Counsel appear before committees in 
election cases, however. Where witnesses and others have been arraigned 
at the bar of the House for contempt, the House has usually permitted 
counsel (II, 1601, 1616; III, 1667), sometimes under conditions (II, 
1604, 1616); but in a few cases has declined the request (II, 1608; III, 
1666, footnote). In investigations before committees counsel usually 
have been admitted (III, 1741, 1846, 1847), sometimes even to assist a 
witness (III, 1772), and clause 2(k)(3) of rule XI now provides that 
witnesses at investigative hearings may be accompanied by their own 
counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional 
rights (Sec. 712). In examinations preliminary to impeachment counsel 
usually have been admitted (III, 1736, 2470, 2516) unless in cases 
wherein such proceedings were ex parte. During its investigation into 
charges of impeachment against President Nixon, the Committee on the 
Judiciary admitted counsel to the President to be present, to make 
presentations and to examine witnesses during investigatory hearings (H. 
Rept. 93-1305, Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219).





[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 160-162]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-45]

 
  At one time the House required all counsel or agents representing 
persons or corporations before committees to be registered with the 
Clerk (III, 1771). The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (Title III of 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946) requires all lobbyists to 
register with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate (2 
U.S.C. 267).


                   SEC. XIV.--ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS.



Sec. 349. Advantages of an order of business.

  The  Speaker is 
not precisely bound to any rules as to what bills or other matter shall 
be first taken up; but it is left to his own discretion, unless the 
House on a question decide to take up a particular subject. Hakew., 136.



[[Page 161]]
their special patronage, out of their just turn. It is useful also for 
directing the discretion of the House, when they are moved to take up a 
particular matter, to the prejudice of others, having priority of right 
to their attention in the general order of business.

  A settled order of business is, however, necessary for the government 
of the presiding person, and to restrain individual Members from calling 
up favorite measures, or matters under 


         *            *            *            *            *        


  In this way we do not waste our time in debating what shall be taken 
up. We do one thing at a time; follow up a subject while it is fresh, 
and till it is done with; clear the House of business gradatim as it is 
brought on, and prevent, to a certain degree, its immense accumulation 
toward the close of the session.

  Jefferson gave as a part of his comment on the law of Parliament the 
order of business in the Senate in his time. Both in the House and 
Senate the order of business has been changed to meet the needs of the 
times. The order of business now followed in the House is established by 
rule XXIV; and this rule, with the rules supplemental thereto, take away 
to a very large extent the discretion exercised by the Speaker under the 
parliamentary law.


  In the House of Representatives before committees are appointed it is 
in order to offer a bill or resolution for consideration not previously 
considered by a committee (VII, 2103). In the 73d Congress, the House 
passed before the adoption of rules and election of committees a bill of 
major importance (H.R. 1491, providing relief in the existing national 
emergency in banking), following a message from President Roosevelt 
recommending its immediate passage (Mar. 9, 1933, pp. 75-84). After 
committees are appointed, bills and resolutions not otherwise in order 
must be referred (VII, 2104).


[[Page 162]]
reading as soon as the question then before the House is disposed of; 
and bills brought in on leave, which are read first whenever presented. 
So messages from the other House respecting amendments to bills are 
taken up as soon as the House is clear of a question, unless they 
require to be printed, for better consideration. Orders of the day may 
be called for, even when another question is before the House.



Sec. 350. Conditions of the old and the modern 
orders of business.

  Arrangement,  however, can only take hold of matters in 
possession of the House. New matter may be moved at any time when no 
question is before the House. Such are original motions and reports on 
bills. Such are bills from the other House, which are received at all 
times, and receive their first 






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 162]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-46]

 
  In Jefferson's time the principles of this comment would have applied 
to both House and Senate; but in the House the pressure of business has 
become so great that the order of business may be interrupted at the 
will of the majority only by certain specified matters (see annotations 
following rule XXIV). For matters not thus specified, interruption of 
the order takes place only by unanimous consent.


                            SEC. XV.--ORDER.


         *            *            *            *            *        




Sec. 351. Precedent in Parliament and the 
House.

  In  Parliament, ``instances make order,'' per Speaker Onslow. 2 
Hats., 141. But what is done only by one Parliament, cannot be called 
custom of Parliament, by Prynne. 1 Grey, 52.








[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 163]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-47]

[[Page 163]]

 
  In the House of Representatives the Clerk is required to note all 
questions of order and the decisions thereon and print the record 
thereof as an appendix to the Journal (clause 3 of rule III). The 
Parliamentarian has the responsibility for compiling and updating the 
precedents (sec. 341-342, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970; 84 
Stat. 1140). The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 gave the Speaker 
the responsibility to prepare an updated compilation of such precedents 
every two years (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The 
Speaker feels constrained in his rulings to give precedent its proper 
influence (II, 1317), since the advantage of such a course are 
undeniable (IV, 4045). But decisions of the Speakers on questions of 
order are not like judgments of courts which conclude the rights of 
parties, but may be reexamined and reversed (IV, 4637), except on 
discretionary matters of recognition (II, 1425). It is rare, however, 
that such a reversal occurs. 


                   SEC. XVI.--ORDER RESPECTING PAPERS.



Sec. 352. Safe keeping of papers and integrity of 
bills.

  The  Clerk is to let no journals, records, accounts, or papers be 
taken from the table or out of his custody. 2 Hats., 193, 194.


  Mr. Prynne, having at a Committee of the Whole amended a mistake in a 
bill without order or knowledge of the committee, was reprimanded. 1 
Chand., 77.

  A bill being missing, the House resolved that a protestation should be 
made and subscribed by the members ``before Almighty God, and this 
honorable House, that neither myself, nor any other to my knowledge, 
have taken away, or do at this present conceal a bill entitled,'' &c. 5 
Grey, 202.


  After a bill is engrossed, it is put into the Speaker's hands, and he 
is not to let any one have it to look into. Town, col. 209.





[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 163-181]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-48]

 
  In the House of Representatives an alleged improper alteration of a 
bill was presented as a question of privilege and examined by a select 
committee. It being ascertained that the alteration was made to correct 
a clerical error, the committee reported that it was ``highly censurable 
in any Member or officer of the House to make any change, even the most 
unimportant, in any bill or resolution which has received the sanction 
of this body'' (III, 2598). Engrossed bills do not go into the Speaker's 
hands. Enrolled bills go to him for signature.


<>   
When the Speaker is seated in his chair, every member is to sit in his 
place. Scob., 6; Grey, 403.

                      SEC. XVII.--ORDER IN DEBATE.



[[Page 164]]

  In the House of Representatives the decorum of Members is regulated by 
the various provisions of rule XIV; and this provision of the 
parliamentary law is practically obsolete.




Sec. 354. Procedure of the Member in seeking recognition.

  When  any Member means to speak, he is to stand up in his place, uncovered, 
and to address himself, not to the House, or any particular Member, but 
to the Speaker, who calls him by his name, that the House may take 
notice who it is that speaks. Scob., 6; D'Ewes, 487, col. 1; 2 Hats., 
77; 4 Grey, 66; 8 Grey, 108. But Members who are indisposed may be 
indulged to speak sitting. 2 Hats., 75, 77; 1 Grey, 143.



<>   When a Member stands up to 
speak, no question is to be put, but he is to be heard unless the House 
overrule him. 4 Grey, 390; 5 Grey, 6, 143.

  In the House of Representatives the Member, in seeking recognition is 
governed by clause 1 of rule XIV, which differs materially from this 
provision of the parliamentary law. The Speaker, moreover, calls the 
Member, not by name, but as ``the gentleman (or gentlewoman) from ------
,'' naming the State. As long ago as 1832, at least, a Member was not 
required to rise from his own seat (V, 4979, footnote).


  In the House of Representatives no question is put as to the right of 
a Member to the floor, unless he be called to order and dealt with by 
the House under clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV.


[[Page 165]]



Sec. 356. The parliamentary law as to recognition by the 
Speaker.

  If  two or more rise to speak nearly together, the Speaker 
determines who was first up, and calls him by name, whereupon he 
proceeds, unless he voluntarily sits down and gives way to the other. 
But sometimes the House does not acquiesce in the Speaker's decision, in 
which case the question is put, ``which Member was first up?'' 2 Hats., 
76; Scob., 7; D'Ewes, 434, col. 1, 2. 



  In the Senate of the United States the President's decision is without 
appeal.


  In the House of Representatives recognition by the Chair is governed 
by clause 2 of rule XIV and the practice thereunder. There has been no 
appeal from a decision by the Speaker on a question of recognition since 
1881, on which occasion Speaker Randall stated that the power of 
recognition is ``just as absolute in the Chair as the judgment of the 
Supreme Court of the United States is absolute as to the interpretation 
of the law'' (II, 1425-1428), and in the later practice no appeal is 
permitted (VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762).



Sec. 357. Right of the Member to be heard a second 
time.

  No  man may speak more than once on the same bill on the same day; 
or even on another day, if the debate be adjourned. But if it be read 
more than once in the same day, he may speak once at every reading. Co., 
12, 115; Hakew., 148; Scob., 58; 2 Hats., 75. Even a change of opinion 
does not give a right to be heard a second time. Smyth's Comw. L., 2, c. 
3; Arcan, Parl., 17.



  But he may be permitted to speak again to clear a matter of fact, 3 
Grey, 357, 416; or merely to explain himself, 2 Hats., 73, in some 
material part of his speech, Ib., 75; or to the manner or words of the 
question, keeping himself to that only, and not traveling into the 
merits of it, Memorials in Hakew., 29; or to the orders of the House, if 
they be transgressed, keeping within that line, and not falling into the 
matter itself. Mem. Hakew., 30, 31.



[[Page 166]]

  The House of Representatives has modified the parliamentary law as to 
a Member's right to speak a second time by clauses 3 and 6 of rule XIV 
and by permitting a Member controlling time in debate to yield to 
another more than once. In ordinary practice rule XIV is not rigidly 
enforced, and Members find little difficulty in making such explanations 
as are contemplated by the parliamentary law.




Sec. 358. Participation of the Speaker in debate.

  But  if 
the Speaker rise to speak, the Member standing up ought to sit down, 
that he may be first heard. Town., col. 205; Hale Parl., 133; Mem. in 
Hakew., 30, 31. Nevertheless, though the Speaker may of right speak to 
matters of order, and be first heard, he is restrained from speaking on 
any other subject, except where the House have occasion for facts within 
his knowledge; then he may, with their leave, state the matter of fact. 
3 Grey, 38.


  This provision is usually observed in the practice of the House, so 
far as the conduct of the Speaker in the chair is concerned. In several 
instances the Speaker has been permitted by the House to make a 
statement from the chair, as in a case wherein his past conduct had been 
criticised (II, 1369), and in a case wherein there had been unusual 
occurrences in the joint meeting to count the electoral vote (II, 1372), 
and in a matter relating to a contest for the seat of the Speaker as a 
Member (II, 1360). In rare instances the Speaker has made brief 
explanations from the chair without asking the assent of the House (II, 
1373, 1374). Speakers have called others to the chair and participated 
in debate, usually without asking consent of the House (II, 1360, 1367, 
footnote, 1368, 1371; III, 1950), and in one case a Speaker on the floor 
debated a point of order which the Speaker pro tempore was to decide (V, 
6097). In rare instances Speakers have left the chair to make motions on 
the floor (II, 1367, footnote). Speakers may participate in debate in 
Committee of the Whole, although at certain periods in the history of 
the House the privilege was rarely exercised (II, 1367, footnote).


  During the House's consideration of several measures relating to the 
use of military force in the Persian Gulf, the Speaker took the floor 
not only to debate the pending question but also to commend the House on 
the quality of its recent debates on matters of war and peace and to 
explain his decision to vote on measures relating thereto even though 
not required to do so under clause 6 of rule I (Jan. 12, 1991, p. ----).




Sec. 359. Impertinent, superfluous, or tedious 
speaking.

  No  one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, 
superfluous, or tediously. Scob., 31, 33; 2 Hats., 166, 168; Hale Parl., 
133.



[[Page 167]]
tice has the House ever suppressed superfluous or tedious speaking, its 
hour rule (clause 2 of rule XIV) being a sufficient safeguard in this 
respect.

  The House, by clause 1 of rule XIV, provides that the Member shall 
address himself to the question under debate, but neither by rule nor 
prac




Sec. 360. Language reflecting on the House.

  No  person is to 
use indecent language against the proceedings of the House; no prior 
determination of which is to be reflected on by any Member, unless he 
means to conclude with a motion to rescind it. 2 Hats., 169, 170; 
Rushw., p. 3, v. 1, fol. 42. But while a proposition under consideration 
is still in fieri, though it has even been reported by a committee, 
reflections on it are no reflections on the House. 9 Grey, 508.



  In the practice of the House of Representatives it has been held out 
of order in debate to cast reflections on either the House or its 
membership or its decisions, whether present or past (V, 5132-5138). A 
Member who had used offensive words against the character of the House, 
and who declined to explain, was censured (II, 1247). Words impeaching 
the loyalty of a portion of the membership have also been ruled out (V, 
5139). Where a Member reiterated on the floor certain published charges 
against the House, action was taken, although other business had 
intervened, the question being considered one of privilege (III, 2637). 
It has been held inappropriate and not in order in debate to refer to 
the proceedings of a committee except such as have been formally 
reported to the House (V, 5080-5083; VIII, 2269, 2485-2493; June 24, 
1958, pp. 12120, 12122), but this rule does not apply to the proceedings 
of a committee of a previous Congress (Chairman Hay, Feb. 2, 1914, p. 
2782), and the rationale for this limitation on debate is in part 
obsolete under the modern practice of the House insofar as the doctrine 
is applied to open committee meetings and hearings.


[[Page 168]]
or unmannerly words against a particular Member. Smyth's Comw., L. 2, 
c. 3. * * *



Sec. 361. Personalities in debate forbidden.

  No  person, in 
speaking, is to mention a Member then present by his name, but to 
describe him by his seat in the House, or who spoke last, or on the 
other side of the question, &c., Mem. in Hakew., 3; Smyth's Comw., L. 2, 
c. 3; nor to digress from the matter to fall upon the person, Scob., 31; 
Hale Parl., 133; 2 Hats., 166, by speaking reviling, nipping, 



[[Page 169]]
to the motivations of Members who file complaints before the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct (Speaker pro tempore Foley, June 15, 
1988, p. 14623; July 6, 1988, p. 16630; Mar. 22, 1989, p. 5130; May 2, 
1989, p. 7735; Nov. 3, 1989, p. ----); and that they should refrain from 
critical personal references to members of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct (Mar. 3, 1995, p. ----). Although debate on a 
privileged resolution recommending disciplinary action against a Member 
may include comparisons with other such actions taken by or reported to 
the House for purposes of measuring severity of punishment, it is not in 
order to discuss the conduct of another Member not the subject of a 
committee report (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271).
  In the practice of the House a Member is not permitted to refer to 
another by name (V, 5144; VIII, 2526, 2529, 2536), or to address him in 
the second person (V, 5140-5143; VI, 600; VIII, 2529). The proper 
reference to a colleague is ``the gentleman (or gentlewoman) from ------
,'' naming the State (June 14, 1978, p. 17615; July 21, 1982, pp. 17314-
15). By rule of the House (clause 1 of rule XIV), as well as by the 
parliamentary law, personalities are forbidden (V, 4979, 5145, 5163, 
5169), whether against the Member in his capacity as Representative or 
otherwise (V, 5152, 5153). But a distinction has been drawn between 
charges made by one Member against another in a newspaper and the same 
made in debate on the floor (III, 2691). A Member may not read in debate 
extraneous material, critical of Members, which would be improper if 
spoken in the Member's own words (May 25, 1995, p. ----); thus words in 
a telegram read in debate which repudiated the ``lies and half-truths'' 
of a House committee report were taken down and ruled out of order as 
reflecting on the integrity of committee members (June 16, 1947, p. 
7065). Questions have arisen sometimes involving a distinction between 
general language and personalities (V, 5153, 5163, 5169). A denunciation 
of the spirit in which a Member had spoken was held out of order as a 
personality (V, 6981). The House has censured a Member for gross 
personalities (II, 1251). References in debate to an identifiable group 
of sitting Members as having committed a crime (e.g., ``stealing'' an 
election) are proscribed by clause 1 of rule XIV (Feb. 27, 1985, p. 
3898; Speaker Wright, Mar. 21, 1989, p. 5016). That rule prohibits 
references in debate to newspaper accounts used in support of a Member's 
personal criticism of a sitting Member in a way which would be 
unparliamentary if uttered as the Member's own words (Feb. 25, 1985, p. 
3346). It is not in order in debate to refer in a personally critical 
manner to the political tactics of the Speaker or other Members (June 
25, 1981, p. 14056), by charging dishonesty or disregard of the rules 
(July 11, 1985, p. 18550), to reflect on his patriotism (``kowtowing'' 
to persons who would desecrate the flag, June 20, 1990, p. 14877), or to 
refer to a particular Member of the House in a derogatory fashion, and 
the Chair will intervene to prevent improper references where it is 
evident that a particular Member is being described (Oct. 28, 1981, p. 
25681; Nov. 3, 1989, p. ----). Although remarks in debate may not 
include personal attacks against a Member or an identifiable group of 
Members, they may address political motivations for legislative 
positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 8, 1995, p. ----). The Speaker 
has reminded and advised Members that they should refrain from 
references in debate to the official conduct of other Members where such 
conduct is not the subject then pending before the House by way of 
either a report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or 
another question of the privileges of the House (July 24, 1990, p. ----; 
Mar. 19, 1992, p. ----); that they should refrain from references in 
debate 




Sec. 362. Criticism of the Speaker.

  Complaint  of the conduct 
of the Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the House 
and not by way of debate on other matters (V, 5188). In a case wherein a 
Member used words insulting to the Speaker the House on a subsequent 
day, and after other business had intervened, censured the offender (II, 
1248). In such a case the Speaker would ordinarily leave the chair while 
action should be taken by the House (II, 1366; V, 5188; VI, 565). In the 
104th Congress the Chair reaffirmed that it is not in order to speak 
disrespectfully of the Speaker, and that under the precedents the 
sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements for 
timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 19, 
1995, p. ----). It is not in order to arraign the personal conduct of 
the Speaker (Jan. 18, 1995, p. ----; Jan. 19, 1995, p. ----).





Sec. 363. Motives of Members not to be arraigned.

  * * *  The 
consequences of a measure may be reprobated in strong terms; but to 
arraign the motives of those who propose to advocate it is a 
personality, and against order. Qui digreditur a materia ad personam, 
Mr. Speaker ought to suppress. Ord. Com., 1604, Apr. 19.



[[Page 170]]
as impugning the motives of the Member offering the amendment (Dec. 3, 
1973, pp. 41270, 41271). While in debate the assertion of one Member may 
be declared untrue by another, yet in so doing an intentional 
misrepresentation must not be implied (V, 5157-5160), and if stated or 
implied is censurable (II, 1305) and presents a question of privilege 
(III, 2717; VI, 607). A Member in debate having declared the words of 
another ``a base lie,'' censure was inflicted by the House on the 
offender (II, 1249).

  The arraignment of the motives of Members is not permitted (V, 5147-
51; Dec. 13, 1973, p. 41270), and the Speakers have intervened to 
prevent it, in the earlier practice preventing even mildest imputations 
(V, 5161, 5162). However, remarks in debate may address political, but 
not personal, motivations for legislative positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p. 
----; Mar. 8, 1995, p. ----) or for committee membership (July 10, 1995, 
p. ----). Accusing another Member of hypocrisy has been held not in 
order (July 24, 1979, p. 20380; Mar. 29, 1995, p. ----), and 
characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment as 
deceptive and hypocritical was ruled out of order (June 12, 1979, p. 
11461). A statement in debate that an amendment could only be demagogic 
or racist because only demagoguery or racism impelled such an amendment 
was ruled out of order 




Sec. 364. Disorder and interruptions during debate.

  No  one 
is to disturb another in his speech by hissing, coughing, spitting, 6 
Grey, 322; Scob., 8; D'Ewes, 332, col. 1, 640, col. 2, speaking or 
whispering to another, Scob., 6; D'Ewes, 487, col. 1; nor stand up to 
interrupt him, Town, col. 205; Mem. in Hakew., 31; nor to pass between 
the Speaker and the speaking Member, nor to go across the House, Scob., 
6, or to walk up and down it, or to take books or papers from the table, 
or write there, 2 Hats., 171, p. 170.




[[Page 171]]

  The House of Representatives has by clause 7 of rule XIV prescribed 
certain rules of decorum differing somewhat from this provision of the 
parliamentary law, but supplemental to it rather than antagonistic. In 
one respect, however, the practice of the House differs from the 
apparent intent of the parliamentary law. In the House a Member may 
interrupt by addressing the Chair for permission of the Member speaking 
(V, 5006; VIII, 2465); but it is entirely within the discretion of the 
Member occupying the floor to determine when and by whom he shall be 
interrupted (V, 5007, 5008; VIII, 2463, 2465). There is no rule of the 
House requiring a Member having the floor to yield to another Member to 
whom he has referred during debate (Aug. 2, 1984, p. 22241). The Chair 
may take the initiative in preserving order when a Member declining to 
yield in debate continues to be interrupted by another Member, may order 
that the interrupting Member's remarks not appear in the Record (July 
26, 1984, p. 21247), and may admonish Members not to converse with a 
Member attempting to address the House (Feb. 21, 1984, p. 2758). On the 
opening day of the 103d Congress, during the customary announcement of 
policies with respect to particular aspects of the legislative process, 
the Chair elaborated on the rules of order in debate with a general 
statement concerning decorum in the House of Representatives (Jan. 5, 
1993, p. ----).




Sec. 365. Parliamentary method of silencing a 
tedious Member.

  Nevertheless,  if a Member finds that it is not the inclination of 
the House to hear him, and that by conversation or any other noise they 
endeavor to drown his voice, it is his most prudent way to submit to the 
pleasure of the House, and sit down; for it scarcely ever happens that 
they are guilty of this piece of ill manners without sufficient reason, 
or inattention to a Member who says anything worth their hearing. 2 
Hats., 77, 78.



  In the House of Representatives, where the previous question and hour 
rule of debate have been used for many years, the parliamentary method 
of suppressing a tedious Member has never been imported into the 
practice (V, 5445).




Sec. 366. The parliamentary law as to naming a disorderly 
Member.

  If  repeated calls do not produce order, the Speaker may call by 
his name any Member obstinately persisting in irregularity; whereupon 
the House may require the Member to withdraw. He is then to be heard in 
exculpation, and to withdraw. Then the Speaker states the offense 
committed; and the House considers the degree of punishment they will 
inflict. 2 Hats., 167, 7, 8, 172.



  The House of Representatives, in clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV, has made 
a provision which supersedes this provision of the parliamentary law.


[[Page 172]]
Members, the House, for the protection of their Members, requires them 
to declare in their places not to prosecute any quarrel, 3 Grey, 128, 
293; 5 Grey, 280; or orders them to attend the Speaker, who is to 
accommodate their differences, and report to the House, 3 Grey, 419; and 
they are put under restraint if they refuse, or until they do. 9 Grey, 
234, 312.



Sec. 367. Proceedings in cases of assaults and 
affrays.

  For  instances of assaults and affrays in the House of Commons, 
and the proceedings thereon, see 1 Pet. Misc., 82; 3 Grey, 128; 4 Grey, 
328; 5 Grey, 382; 6 Grey, 254; 10 Grey, 8. Whenever warm words or an 
assault have passed between 



  In several instances assaults and affrays have occurred on the floor 
of the House of Representatives. Sometimes the House has allowed these 
affairs to pass without notice, the Members concerned making apologies 
either personally or through other Members (II, 1658-1662). In other 
cases the House has exacted apologies (II, 1646-1651, 1657), or required 
the offending Members to pledge themselves before the House to keep the 
peace (II, 1643). In case of an aggravated assault by one Member on 
another on the portico of the Capitol for words spoken in debate, the 
House censured the assailant and three other Members who had been 
present, armed, to prevent interference (II, 1655, 1656). Assaults or 
affrays in the Committee of the Whole are dealt with by the House (II, 
1648-1651).


[[Page 173]]
in which he used them, or apologize. If the House is satisfied, no 
further proceeding is necessary. But if two Members still insist to take 
the sense of the House, the Member must withdraw before that question is 
stated, and then the sense of the House is to be taken. 2 Hats., 199; 4 
Grey, 170; 6 Grey, 59. When any Member has spoken, or other business 
intervened, after offensive words spoken, they can not be taken notice 
of for censure. And this is for the common security of all, and to 
prevent mistakes which must happen if words are not taken down 
immediately. Formerly they might be taken down at any time the same day. 
2 Hats., 196; Mem. in Hakew., 71; 3 Grey, 48; 9 Grey, 514.



Sec. 368. Parliamentary law as to taking down 
disorderly words.

  Disorderly  words are not to be noticed till the Member has 
finished his speech. 5 Grey, 356; 6 Grey, 60. Then the person objecting 
to them, and desiring them to be taken down by the Clerk at the table, 
must repeat them. The Speaker then may direct the Clerk to take them 
down in his minutes; but if he thinks them not disorderly, he delays the 
direction. If the call becomes pretty general, he orders the Clerk to 
take them down, as stated by the objecting Member. They are then a part 
of his minutes, and when read to the offending Member, he may deny they 
were his words, and the House must then decide by a question whether 
they are his words or not. Then the Member may justify them, or explain 
the sense 



  The House of Representatives has, by clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV, 
provided a method of procedure in cases of disorderly words. The House 
permits and requires them to be noticed as soon as uttered, and has not 
insisted that the offending Member withdraw while the House is deciding 
as to its course of action.




Sec. 369. Disorderly words taken down and reported 
from Committee of the Whole.

  Disorderly  words spoken in a committee must be 
written down as in the House; but the committee can only report them to 
the House for animadversion. 6 Grey, 46.



  This provision of the parliamentary law has been applied to the 
Committee of the Whole rather than to select or standing committees. The 
House has censured a Member for disorderly words spoken in Committee of 
the Whole and reported therefrom (II, 1259).




Sec. 370. References in debate to the 
Executive.

  In  Parliament, to speak irreverently or seditiously against 
the King is against order. Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3; 2 Hats., 170.




[[Page 174]]
debate to refer to the President of the United States or his opinions, 
either with approval or criticism, provided that such reference be 
relevant to the subject under discussion and otherwise conformable to 
the rules of the House (V, 5087-5091; VIII, 2500). Also a reference to 
the probable action of the President was held in order (V, 5092). 
Although wide latitude is permitted in debate on a proposition to 
impeach the President (V, 5093), Members must abstain from language 
personally offensive (V, 5094), such as calling the President a ``liar'' 
(June 26, 1985, p. 17394; Sept. 24, 1992, p. ----), attributing to him 
``hypocrisy'' (Sept. 25, 1992, p. ----), or accusing him of giving aid 
and comfort to the enemy (Jan. 25, 1995, p. ----). Furthermore, personal 
abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the President is not permitted (VIII, 
2497; Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21078; Oct. 21, 1987, p. 8857; Sept. 21, 1994, 
p. ----), such as describing an action as ``cowardly'' (Oct. 25, 1989, 
p. 25817), or charging that the President has with intent been 
intellectually dishonest (May 9, 1990, p. 9828). A Member may not read 
in debate extraneous material personally abusive of the President, which 
would be improper if spoken in the Member's own words, such as calling 
the President a liar (Mar. 3, 1993, p. ----). The Chair has advised that 
the protections afforded by Jefferson's Manual and the precedents 
against unparliamentary references to the President himself do not 
necessarily obtain for members of his family (July 12, 1990, p. ----). 
In the 102d Congress, the Speaker enunciated a minimal standard of 
propriety for all debate concerning candidates for the Presidency, based 
on the traditional proscription against personally offensive references 
to the President even in his capacity as a candidate (Speaker Foley, 
Sept. 24, 1992, p. ----). In the 103d Congress, in response to frequent 
remarks alluding to alleged sexual misconduct by the President, the 
Speaker reminded Members that the rules of comity prohibit such 
discussions of the President's personal character (May 10, 1994, p. ----
).
  This provision of the parliamentary law is manifestly inapplicable to 
the House of Representatives (V, 5086); and it has been held in order in 

  For discussion of the stricture against addressing remarks in debate 
to the President, as in the second person, see Sec. 749, infra.

  On January 27, 1909 (VIII, 2497), the House adopted a report of a 
committee appointed to investigate the question, which report in part 
stated:

  ``The freedom of speech in debate in the House of Representatives 
should never be denied or abridged, but freedom of speech in debate does 
not mean license to indulge in personal abuses or ridicule. The right of 
Members of the two Houses of Congress to criticise the official acts of 
the President and other executive officers is beyond question, but this 
right is subject to proper rules requiring decorum in debate. Such right 
of criticism in inherent upon legislative authority. The right to 
legislate involves the right to consider conditions as they are and to 
contrast present conditions with those of the past or those desired in 
the future. The right to correct abuses by legislation carries the right 
to consider and discuss abuses which exist or which are feared.


[[Page 175]]
to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily 
and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or antagonism from those 
other branches of the Government with which the House is correlated.''

  ``It is, however, the duty of the House to require its Members in 
speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the 
House 




Sec. 371. Debate and proceedings in the other House not to 
be noticed in debate.

  It  is a breach of order in debate to notice what 
has been said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular 
votes or majorities on it there; because the opinion of each House 
should be left to its own independency, not to be influenced by the 
proceedings of the other; and the quoting them might beget reflections 
leading to a misunderstanding between the two Houses. 8 Grey, 22.



[[Page 176]]
ings for the purpose of making legislative history), to refer to a 
Senator or his vote on a proposition (Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.2; 
Sept. 29, 1983, pp. 26515-16), or to publish the telephone number of a 
Senator in an attempt to influence his future vote (Oct. 25, 1990, p. --
--).
  Until clause 1 of rule XIV, was amended by adoption of the rules in 
the 100th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6) and again in the 
101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72), this principle of 
comity and the parliamentary law as described by Jefferson governed 
debate in the House of Representatives to the full extent of its 
provisions (see generally, V, 5095-5130; VIII, 2501-21; July 31, 1984, 
p. 21670; Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14). Clause 1 of rule XIV, now 
provides that ``debate may include references to actions taken by the 
Senate or by committees thereof which are a matter of public record, 
references to the pendency or sponsorship in the Senate of bills, 
resolutions, and amendments, factual descriptions relating to Senate 
action or inaction concerning a measure then under debate in the House, 
and quotations from Senate proceedings on a measure then under debate in 
the House and which are relevant to the making of legislative history 
establishing the meaning of that measure, but may not include 
characterizations of Senate action or inaction, other references to 
individual Members of the Senate, or other quotations from Senate 
proceedings,''and such prohibited references to Senators include 
references to Senators although not identified by name (Feb. 23, 1994, 
p. ----; June 30, 1995, p. ----). A Member may not read or quote from 
the record of speeches or proceedings in the Senate, or insert such 
material in the Record (V, 5107-5111; VIII, 2501-2506; June 25, 1986, p. 
15576; Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.3) except to make legislative history 
on a measure then under debate, and the prohibition extends to quoting 
accounts of Senate debates printed elsewhere, such as in reprints or in 
the press (VIII, 2053). It has even been held out of order to criticize 
words spoken in the Senate by one not a Member of that body in the 
course of an impeachment trial (V, 5106). It is not in order in debate 
to mention the name of a Senator (except as the sponsor of a measure or 
in quotations from Senate proceed

  Except as permitted in clause 1 of rule XIV, it is equally out of 
order to characterize the position of the Senate, or of Senators 
designated by name or position, on legislative issues (Oct. 5, 1984, pp. 
30326-27; Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32153; Nov. 2, 1989, p. ----; July 12, 1990, 
p. ----), or to speculate as to the intent of Senators or of the Senate 
on legislation (Oct. 11, 1984, pp. 32221-23), or to characterize Senate 
action or inaction (Apr. 29, 1986, p. 8856; July 31, 1986, p. 18253; 
Aug. 4, 1987, p. 22288; Oct. 28, 1993, p. ----); or to question the 
courage or resolve of its Members (Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19315). Nor is it in 
order in debate to specifically urge that the Senate take certain 
action; thus a Member may not refer to confirmation proceedings in the 
Senate by advocating that it take a certain action with respect to a 
Presidential nominee (Feb. 7, 1984, p. 1979; Oct. 8, 1991, p. ----; May 
24, 1995, p. ----), or by characterizing the action of a Senate 
committee on a judicial nominee (July 9, 1992, p. ----), or suggest that 
the President urge Senate conferees to meet with House conferees on 
specific legislation (Aug. 2, 1984, p. 22270).

  On one occasion before the rule was changed in the 101st Congress to 
permit certain quotations from Senate proceedings for the purpose of 
making legislative history, the Speaker entertained a unanimous consent 
request that a Member be permitted to refer in debate to Senate 
proceedings (to quote a statement by the Senate Majority Leader as to 
probable Senate action on the measure then pending in the House), but 
the Speaker first ascertained in what manner the reference would be 
made, in order to assure that remarks critical of the Senate, its 
Members or proceedings would not be made (Speaker O'Neill, June 4, 1980, 
p. 13212). But the Chair will not entertain such a request where the 
references would necessarily imply criticism of the Senate, such as to 
respond to remarks in the Senate which were critical of Members of the 
House (VIII, 2519).


[[Page 177]]
in their capacity as candidates for the Presidency or other office are 
not prohibited, and where a Senator is a candidate for President or Vice 
President his official policies, actions, and opinions as a candidate 
may be criticized in terms not personally offensive (Speaker Wright, 
Sept. 29, 1988, p. 26683), but references attacking the character or 
integrity of a Senator even in that context are not in order (Oct. 30, 
1979, p. 30150).
  In one case, the personal views of a Senator, not uttered in the 
Senate, were allowed to be quoted in the House (V, 5112), but the weight 
of recent precedent and the purposes of the rule prohibit references to 
speeches or statements of Senators occurring outside the Senate Chamber 
(VIII, 2515; June 26, 1935, pp. 10189-90; May 2, 1941, pp. 3566-67; 
Procedure, ch. 29, sec. 14.3; May 21, 1984, p. 13024). With respect to 
references to members of the Senate acting in another capacity, 
references to former Members of the House who are presently Senators are 
only permissible if they merely address prior House service and are not 
implicitly critical of Senate service (May 8, 1984, p. 11428). A Member 
of the House has been permitted to refer to a speech made in the Senate 
by one no longer a Member of that body (V, 5112), although references to 
Senate proceedings on legislation in the current Congress other than 
those expressly permitted to establish legislative history should be 
avoided. References to Members of the Senate 

  Even prior to the 100th Congress (as indicated in Procedure, ch. 29, 
sec. 14.1) it was permissible to refer to proceedings in the other 
House, provided the reference does not contravene the principles stated 
by Jefferson. A Member must be permitted to refer to the existence of 
the Senate and its functions in a general and neutral way. For example, 
a Member may oppose a sine die adjournment resolution on the grounds 
that Congress should stay in session to complete action on specified 
legislation then pending in the Senate (V, 5115). It is appropriate to 
state whether or not the Senate has acted on House-passed legislation as 
long as criticism is neither stated nor implied (Oct. 4, 1984, p. 
30047). If references to the Senate are appropriate, the Member 
delivering them is not required to use the term ``the other body,'' and 
the use of the term ``Senate'' is not a per se violation of the rule of 
comity (Oct. 4, 1984, p. 30047). It is in order in debate, while 
discussing a question involving conference committee procedure, to state 
what actually occurred in a conference committee session, without 
referring to or criticizing a named member of the Senate (July 29, 1935, 
p. 12011).



[[Page 178]]



Sec. 372. The other House and its Members not to be 
criticized in debate.

  While  the Senate may be referred to properly in 
debate, it is not in order to criticize its acts (V, 5114-5120; Dec. 10, 
1980, p. 33205; Apr. 27, 1993, p. ----); refer to a Senator in terms of 
personal criticism (V, 5121, 5122; VIII, 2518, 2521; July 10, 1990, p. 
----); even anonymously (VIII, 2512); for purpose of complimenting 
(VIII, 2509; Apr. 21, 1993, p. ----), or read a paper making such 
criticism (V, 5127); and the inhibition extends to references to the 
remarks or actions of a Senator outside the Senate (VIII, 2515; Speaker 
Albert, Oct. 7, 1975, p. 32055). The prohibition extends to references 
to another person's criticism of a Member of the Senate (Aug. 4, 1983, 
p. 23145). After examination by a committee a speech reflecting on the 
character of the Senate was ordered to be stricken from the Record, on 
the ground that it tended to create ``unfriendly conditions between the 
two bodies * * * obstructive of wise legislation and little short of a 
public calamity'' (V, 5129). But where a Member has been assailed in the 
Senate, he has been permitted to explain his own conduct and motives, 
without bringing the whole controversy into discussion or assailing the 
Senator (V, 5123-5126). Propositions relating to breaches of these 
principles have been entertained as of privilege (V, 5129, 6980).





Sec. 373. Complaint by one House of conduct of a 
Member of the other.

  Neither  House can exercise any authority over a Member 
or officer of the other, but should complain to the House of which he 
is, and leave the punishment to them.



  In a notable instance, wherein a Member of the House had assaulted a 
Senator in the Senate Chamber for words spoken in debate, the Senate 
examined the breach of privilege and transmitted its report to the 
House, which punished the Member (II, 1622). A Senator having assailed a 
House Member in debate, the House messaged to the Senate a resolution 
declaring the language a breach of privilege and requested the Senate to 
take appropriate action (Sept. 27, 1951, p. 12270). The Senator 
subsequently asked unanimous consent to correct his remarks in the 
permanent Congressional Record, but objection was raised (Sept. 28, 
1951, p. 12383). But where certain Members of the House, in a published 
letter, sought to influence the vote of a Senator in an impeachment 
trial, the House declined to consider the matter as a breach of 
privilege (III, 2657). While on one occasion it was held that a 
resolution offered in the House requesting the Senate to expunge from 
the Record statements in criticism of a Member of the House did not 
constitute a question of privilege, being in violation of the rule 
prohibiting references to the Senate in debate (VIII, 2519), a properly 
drafted resolution referring to language published in the record on a 
designated page of Senate proceedings as constituting a breach of 
privilege and requesting the Senate to take appropriate action 
concerning the subject has been held to present a question of the 
privileges of the House (VIII, 2516).


[[Page 179]]
tween the two Houses, which can hardly be terminated without difficulty 
and disorder. 3 Hats., 51.



Sec. 374. Duty of the Speaker to prevent expressions 
offensive to the other House.

  * * *  Where the complaint is of words 
disrespectfully spoken by a Member of another House, it is difficult to 
obtain punishment, because of the rules supposed necessary to be 
observed (as to the immediate noting down of words) for the security of 
Members. Therefore it is the duty of the House, and more particularly of 
the Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit expressions to 
go unnoticed which may give a ground of complaint to the other House, 
and introduce proceedings and mutual accusations be



  In the House of Representatives this rule of the parliamentary law is 
considered as binding on the Chair (V, 5130; VIII, 2465), and it is the 
duty of the Speaker to call to order a Member who criticizes the actions 
of the Senate, its Members or committees in debate or through an 
insertion in the Record (Speaker Albert, Apr. 17, 1975, p. 10458; Oct. 
7, 1975, pp. 32055-56). Pending consideration of a measure relating to 
the Senate, the Speaker announced his intention to strictly enforce this 
provision of Jefferson's Manual prohibiting improper references to the 
Senate, and to deny recognition to Members violating the prohibition, 
subject to permission of the House to proceed in order (Speaker O'Neill, 
June 16, 1982, p. 13843). While the Chair should take the initiative to 
prevent improper references to the Senate in debate, the Chair will not 
respond to hypothetical questions as to the propriety of possible 
characterizations of Senate actions prior to their use in debate (Oct. 
24, 1985, p. 28819).




Sec. 375. Course of the Member when business concerning 
himself is debating.

  No  Member may be present when a bill or any business 
concerning himself is debating; nor is any Member to speak to the merits 
of it till he withdraws. 2 Hats., 219. The rule is that if a charge 
against a Member arise out of a report of a committee, or examination of 
witnesses in the House, as the Member knows from that to what points he 
is to direct his exculpation, he may be heard to those points before any 
question is moved or stated against him. He is then to be heard, and 
withdraw before any question is moved. But if the question itself is the 
charge, as for breach of order or matter arising in the debate, then the 
charge must be stated (that is, the question must be moved), himself 
heard, and then to withdraw. 2 Hats., 121, 122.



[[Page 180]]
In other cases, after the proposition for censure or expulsion has been 
proposed, Members have been heard in debate, either as a matter of right 
(II, 1286), as a matter of course (II, 1246, 1253), by express provision 
(II, 1273), and in writing (II, 1273), or by unanimous consent (II, 
1275). A Member against whom a resolution of censure was pending was 
asked by the Speaker if he desired to be heard (VI, 236). But a Member 
was not permitted to depute another Member to speak in his behalf (II, 
1273). In modern practice the Member has been permitted to speak in his 
own behalf, both in censure (June 10, 1980, pp. 13802-11) and expulsion 
proceedings (Oct. 2, 1980, pp. 28953-78). A Member-elect has been 
permitted to participate in debate on a resolution relating to his right 
to take the oath (Jan. 10, 1967, p. 23).

  In 1832, during proceedings for the censure of a Member, the Speaker 
informed the Member that he should retire (II, 1366); but this seems to 
be an exceptional instance of the enforcement of the law of Parliament. 




Sec. 376. Disqualifying personal interest of a 
Member.

  Where  the private interests of a Member are concerned in a bill or 
question he is to withdraw. And where such an interest has appeared, his 
voice has been disallowed, even after a division. In a case so contrary, 
not only to the laws of decency, but to the fundamental principle of the 
social compact, which denies to any man to be a judge in his own cause, 
it is for the honor of the House that this rule of immemorial observance 
should be strictly adhered to. 2 Hats., 119, 121; 6 Grey, 368.



  In the House of Representatives it has not been usual for the Member 
to withdraw when his private interests are concerned in a pending 
measure, but the House has provided by clause 1 of rule VIII that the 
Member shall not vote in such a contingency. In one instance the Senate 
disallowed a vote given by a Senator on a question relating to his own 
right to a seat; but the House has never had occasion to proceed so far 
(V, 5959).



[[Page 181]]



Sec. 377. Wearing of hats by Members.

  No  Member is to come 
into the House with his head covered, nor to remove from one place to 
another with his hat on, nor is to put on his hat in coming in or 
removing, until he be set down in his place. Scob., 6.





Sec. 378. Adjournment of questions of order.

  Until 1837 the parliamentary practice of wearing hats during the 
session continued in the House; but in that year it was abolished by 
clause 7 of rule XIV.
   A question of 
order may be adjourned to give time to look into precedents. 2 Hats., 
118.



<>   In 
Parliament, all decisions of the Speaker may be controlled by the House. 
3 Grey, 319.

  The Speaker has declined, on a difficult question of order, to rule 
until he had taken time for examination (III, 2725; VI, 432; VII, 2106; 
VIII, 2174, 2396, 3475), and may take a parliamentary inquiry under 
advisement, especially where not related to the pending proceedings 
(VIII, 2174; Apr. 7, 1992, p. ----), but it is conceivable that a case 
might arise wherein this privilege of the Chair would require approval 
of the majority of the House, to prevent arbitrary obstruction of the 
pending business by the Chair. On occasion, the Chair has reversed as 
erroneous a decision previously made (VI, 639; VII, 849; VIII, 2794, 
3435). The law of Parliament evidently contemplates that the adjournment 
of a question of order shall be controlled by the House.





[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 181-185]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-49]

 
  The Speaker's decision on a decision of order is subject to appeal by 
any Member (clause 4 of rule I).


                    SEC. XVIII.--ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.



Sec. 380. Keeping of the doors of the House.

  Of  right, the 
door of the House ought not to be shut, but to be kept by porters, or 
Sergeants-at-Arms, assigned for that purpose. Mod ten. Parl., 23.




[[Page 182]]



Sec. 381. Right of the Member to demand execution of the 
subsisting order.

  The  only case where a Member has a right to insist on 
anything, is where he calls for the execution of a subsisting order of 
the House. Here there having been already a resolution, any person has a 
right to insist that the Speaker, or any other whose duty it is, shall 
carry it into execution; and no debate or delay can be had on it.



<> Thus 
any Member has a right to have the House or gallery cleared of 
strangers, an order existing for that purpose; or to have the House told 
when there is not a quorum present. 2 Hats., 87, 129. How far an order 
of the House is binding, see Hakew., 392.

  Any Member has a right at any time to demand the execution of a rule 
or order of the House, including the rule prescribing the daily order of 
business (IV, 3058). A Member does this by calling for the ``regular 
order.'' Where the regular order is demanded pending a request for 
unanimous consent, further reservation of the right to object thereto is 
precluded (Speaker Foley, Nov. 14, 1991, p. ----).


  Absent ``an existing order for that purpose,'' a Member may not demand 
that the galleries be cleared, as this power resides in the House (II, 
1353), which has by rule extended the power to the Speaker (clause 2 of 
rule I) and the chairman of the Committee of the Whole (clause 1 of rule 
XXIII), but not to the individual Member.




Sec. 383. Parliamentary law as to proceeding with orders 
of the day.

  But  where an order is made that any particular matter be taken 
up on a particular day, there a question is to be put, when it is called 
for, whether the House will now proceed to that matter? Where orders of 
the day are on important or interesting matter, they ought not to be 
proceeded on till an hour at which the House is usually full [which in 
Senate is at noon].



  The rule of the House of Representatives providing for raising the 
question of consideration (clause 3 of rule XVI) has, in connection with 
the practice as to special orders, superseded this provision of the 
parliamentary law. The House always proceeds with business at its hour 
of meeting, unless prevented by a point that no quorum is present (IV, 
2732).



[[Page 183]]



Sec. 384. Orders of the day now obsolete.

  Orders  of the day 
may be discharged at any time, and a new one made for a different day, 3 
Grey, 48, 313.



  The House of Representatives found the use of ``Orders of the day'' as 
a method of disposing business impracticable as long ago as 1818, and 
not long after abandoned their use (IV, 3057), although an interesting 
reference to them survives in clause 1 of rule XXIV. The House proceeds 
under rule XXIV unless that order is displaced by the use of ``special 
orders'' or the intervention of privileged business.




Sec. 385. Business at the end of a session.

  When  a session 
is drawing to a close and the important bills are all brought in, the 
House, in order to prevent interruption by further unimportant bills, 
sometimes comes to a resolution that no new bill be brought in, except 
it be sent from the other House. 3 Grey, 156.



  This provision is obsolete so far as the practice of the House of 
Representatives is concerned, as business goes on uninterruptedly until 
the Congress expires (rule XXVI).




Sec. 386. Effect of end of the session on existing orders, 
especially as to imprisonment.

  All  orders of the House determine with the 
session; and one taken under such an order may, after the session is 
ended, be discharged on a habeas corpus. Raym., 120; Jacob's L. D. by 
Ruffhead; Parliament, 1 Lev., 165, Pitchara's case.




[[Page 184]]

  The House of Representatives, by rule XXVI and the practice 
thereunder, has modified the rule of Parliament as to business pending 
at the end of a session which is not at the same time the end of a 
Congress. A standing order, like that providing for the hour of daily 
meeting of the House, expires with a session (I, 104-109). The House 
uses few standing orders. However, in the first session of the 104th 
Congress, the House continued a standing order regarding special-order 
and morning-hour speeches for the remainder of the entire Congress (May 
12, 1995, p. ----). In 1866 the House discussed its power to imprison 
for a period longer than the duration of the existing session (II, 
1629), and in 1870, for assaulting a Member returning to the House from 
absence on leave. Patrick Woods was committed for a term extending 
beyond the adjournment of the session, but not beyond the term of the 
existing House (II, 1628).




Sec. 387. Jefferson's views as to the constitutional 
power to make rules.

  Where  the Constitution authorizes each House to 
determine the rules of its proceedings it must mean in those cases 
(legislative, executive, or judiciary) submitted to them by the 
Constitution, or in something relating to these, and necessary toward 
their execution. But orders and resolutions are sometimes entered in the 
journals having no relation to these, such as acceptances of invitations 
to attend orations, to take part in procession, etc. These must be 
understood to be merely conventional among those who are willing to 
participate in the ceremony, and are therefore, perhaps, improperly 
placed among the records of the House.



[[Page 185]]
resolutions adopted pursuant to law which have constituted rules of the 
House at the expiration of the preceding Congress, as the rules of the 
new House (see H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34; Sec. 1013, infra). Where 
the House amended a standing rule of general applicability during a 
session and the amended rule did not require prospective application, 
the rule was interpreted to apply retroactively (Sept. 28, 1994, p. ----
).


Sec. 388. The House's construction of its power to adopt 
rules.

  The  House of Representatives has frequently examined its 
constitutional power to make rules, and this power has also been 
discussed by the Supreme Court (V, 6755). It has been settled that 
Congress may not by law interfere with the constitutional right of a 
future House to make its own rules (I, 82; V, 6765, 6766), or to 
determine for itself the order of proceedings in effecting its 
organization (I, 242-245; V, 6765, 6766). It has also been determined, 
after long discussion and trial by practice, that one House may not 
continue its rules in force to and over its successor (I, 187, 210; V, 
6002, 6743-6747; Jan. 22, 1971, p. 132). A law passed by the existing 
Congress has been recognized as of binding force in matters of procedure 
(II, 1341; V, 6767, 6768); but when a law passed by a preceding Congress 
presumes to lay down a rule of procedure the House has been inclined to 
doubt its binding force (V, 6766), and in one case the Chair denied the 
authority of such a law that conflicted with a rule of the House (IV, 
3579). In modern practice, existing statutory procedures are readopted 
as rules of the House at the beginning of each Congress (see, e.g., H. 
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. ----). The theories involved in this question 
have been most carefully examined and decisively determined in reference 
to the law of 1851, which directs the method of procedure for the House 
in its constitutional function of judging the elections of its Members; 
and it has been determined that this law is not of absolute binding 
force on the House, but rather a wholesome rule not to be departed from 
except for cause (I, 597, 713, 726, 833; II, 1122). Under current 
practice, the House in the resolution adopting its rules adopts 
provisions of law, and of concurrent 






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 185-186]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-50]

 
  As to the participation on occasions of ceremony, the House has 
entered its orders on its journal; but it rarely attends outside the 
Capitol building as a body, usually preferring that its Members go 
individually (V, 7061-7064) or that it be represented by a committee (V, 
7053-7056). It has discussed, but not settled, its power to compel a 
Member to accompany it without the Hall on an occasion of combined 
business and ceremony (II, 1139). But the House remains in session for 
the inauguration of the President on the portico of the Capitol (Jan. 
20, 1969, pp. 1288-92) and the mace is carried to the ceremony.


<>   A 
petition prays something. A remonstrance has no prayer. 1 Grey, 58.

                          SEC. XIX.--PETITION.


  The rules of the House of Representatives make no mention of 
remonstrances, but do mention petitions and memorials (rule XXII). 
Resolutions of state legislatures and of primary assemblies of the 
people are received as memorials (IV, 3326, 3327), but papers general or 
descriptive in form may not be presented as memorials (IV, 3325).


[[Page 186]]
presented by a member, not by the petitioners, and must be opened by 
him holding it in his hand. 10 Grey, 57.



Sec. 390. Signing and presentation of 
petitions.

  Petitions  must be subscribed by the petitioners Scob., 87; L. Parl., 
c. 22; 9 Grey, 362, unless they are attending, 1 Grey, 401 or unable to 
sign, and averred by a member, 3 Grey, 418. But a petition not 
subscribed, but which the member presenting it affirmed to be all in the 
handwriting of the petitioner, and his name written in the beginning, 
was on the question (March 14, 1800) received by the Senate. The 
averment of a member, or of somebody without doors, that they know the 
handwriting of the petitioners, is necessary, if it be questioned. 6 
Grey, 36. It must be 



  In the House of Representatives petitions have been presented for many 
years by filing with the Clerk (clause 1 of rule XXII). Members file 
them, and petitioners do not attend on the House in the sense implied in 
the parliamentary law. In cases where a petition set forth serious 
changes, the petitioner was required to have his signature attested by a 
notary (III, 2030, footnote).




Sec. 391. Parliamentary law for the reception of 
petitions.

  Regularly  a motion for receiving it must be made and seconded, and a 
question put, whether it shall be received, but a cry from the House of 
``received,'' or even silence, dispenses with the formality of this 
question. It is then to be read at the table and disposed of.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 186-187]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-51]

 
  Prior to the adoption of the provisions of clause 1 of rule XXII, 
petitions were presented from the floor by Members, and questions 
frequently arose as to the reception thereof (IV, 3350-3356). But under 
the present practice such procedure does not occur.


                            SEC. XX.--MOTION.



Sec. 392. Parliamentary law as to making, withdrawing, and 
reading of motions.

    When a motion has been made, it is not to be put 
to the question or debated until it is seconded. Scob., 21.



  It is then, and not till then, in possession of the House, and can not 
be withdrawn but by leave of the House. It is to be put into writing, if 
the House or Speaker require it, and must be read to the House by the 
Speaker as often as any Member desires it for his information. 2 Hats., 
82.


[[Page 187]]
withdrawn ``before decision or amendment''; and clause 1 of the same 
rule provides that the motion shall be reduced to writing ``on the 
demand of any Member.'' In the practice of the House, when a paper on 
which the House is to vote has been read once, the reading may not be 
required again unless the House shall order it read (V, 5260).

  The rules of the House of Representatives (clause 1 of rule XVI) have 
long since dispensed with the requirement of a second for ordinary 
motions (V, 5304). Clause 2 of rule XVI provides further that a motion 
may be 




Sec. 393. Interruptions of the Member having the 
floor.

  It  might be asked whether a motion for adjournment or for the 
orders of the day can be made by one Member while another is speaking? 
It can not. When two Members offer to speak, he who rose first is to be 
heard, and it is a breach of order in another to interrupt him, unless 
by calling him to order if he departs from it. And the question of order 
being decided, he is still to be heard through. A call for adjournment, 
or for the order of the day, or for the question, by gentlemen from 
their seats, is <> not a motion. No motion 
can be made without rising and addressing the Chair. Such calls are 
themselves breaches of order, which, though the Member who has risen may 
respect, as an expression of impatience of the House against further 
debate, yet, if he chooses, he has a right to go on.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 187-189]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-52]

 
  The practice of the House of Representatives has modified the 
principle that the Member who rises first is to be recognized (clause 2 
of rule XIV); but in other respects the principles of this paragraph of 
the law of Parliament are in force.


                         SEC. XXI.--RESOLUTIONS.


[[Page 188]]



Sec. 395. Orders and resolutions of the House.

  When  the 
House commands, it is by an ``order.'' But fact, principles, and their 
own opinions and purposes, are expressed in the form of resolutions. 



  A resolution for an allowance of money to the clerks being moved, it 
was objected to as not in order, and so ruled by the Chair; but on 
appeal to the Senate (i.e., a call for their sense by the President, on 
account of doubt in his mind, according to clause 2 of rule XX) the 
decision was overruled. Jour., Senate, June 1, 1796. I presume the doubt 
was, whether an allowance of money could be made otherwise than by bill.



Sec. 396. Concurrent resolutions of the two Houses.

  In  the 
modern practice concurrent resolutions have been developed as a means of 
expressing fact, principles, opinions, and purposes of the two Houses 
(II, 1566, 1567). Joint committees are authorized by resolutions of this 
form (III, 1998,  1999), and they are used in authorizing correction of 
bills agreed to by both Houses (VII, 1042), amendment of enrolled bills 
(VII, 1041), amendment of conference reports (VIII, 3308), requests for 
return of bills sent to the President (VII, 1090, 1091), authorizing the 
printing of certain enrolled bills by hand in the remaining days of a 
session (H. Con. Res. 436, Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32875), providing for joint 
session to receive message from the President (VIII, 3335, 3336), 
authorizing the printing of congressional documents (H. Con. Res. 66, 
July 1, 1969, p. 17948); paying a birthday tribute to former President 
Truman (H. Con. Res. 216, Apr. 24, 1969, p. 10213); calling for the 
humane treatment of prisoners of war in Vietnam (H. Con. Res. 454, Dec. 
15, 1969, p. 39037), and fixing time for final adjournment (VIII, 3365). 
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) provides for the 
adoption by both Houses of concurrent resolutions on the budget which 
become binding on both Houses with respect to congressional budget 
procedures (see Sec. 1007, infra). A concurrent resolution is binding on 
neither House until agreed to by both (IV, 3379), and, since not 
legislative in nature, is not sent to the President for approval (IV, 
3483). A concurrent resolution is not a bill or joint resolution within 
the meaning of clause 5(c) of rule XXI (requiring a three-fifths vote 
for approval of such a measure if carrying an increase in a rate of tax 
on income) (Speaker Gingrich, May 18, 1995, p. ----).



[[Page 189]]
tation to La Fayette to visit America (V, 7082, footnote), the welcome 
to Kossuth (V, 7083), notice to a foreign government of the abrogation 
of a treaty (V, 6270), declaration of intervention in Cuba (V, 6321), 
correction of an error in an existing act of legislation (IV, 3519; VII, 
1092), enlargement of scope of inquiries provided by law (VII, 1040), 
election of managers for National Soldiers' Homes (V, 7336), special 
appropriations for minor and incidental purposes (V, 7319), continuing 
appropriations (H.J. Res. 790, P.L. 91-33, p. 17015); establishing the 
date for convening of Congress (H.J. Res. 1041, P.L. 91-182, p. 40982); 
extending the submission date under law for transmittal of the Budget 
and Economic Report to Congress by the President (H.J. Res. 635, P.L. 
97-469, p. 32936); and extending the termination date for a law (H.J. 
Res. 864, P.L. 91-59, p. 22546). At one time they were used for purposes 
of general legislation; but the two Houses finally concluded that a bill 
was the proper instrumentality for this purpose (IV, 3370-3373). A joint 
resolution has been changed to a bill by amendment (IV, 3374), but in 
the later practice it has become impracticable to do so.


Sec. 397. Joint resolutions.

  Another  development of the 
modern practice is the joint resolution, which is a bill so far as the 
processes of the Congress in relation to it are concerned (IV, 3375; 
VII, 1036). With the exception of joint resolutions proposing amendments 
to the Constitution (V, 7029), all these resolutions are sent to the 
President for approval and have the full force of law. They are used for 
what may be called the incidental, unusual, or inferior purposes of 
legislating (IV, 3372), as extending the national thanks to individuals 
(IV, 3370), the invi



  Where a choice between a concurrent resolution and a joint resolution 
is not dictated by law, the House by its votes on consideration of a 
measure decides which is the appropriate vehicle (and a point of order 
does not lie that a concurrent rather than a joint resolution would be 
more appropriate to express the sense of the Congress on an issue) (Mar. 
16, 1983, p. 5669).





[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 189-190]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-53]

 
         *            *            *            *            *        


                 SEC. XXIII.--BILLS, LEAVE TO BRING IN.



[[Page 190]]



Sec. 398. Obsolete provisions as to introduction of 
bills.

  When  a Member desires to bring in a bill on any subject, he states 
to the House in general terms the causes for doing it, and concludes by 
moving for leave to bring in a bill, entitled, &c. Leave being given, on 
the question, a committee is appointed to prepare and bring in the bill. 
The mover and seconder are always appointed of this committee, and one 
or more in addition. Hakew., 132; Scob., 40. It is to be presented 
fairly written, without any erasure or interlineation, or the Speaker 
may refuse it. Scob., 41; 1 Grey, 82, 84.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 190]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-54]

 
  This provision is obsolete, clauses 1-4 of rule XXII providing an 
entirely different method of introducing bills. The introduction of 
bills by leave was gradually dropped by the practice of the House, and 
after 1850 the present free system of permitting Members to introduce at 
will bills for printing and reference began to develop (IV, 3365).


                    SEC. XXIV.--BILLS, FIRST READING.




Sec. 399. Obsolete requirements as to first reading of 
bills.

  When  a bill is first presented, the Clerk reads it at the table, and 
hands it to the Speaker, who, rising, states to the House the title of 
the bill; that this is the first time of reading it; and the question 
will be, whether it shall be read a second time? then sitting down to 
give an opening for objections. If none be made, he rises again, and 
puts the question, whether it shall be read a second time? Hakew., 137, 
141. A bill cannot be amended on the first reading, 6 Grey, 286; nor is 
it usual for it to be opposed then, but it may be done, and rejected. 
D'Ewes, 335, col. 1; 3 Hats., 198.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 190-191]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-55]

 
  This provision is obsolete, the practice under clause 1 of rule XXI 
now governing the procedure of the House of Representatives.


                    SEC. XXV.--BILLS, SECOND READING.


[[Page 191]]
question will be, whether it shall be read a third time? and before he 
has so reported the state of the bill, no one is to speak to it. Hakew., 
143, 146.


Sec. 400. Obsolete parliamentary law as to second 
reading.

  The  second reading must regularly be on another day. Hakew., 143. 
It is done by the Clerk at the table, who then hands it to the Speaker. 
The Speaker, rising, states to the House the title of the bill; that 
this is the second time of reading it; and that the question will be, 
whether it shall be committed, or engrossed and read a third time? But 
if the bill came from the other House, as it always comes engrossed, he 
states that the 



  In the Senate of the United States, the President reports the title of 
the bill; that this is the second time of reading it; that it is now to 
be considered as in a Committee of the Whole; and the question will be, 
whether it shall be read a third time? or that it may be referred to a 
special committee?





[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 191-201]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-56]

 
  The provisions of this paragraph are to a large extent obsolete so far 
as the House of Representatives is concerned, the practice under clause 
1 of rule XXI now governing.


                     SEC. XXVI.--BILLS, COMMITMENT.




Sec. 401. Parliamentary law (largely obsolete) as to 
reference of bills to committees.

  If  on motion and question it be decided 
that the bill shall be committed, it may then be moved to be referred to 
Committee of the Whole House, or to a special committee. If the latter, 
the Speaker proceeds to name the committee. Any member also may name a 
single person, and Clerk is to write him down as of the committee. But 
the House have a controlling power over the names and number, if a 
question be moved against any one; and may in any case put in and put 
out whom they please.



[[Page 192]]
of a specified number of persons (IV, 4402). But such committee is 
appointed only by the Speaker (clause 6(e) of rule X).
  This paragraph is to a large extent obsolete under the rules and 
practice of the House of Representatives. Bills are referred in the 
first instance by the Speaker to standing committees as prescribed by 
the rules (rules X and XXII), and references of reported bills to the 
proper calendar of the House are also made under direction of the 
Speaker (clause 2 of rule XIII). Reference of a matter under 
consideration is made by a motion to refer which specifies the committee 
and may provide for a select committee 


  Rule XVII provides that the Speaker may entertain a motion to commit 
to a standing or select committee with or without instructions pending 
or following the ordering of the previous question.




Sec. 402. Obsolete provisions as to constitution of 
committees.

  Those  who take exceptions to some particulars in the bill are to 
be of the committee, but none who speak directly against the body of the 
bill; for he that would totally destroy will not amend it, Hakew., 146; 
Town., col., 208; D'Ewes, 634, col. 2; Scob., 47; or as is said, 5 Grey, 
145, the child is not to be put to a nurse that cares not for it, 6 
Grey, 373. It is therefore a constant rule ``that no man is to be 
employed in any matter who has declared himself against it.'' And when 
any member who is against the bill hears himself named of its committee 
he ought to ask to be excused. Thus, March 7, 1806, Mr. Hadley was, on 
the question being put, excused from being of a committee, declaring 
himself to be against the matter itself. Scob., 46.



  This provision is entirely inapplicable in the House of 
Representatives, where the standing committees with majority and 
minority representation (IV, 4467, 4477, footnote, 4478) consider most 
of the bills. And in the infrequent occasions when a select committee is 
appointed the minority party is always represented in the membership.




Sec. 403. Delivery of bills to committees.

  The  Clerk may 
deliver the bill to any member of the committee, Town, col. 138; but it 
is usual to deliver it to him who is first named.




[[Page 193]]

  Following introduction, reference, and numbering, bills are sent to 
the Government Printing Office for printing. Printed copies of all bills 
are distributed in accordance with law (44 U.S.C. 706) and copies are 
made available to the committee to which referred.




Sec. 404. Obsolete provision for ordering a committee to 
withdraw and bring back a bill.

  In  some cases the House has ordered a 
committee to withdraw immediately into the committee chamber and act on 
and bring back the bill, sitting the House. Scob., 48. * * *


  This procedure is rarely followed in the House of Representatives, 
since the order of business does not provide for such a motion unless it 
is offered by unanimous consent.



Sec. 405. Commital with directions to report 
forthwith.

  When  a bill is under consideration, however, the House may on 
motion commit it with instructions to report ``forthwith'' with certain 
specified amendment (V, 5548, 5549), in which case the chairman of the 
committee reports at once without awaiting action of the committee (V, 
5545-5547; VIII, 2730, 2732) and the bill is in order for immediate 
consideration (V, 5550; VIII, 2735).





Sec. 406. Discharge of a committee.

  The  motion to discharge 
a committee from the consideration of an ordinary legislative 
proposition is not privileged under the rules (IV, 3533, 4693; VIII, 
2316), but where a matter involves a question of privilege (III, 2585, 
2709; VIII, 2316), or is privileged under the rule relating to 
resolutions of inquiry (clause 5 of rule XXII; III, 1871; IV, 4695) or 
is provided privilege under statutes enacted under the rulemaking power 
of the House (see Sec. 1013, infra), the motion to discharge is 
admitted. The motion is not debatable (III, 1868; IV, 4695), except 
under clause 3 of rule XXVII, and may be laid on the table (V, 5407; VI, 
415), but the question of consideration may not be demanded against it 
(V, 4977).





Sec. 407. Meetings and action of committees.

  * * *  A 
committee meet when and where they please, if the House has not ordered 
time and place for them, 6 Grey, 370; but they can only act when 
together, and not by separate consultation and consent--nothing being 
the report of the committee but what has been agreed to in committee 
actually assembled.



[[Page 194]]

  For discussion of committee procedure generally, see Sec. 704a, infra. 
In the House of Representatives the standing committees usually meet in 
their committee rooms, but there is no rule requiring them to meet 
there, and in the absence of direction by the House, committees 
designate the time and place of their meetings (VIII, 2214). 

  Standing committees fix regular weekly, biweekly, or monthly meeting 
days for the transaction of business (not less infrequently than 
monthly, under clause 2(b) of rule XI), and additional meetings may be 
called by the chairman as he may deem necessary or by a majority of the 
committee in certain circumstances (clause 2(c) of rule XI). Where a 
committee has a fixed date of meeting, a quorum of the committee may 
convene on such date without call of the Chairman and transact business 
regardless of his absence (VIII, 2214). A committee meeting being 
adjourned by the chairman for lack of a quorum, a majority of the 
members of the committee may not, without the consent of the chairman, 
call a meeting of the committee on the same day (VIII, 2213).


[[Page 195]]
valid, although a necessary one of that majority did not concur in all 
the statements (IV, 4587). If a report is actually sustained by the 
majority of a committee, it is not impeached by the fact that a lesser 
number sign it (II, 1091), or by the fact that later by the action of 
absentees more than a majority of the whole committee are found to have 
signed minority views (IV, 4585). Objection being made that a report had 
not been authorized by a committee and there being doubt as to the 
validity of the authorization, the question as to the reception of the 
report is submitted to the House (IV, 4588-4591). But where the Speaker 
is satisfied of the validity or of the invalidity of the authorization 
he may decide the question (IV, 4584, 4592, 4593; VIII, 2211, 2212, 
2222-2224). And in a case wherein it was shown that a majority of a 
committee had met and authorized a report he did not heed the fact that 
the meeting was not regularly called (IV, 4594). A bill improperly 
reported is not entitled to its place on the calendar (IV, 3117); but 
the validity of a report may not be questioned after the House has voted 
to consider it (IV, 4598), or after actual consideration has begun (IV, 
4599; VIII, 2223, 2225). Where a question was raised regarding a 
Chairman's alteration of a committee amendment, the Speaker indicated 
that the proper time to raise a point of order was when the unprivileged 
report was called up for consideration (or when before the Committee on 
Rules for a special order) and not when filed in the hopper (May 16, 
1989, p. 9356).

<>   A 
majority of the committee constitutes a quorum for business. Elsynge's 
Method of Passing Bills, 11.



Sec. 408. Authorization of reports of committees.

  The  House 
has adhered to the principle that a report must be authorized by a 
committee acting together, and a paper signed by a majority of the 
committee acting separately has been ruled out (IV, 4584; VIII, 2210-
2212, 2220; see also clause 2(l)(2)(A) of rule XI). For each rollcall 
vote in committee on amending or reporting a public measure or matter, 
the report to the House must disclose the total number of votes cast for 
and against and the names of those voting for and against (clause 
2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI). It is the duty of the chairman of each committee 
to report or cause to be reported promptly any measure approved by his 
committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the 
matter to a vote (clause 2(l)(1)(A) of rule XI); and a report must be 
filed within seven days following the submission of a written request, 
signed by a majority of the committee members, directing such filing 
(clause 2(l)(1)(B) of rule XI). A motion in committee directing its 
Chairman to use all parliamentary means to bring a bill before the House 
was held to include the right to call up the bill on Calendar Wednesday 
(VII, 2217). Clause 2(l)(1)(A) of rule XI, requiring the chairman of 
each committee to report or cause to be reported promptly measures 
approved by his committee and to take such necessary steps to bring the 
matter to a vote, is sufficient authority for the chairman to call up a 
bill on Calendar Wednesday (Speaker Rayburn, Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2161). No 
measure or recommendation shall be reported from any committee unless a 
majority of the committee were actually present (clause 2(l)(2)(A) of 
rule XI). A report is sometimes authorized by less than a majority of 
the whole committee, some members being silent or absent (II, 985, 986). 
In a rare instance a majority of a committee agreed to a report, but 
disagreed on the facts necessary to sustain the report (I, 819). In the 
situation where a committee finds itself unable to agree to a positive 
recommendation, being equally divided, it may report the fact to the 
House (I, 347; IV, 4665, 4666) and may include evidence, majority and 
minority views (III, 2403), minority views alone (II, 945), or 
propositions representing the opposing contentions (III, 2497; IV, 
4664). It is not essential that the report of a committee be signed (II, 
1274; VIII, 2229), but the minority or other separate views are signed 
by those concurring in them (IV, 4671; VIII, 2229). In a case where a 
majority of a committee signed a report it was held 


  Each Committee may fix the number of its members, but not less than 
two, to constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving evidence; 
and except for the Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and Ways 
and Means, a committee may fix the number of members to constitute a 
quorum, which shall be not less than one-third of its members, for 
taking certain other actions (clause 2(h) of rule XI). However, no 
measure or recommendations shall be reported from any committee or 
subcommittee unless a majority of the committee were actually present 
(clauses 2(h) and 2(l) of rule XI); nor shall a committee or 
subcommittee vote without a majority present to authorize a subpoena 
under clause 2(m) of rule XI or to close a meeting or hearing under 
clauses 2(a) and 2(g) of rule XI (except as provided under clause 
2(g)(2)(A) with respect to certain hearing procedures).


[[Page 196]]
mittee must be present when alleged perjurious testimony is given in 
order to support a charge of perjury (Christoffel v. United States, 388 
U.S. 84). The absence of a quorum of a committee at the time a witness 
willfully fails to produce subpoenaed documents is not a valid defense 
in a prosecution for contempt where the witness failed to raise that 
objection before the committee (United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323; 
United States v. Fleischman, 339 U.S. 349).

  A quorum of a committee may transact business and a majority of the 
quorum, even though it be a minority of the whole committee, may 
authorize a report (IV, 4586), but an actual quorum of a committee must 
be present to make action taken valid (VIII, 2212, 2222), unless the 
House authorizes less than a quorum to act (IV, 4553, 4554). A quorum of 
a com




Sec. 410. Presence of a Member of the House in a select 
committee.

  Any  Member of the House may be present at any select committee, 
but cannot vote, and must give place to all of the committee, and sit 
below them. Elsynge, 12; Scob., 49.



  This phrase must be read in conjunction with the power of a committee 
of the House to conduct proceedings in executive session (see clauses 
2(g)(1) and (2) of rule XI). Thus, a committee may close its doors in 
executive session meetings to persons not invited or required, including 
Members of the House who are not members of the committee (III, 1694; 
IV, 4558-4565; see discussion at IV, 4540). In the 95th Congress, clause 
2(g)(2) of rule XI was amended to prohibit the exclusion of noncommittee 
members from nonparticipatory attendance in any closed hearing, except 
in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, unless the House by 
majority vote authorizes a committee or subcommittee to close its 
hearings to noncommittee members (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., Jan. 4, 1977, 
pp. 53-70).




Sec. 411. Power of committees over the body and title of a 
bill.

  The  committee have full power over the bill or other paper committed 
to them, except that they cannot change the title or subject. 8 Grey, 
228.



  In the House of Representatives committees may recommend amendments to 
the body of a bill or to the title but may not otherwise change the 
text.


[[Page 197]]
ing at the end of each paragraph, and putting questions for amending, 
if proposed. In the case of resolutions or distinct subjects, 
originating with themselves, a question is put on each separately, as 
amended or unamended, and no final question on the whole, 3 Hats., 276; 
but if they relate to the same subject, a question is put on the whole. 
If it be a bill, draught of an address, or other paper originating with 
them, they proceed by paragraphs, putting questions for amending, either 
by insertion or striking out, if proposed; but no question on agreeing 
to the paragraphs separately; this is reserved to the close, when a 
question is put on the whole, for agreeing to it as amended or 
unamended. But if it be a paper referred to them, they proceed to put 
questions of amendment, if proposed, but no final question on the whole; 
because all parts of the paper, having been adopted by the House, stand, 
of course, unless altered or struck out by a vote. Even if they are 
opposed to the whole paper, and think it cannot be made good by 
amendments, they cannot reject it, but must report it back to the House 
without amendments, and there make their opposition.



Sec. 412. Parliamentary law governing consideration of 
bills, etc., in committees.

  The  paper before a committee, whether select 
or of the whole, may be a bill, resolutions, draught of an address, &c., 
and it may either originate with them or be referred to them. In every 
case the whole paper is read first by the Clerk, and then by the 
chairman, by paragraphs, Scob., 49, paus



[[Page 198]]
to go into Committee of the Whole for such a purpose, except by 
unanimous consent.

  In the House of Representatives it has generally been held that a 
select or standing committee may not report a bill unless the subject 
matter has been referred to it (IV, 4355-4360), except that under the 
modern practice reports filed from the floor as privileged pursuant to 
clause 4(a) of rule XI have been permitted on bills and resolutions 
originating in certain committees and not formally referred thereto. 
Pursuant to this paragraph some committees have originated drafts of 
bills for consideration and amendment prior to the introduction and 
referral of a numbered bill to committee(s). In the older practice the 
Committee of the Whole originated resolutions and bills (IV, 4705); but 
the later development of the rules governing the order of business would 
prevent the offering of a motion 




Sec. 413. Order of amendment bills in the House.

  The  natural 
order in considering and amending any paper is, to begin at the 
beginning, and proceed through it by paragraphs; and this order is so 
strictly adhered to in Parliament, that when a latter part has been 
amended, you cannot recur back and make an alteration in a former part. 
2 Hats., 90. In numerous assemblies this restraint is doubtless 
important. But in the Senate of the United States, though in the main we 
consider and amend the paragraphs in their natural order, yet 
recurrences are indulged; and they seem, on the whole, in that small 
body, to produce advantages overweighing their inconveniences.



  In the House of Representatives, amendments to House bills are made 
before the previous question is ordered, pending the engrossment and 
third reading (IV, 3392; V, 5781; VII, 1051), and to Senate bills before 
the third reading (IV, 3393). Amendments may be offered to any part of 
the bill without proceeding consecutively section by section or 
paragraph by paragraph (IV, 3392). In Committee of the Whole, bills are 
read section by section or paragraph by paragraph and after a section or 
paragraph has been passed it is no longer subject to amendment (clause 5 
of rule XXIII; Sec. 872, infra; July 12, 1961, p. 12405).


[[Page 199]]
alteration of the preamble. Scob., 50; 7 Grey, 431.


Sec. 414. Preamble amended after the body of the bill or 
resolution has been considered.

  To  this natural order of beginning at the 
beginning there is a single exception found in parliamentary usage. When 
a bill is taken up in committee, or on its second reading, they postpone 
the preamble till the other parts of the bill are gone through. The 
reason is, that on consideration of the body of the bill such 
alterations may therein be made as may also occasion the 



  On this head the following case occurred in the Senate, March 6, 1800: 
A resolution which had no preamble having been already amended by the 
House so that a few words only of the original remained in it, a motion 
was made to prefix a preamble, which having an aspect very different 
from the resolution, the mover intimated that he should afterwards 
propose a correspondent amendment in the body of the resolution. It was 
objected that a preamble could not be taken up till the body of the 
resolution is done with; but the preamble was received, because we are 
in fact through the body of the resolution; we have amended that as far 
as amendments have been offered, and, indeed, till little of the 
original is left. It is the proper time, therefore, to consider a 
preamble; and whether the one offered be consistent with the resolution 
is for the House to determine. The mover, indeed, has intimated that he 
shall offer a subsequent proposition for the body of the resolution; but 
the House is not in possession of it; it remains in his breast, and may 
be withheld. The rules of the House can only operate on what is before 
them. The practice of the Senate, too, allows recurrences backward and 
forward for the purpose of amendment, not permitting amendments in a 
subsequent to preclude those in a prior part, or e converso.


[[Page 200]]
(IV, 3414; V, 5469, 5470; VII, 1064), but the preamble is not voted on 
separately in the later practice even if amended, since the question on 
passage covers the preamble as well as the resolving clause (Oct. 29, 
1975, p. 34283). After an amendment to the preamble has been considered 
it is too late to propose amendments to the text of the bill (VII, 
1065). In Committee of the Whole, amendments to the preamble of a joint 
resolution are considered following disposition of any amendments to the 
resolving clause (Mar. 9, 1967, pp. 6032-34; Mar. 22, 1967, pp. 7679-83; 
May 25, 1993, p. ----). On the passage of a joint resolution a separate 
vote may not be demanded on the preamble (V, 6147, 6148); but where a 
simple resolution of the House has a preamble, the preamble may be laid 
on the table without affecting the status of the accompanying resolution 
(V, 5430). Amendments to the preamble of a concurrent or simple 
resolution are considered in the House following the adoption of the 
resolution (Dec. 4, 1973, p. 39337; June 8, 1970, pp. 18668-71). The 
House considers an amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole to 
the preamble of a Senate joint resolution following disposition of 
amendment to the text and pending third reading (May 25, 1993, p. ----).

  In the practice of the House of Representatives the preamble of a 
joint resolution is amended after the engrossment and before the third 
reading 




Sec. 415. Directions of a committee for making of its 
report.

  When  the committee is through the whole, a Member moves that the 
committee may rise, and the chairman report the paper to the House, with 
or without amendments, as the case may be. 2 Hats., 289, 292; Scob., 53; 
2 Hats., 290; 8 Scob., 50.




[[Page 201]]

  Clause 2(l)(1)(A) of rule XI provides that it shall be the duty of the 
Chairman of each committee to report or cause to be reported promptly 
any measure approved by his committee and to take or cause to be taken 
necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote; and in any event, the 
report of a committee must be filed within seven calendar days 
(exclusive of days when the House is not in session) after a majority of 
the committee has invoked the procedures of clause 2(l)(1)(B) of rule 
XI. In the House of Representatives, a committee may order its report to 
be made by the chairman (IV, 4669), or by any other member of the 
committee (IV, 4526), even though he be a member of the minority party 
(IV, 4672, 4673; VIII, 2314). A committee report may be filed by a 
Delegate (July 1, 1958, p. 12870). Only the chairman makes a report for 
the Committee of the Whole (V, 6987).




Sec. 416. As to reconsideration of a vote in committee.

  When  a vote is once passed in a committee it cannot be altered but by the 
House, their votes being binding on themselves. 1607, June 4.



  This provision of the parliamentary law has been held to prevent the 
use of the motion to reconsider in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716-
4718; VIII, 2324, 2325) but it is in order in the House as in the 
Committee of the Whole (VIII, 2793). The early practice seems to have 
inclined against the use of the motion in a standing or select committee 
(IV, 4570, 4596), but there is a precedent which authorized the use of 
the motion (IV, 4570, 4596), and on June 1, 1922, the Committee on Rules 
rescinded previous action taken by the committee authorizing a report. 
In the later practice the motion to reconsider is in order in committee 
so long as the measure remains in possession of the committee and the 
motion is not prevented by subsequent actions of the committee on the 
measure, and may be entered on the same day as action to be reconsidered 
or on the next day on which the committee convenes with a quorum present 
to consider the same class of business (VIII, 2213), but a session 
adjourned without having secured a quorum is a dies non and not to be 
counted in determining the admissibility of a motion to reconsider 
(VIII, 2213). This provision does not prevent a committee from reporting 
a bill similar to one previously reported by such committee (VIII, 
2311).




Sec. 417. Method of noting amendments to a bill in 
committee.

  The  committee may not erase, interline, or blot the bill 
itself; but must, in a paper by itself set down the amendments, stating 
the words which are to be inserted or omitted, Scob., 50, and where, by 
references to page, line, and word of the bill. Scob., 50.








[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 202-203]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-57]

[[Page 202]]

 
  This practice is still in force as to Senate bills of which the 
engrossed copies cannot be in any way interlined or altered by House 
committees. Original copies of House bills are not referred to 
committees but are maintained indefinitely by the Clerk. Both House and 
Senate bills are now printed as referred, and committees may thus report 
either with proposed amendments. In the ``official papers'' (signed 
engrossed copies), the engrossed House amendments to a Senate bill would 
still be shown as a separate message attached to the Senate engrossed 
bill when returned to the Senate. 


                    SEC. XXVII.--REPORT OF COMMITTEE.




Sec. 418. Parliamentary method of submitting 
reports.

  The  chairman of the committee, standing in his place, informs the 
House that the committee to whom was referred such a bill, have, 
according to order, had the same under consideration, and have directed 
him to report the same without any amendment, or with sundry amendments 
(as the case may be), which he is ready to do when the House pleases to 
receive it. And he or any other may move that it be now received; but 
the cry of ``now, now,'' from the House, generally dispenses with the 
formality of a motion and question. He then reads the amendments, with 
the coherence in the bill, and opens the alterations and the reasons of 
the committee for such amendments, until he has gone through the whole. 
He then delivers it at the Clerk's table, where the amendments reported 
are read by the Clerk without the coherence; whereupon the papers lie 
upon the table till the House, at its convenience, shall take up the 
report. Scob., 52; Hakew., 148.



[[Page 203]]
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) on which they are 
available to Members. The exceptions from the three-day rule, in 
addition to the exceptions stated in the rule for declarations of war 
and actions on certain executive determinations, are certain reports 
from the Committee on Rules (see clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI) and primary 
expense resolutions reported from the Committee on House Oversight (see 
clause 5 of rule XI). Reports not filed as privileged under clause 4(a) 
of rule XI are subject to the three-day rule unless specifically 
exempted therefrom (in clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI) or unless privileged 
under rule IX. It has been held, for example, that a privileged report 
involving the privileges of the House under rule IX (such as a report 
from a committee on the contemptuous conduct of a witness before the 
committee) would not be subject to the three-day rule (Speaker Albert, 
July 13, 1971, pp. 24720-23). The general rule (clause 1 of rule XIII) 
is that reports shall be placed on the calendars of the House, there to 
await action under the rules for the order of business (rule XXIV).

  This provision is to a large extent obsolete so far as the practice of 
the House of Representatives is concerned. Most of the reports of 
committees are made by filing them with the Clerk without reading 
(clause 2 of rule XIII), and only the reports of committees having leave 
to report at any time are made by the chairman or other member of the 
committee from the floor (clause 4(a) of rule XI). Committee reports 
must be submitted while the House is in session, and this requirement 
may be waived by unanimous consent only, and not by motion (Dec. 17, 
1982, p. 31951). All reports privileged under clause 4 of rule XI at one 
time could be called up for consideration immediately after being filed, 
but since January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. ----
), such reports--with two exceptions--are subject to the requirement of 
clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI and cannot be considered in the House until 
the third calendar day 




Sec. 419. Reports; dissolution, and revival of select 
committees.

  The  report being made, the committee is dissolved and can act 
no more without a new power. Scob. 51. But it may be revived by a vote, 
and the same matter recommitted to them. 4 Grey, 361.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 203-204]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-58]

 
  This provision does not apply now to the Committees of the Whole or to 
the standing committees. It does apply to select committees, which 
expire when they report finally, but may be revived by the action of the 
House in referring in open House a new matter (IV, 4404, 4405). The 
provision does not preclude a standing committee from reporting a bill 
similar to one previously reported by such committee (VIII, 2311).


                    SEC. XXVIII.--BILL, RECOMMITMENT.


[[Page 204]]
new resolution must be again moved, as if nothing had passed. 3 Hats., 
131--note.


Sec. 420. Recommittal of a bill to a committee.

  After  a bill 
has been committed and reported, it ought not, in any ordinary course, 
to be recommitted; but in cases of importance, and for special reasons, 
it is sometimes recommitted, and usually to the same committee. Hakew, 
151. If a report be recommitted before agreed to in the House, what has 
passed in committee is of no validity; the whole question is again 
before the committee, and a 



  In Senate, January, 1800, the salvage bill was recommitted three times 
after the commitment.


  Where a matter is recommitted with instructions the committee must 
confine itself within the instructions (IV, 4404), and if the 
instructions relate to a certain portion only of a bill, other portions 
may not be reviewed (V, 5526). When a report has been disposed of 
adversely a motion to recommit it is not in order (V, 5559). Bills are 
sometimes recommitted to the Committee of the Whole as the indirect 
result of the action of the House (clause 7 of rule XXIII; IV, 4784) or 
directly on motion either with or without instructions (V, 5552, 5553).




Sec. 421. Division of matters for reference to 
committees.

  A  particular clause of a bill may be committed without the 
whole bill, 3 Hats., 131; or so much of a paper to one and so much to 
another committee.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 204-206]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-59]

 
  In the usage of the House before the rules provided that petitions 
should be filed with the Clerk instead of being referred from the floor, 
it was the practice to refer a portion of a petition to one committee 
and the remainder to another when the subject matter called for such 
division (IV, 3359). Clause 5 of rule X now permits the Speaker to refer 
bills, and resolutions, with or without time limitations, either (1) 
simultaneously to two or more committees for concurrent consideration, 
while indicating one committee of primary jurisdiction, (2) sequentially 
to appropriate committees after the report of the committee or 
committees initially considering the matter, (3) to divide the matter 
for referral, (4) to appoint an ad hoc committee with the approval of 
the House, or (5) to make other appropriate provisions, in order to 
assure that to the maximum extent feasible each committee with subject 
matter jurisdiction over provisions in that measure may consider and 
report to the House with respect thereto. Under former precedents a 
bill, resolution, or communication could not be divided for reference 
(IV, 4372, 4376).


                   SEC. XXIX.--BILL, REPORTS TAKEN UP.


[[Page 205]]
agreed to seriatim, 5 Grey, 366; 6 Grey, 368; 8 Grey, 47, 104, 360; 1 
Torbuck's Deb., 125; 3 Hats., 348, no question needs be put on the whole 
report. 5 Grey, 381.



Sec. 422. Consideration and action on reports.

  When  the 
report of a paper originating with a committee is taken up by the House, 
they proceed exactly as in committee. Here, as in committee, when the 
paragraphs have, on distinct questions, been 



  In the House of Representatives committees usually report bills, joint 
resolutions, concurrent resolutions, or simple resolutions. These come 
before the House for action while the written reports accompanying them, 
which are always printed, do not (IV, 4674), and even the reading of the 
reports is in order only in the time of debate (V, 5292). The Chair will 
not recognize a Member during debate on a bill in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole for unanimous consent to amend the accompanying 
committee report in a specified manner, as the House should not change 
the substance of a committee report upon which it is not called to vote 
(Apr. 2, 1985, p. 7209; Nov. 7, 1989, p. ----). In rare instances, 
however, committees submit merely written reports without propositions 
for action. Such reports being before the House may be debated before 
any specific motion has been made (V, 4987, 4988), and are in such case 
read to the House (IV, 4663) and after being considered the question is 
taken on agreeing. In such cases the report appears in full on the 
Journal (II, 1364; IV, 4675; V, 7177). When reports are acted on in this 
way it has not been the practice of the House to consider them by 
paragraphs, but the question has been put on the whole report (II, 
1364).


[[Page 206]]
the question whether the bill shall be read a third time?



Sec. 423. Action by the House on amendments recommended by 
committees.

  On  taking up a bill reported with amendments the amendments 
only are read by the Clerk. The Speaker then reads the first, and puts 
it to the question, and so on till the whole are adopted or rejected, 
before any other amendment be admitted, except it be an amendment to an 
amendment. Elsynge's Mem., 53. When through the amendments of the 
committee, the Speaker pauses, and gives time for amendments to be 
proposed in the House to the body of the bill; as he does also if it has 
been reported without amendments; putting no questions but on amendments 
proposed; and when through the whole, he puts 






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 206-210]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-60]

 
  The procedure outlined by this provision of the parliamentary law 
applies to bills when reported from the Committee of the Whole; but in 
practice it is usual to vote on the amendments in gross. But any Member 
may demand a separate vote (see Sec. 337, supra). The principle that the 
committee amendments should be voted on before amendments proposed by 
individual Members is recognized (IV, 4872-4876; V, 5773; VIII, 2862, 
2863), except when it is proposed to amend a committee amendment. The 
Clerk reads the amendments and the Speaker does not again read them. 
Frequently the House orders the previous question on the committee 
amendments and the bill to final passage, thus preventing further 
amendment. When a bill is of such nature that it does not go to 
Committee of the Whole, it comes before the House from the House 
Calendar, on which it has been placed on being reported from the 
standing or select committee. On being taken from the House Calendar the 
bill is read through and then the amendments proposed by the committee 
are read.


                       SEC. XXX.--QUASI-COMMITTEE.



Sec. 424. Procedure ``in the House as in Committee of the 
Whole.''

  If  on motion and question the bill be not committed, or if no 
proposition for commitment be made, then the proceedings in the Senate 
of the United States and in Parliament are totally different. The former 
shall be first stated.



[[Page 207]]
them, as it would have been if reported from a committee, and the 
questions are regularly to be put again on every amendment; which being 
gone through, the President pauses to give time to the House to propose 
amendments to the body of the bill, and, when through, puts the question 
whether it shall be read a third time?

  The proceeding of the Senate as in a Committee of the Whole, or in 
quasi-committee, is precisely as in a real Committee of the Whole, 
taking no question but on amendments. When through the whole, they 
consider the quasi-committee as risen, the House resumed without any 
motion, question, or resolution to that effect, and the President 
reports that ``the House, acting as in a Committee of the Whole, have 
had under their consideration the bill entitled, &c., and have made 
sundry amendments, which he will now report to the House.'' The bill is 
then before 

  In the House of Representatives procedure ``in the House as in 
Committee of the Whole'' is by unanimous consent only, as the order of 
business gives no place for a motion that business be considered in this 
manner (IV, 4923). Where the House grants unanimous consent for the 
immediate consideration of a bill on the Union Calendar, or which would 
belong on the Union Calendar if reported, the bill is considered in the 
House as in the Committee of the Whole (Apr. 6, 1966, p. 7749; Aug. 3, 
1970, p. 26918; Procedure, ch. 22, sec. 1.3, and ch. 29, sec. 21). The 
Committee on Rules may report a resolution providing a special order for 
consideration of a measure in the House as in Committee of the Whole 
(Dec. 18, 1974, p. 40858). In the modern practice of the House an order 
for this procedure means merely that the bill will be considered as 
having been read for amendment and will be open for amendment and debate 
under the five-minute rule (Aug. 10, 1970, p. 28050; clause 5 of rule 
XXIII), without general debate (IV, 4924, 4925; VI, 639; VIII, 2431, 
2432). The Speaker remains in the chair and, when the previous question 
is moved, makes no report but puts the question on ordering the previous 
question and then on engrossment and third reading and on passage.


  For further description of the procedures applicable to the House as 
in the Committee of the Whole, and the application of those procedures 
to committees of the House of Representatives, see Sec. 427, infra.


[[Page 208]]
tion fails, the quasi-committee stands in status quo.-


Sec. 425. Motion to refer admitted ``in the House as in 
Committee of the Whole.''

  After  progress in amending the bill in quasi-
committee, a motion may be made to refer it to a special committee. If 
the motion prevails, it is equivalent in effect to the several votes, 
that the committee rise, the House resume itself, discharge the 
Committee of the Whole, and refer the bill to a special committee. In 
that case, the amendments already made fall. But if the mo



[[Page 209]]
committee. 4. It admits of the previous question. If it did not, it 
would have no means of preventing an improper discussion; not being 
able, as a committee is, to avoid it by returning into the House, for 
the moment it would resume the same subject there, the XXVIIIth rule 
declares it again a quasi-committee. 5. It would doubtless exercise its 
powers as a House on any breach of order. 6. It takes a question by yea 
and nay, as the House does. 7. It receives messages from the President 
and the other House. 8. In the midst of a debate it receives a motion to 
adjourn, and adjourns as a House, not as a committee.



Sec. 426. Motions and procedure in quasicommittee in 
Jefferson's time.

  How  far does this XXVIIIth rule [of the Senate] subject 
the House, when in quasi-committee, to the laws which regulate the 
proceedings of Committees of the Whole? The particulars in which these 
differ from proceedings in the House are the following: 1. In a 
committee every member may speak as often as he pleases. 2. The votes of 
a committee may be rejected or altered when reported to the House. 3. A 
committee, even of the whole, cannot refer any matter to another 
committee. 4. In a committee no previous question can be taken; the only 
means to avoid an improper discussion is to move that the committee 
rise; and if it be apprehended that the same discussion will be 
attempted on returning into committee, the House can discharge them, and 
proceed itself on the business, keeping down the improper discussion by 
the previous question. 5. A committee cannot punish a breach of order in 
the House or in the gallery. 9 Grey, 113. It can only rise and report it 
to the House, who may proceed to punish. The first and second of these 
peculiarities attach to the quasi-committee of the Senate, as every 
day's practice proves, and it seems to be the only ones to which the 
XXVIIIth rule meant to subject them; for it continues to be a House, 
and, therefore, though it acts in some respects as a committee, in 
others it preserves its character as a House. Thus (3) it is in the 
daily habit of referring its business to a special 




Sec. 427. Motions and procedure ``in the House as in 
Committee of the Whole.''

  In  the modern practice of the House of 
Representatives the rule of Jefferson's Manual is followed to the extent 
that the House, while acting ``in the House as in Committee of the 
Whole'' may deal with disorder, take the yeas and nays, adjourn, refer 
to a committee even though the reading by sections may not have begun 
(IV, 4931, 4932), admit the motion to reconsider (VIII, 2793), receive 
messages (IV, 4923), and use the previous question (VI, 369; Procedure, 
ch. 23, sec. 6.3) (which differs from the previous question of 
Jefferson's time). The previous question may not be moved on a single 
section of a bill (IV, 4930), but it may be demanded on the bill while 
Members yet desire to offer amendments (IV, 4926-4929; VI, 639). 
Formerly a motion to close debate on the pending section of a bill being 
read by section for amendment in the House as in the Committee of the 
Whole was in order (IV, 4935), but under current practice a bill 
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole is considered as 
read and open for amendment at any point (Aug. 10, 1970, p. 28050), and 
a motion is in order in the House as in Committee of the Whole to close 
debate on the bill or on an amendment (June 26, 1973, pp. 21314-15). An 
amendment may be withdrawn at any time before action has been had on it 
(IV, 4935; June 26, 1973, p. 21305). An amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is in order after perfecting amendments have been considered 
(IV, 4933, 4934; V, 5788). The title also is amended after the bill has 
been considered (IV, 3416). A quorum of the House (and not of the 
Committee of the Whole) is required in the House as in the Committee of 
the Whole (VI, 639).



[[Page 210]]
section) for amendment (see Sec. 412, supra). Therefore, in committee a 
motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule must be confined to 
the portion of the measure then pending. Moreover, although the previous 
question may be moved on any pending amendment, it may be moved on the 
measure, itself, only when the entire measure has been read for 
amendment (or considered as read by unanimous consent).




[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 210-212]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-61]

 
  The procedures applicable in the House as in the Committee of the 
Whole generally apply to proceedings in committees of the House of 
Representatives, except that a measure considered in committee must be 
read (by 


             SEC. XXXI.--BILL, SECOND READING IN THE HOUSE.



Sec. 428. Manner of reading a bill the second 
time.

  In  Parliament, after the bill has been read a second time, if on 
the motion and question it be not committed, or if no proposition for 
commitment be made, the speaker reads it by paragraphs, pausing between 
each, but putting no question but on amendments proposed; but when 
through the whole, he puts the question whether it shall be read a third 
time, if it came from the other house, or, if originating with 
themselves, whether it shall be engrossed and read a third time. The 
speaker reads sitting, but rises to put questions. The clerk stands 
while he reads.




[[Page 211]]

  But the Senate of the United States is so much in the habit of making 
many and material amendments at the third reading that it has become the 
practice not to engross a bill till it has passed--an irregular and 
dangerous practice, because in this way the paper which passes the 
Senate is not that which goes to the other House, and that which goes to 
the other House as the act of the Senate has never been seen in the 
Senate. In reducing numerous, difficult, and illegible amendments into 
the text the Secretary may, with the most innocent intentions, commit 
errors which can never again be corrected.


  In the House of Representatives the Clerk and not the Speaker or 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reads bills on second reading. 
After the second reading, which is in full, the bill is open to 
amendment. Clause 1 of rule XXI, as explained in Sec. 831, infra, 
governs first and second readings of bills in the House and in Committee 
of the Whole.



[[Page 212]]



Sec. 429. Test of strength on engrossment after 
amendment.

  The  bill being now as perfect as its friends can make it, this 
is the proper stage for those fundamentally opposed to make their first 
attack. All attempts at earlier periods are with disjointed efforts, 
because many who do not expect to be in favor of the bill ultimately, 
are willing to let it go on to its perfect state, to take time to 
examine it themselves and to hear what can be said for it, knowing that 
after all they will have sufficient opportunities of giving it their 
veto. Its two last stages, therefore, are reserved for this--that is to 
say, on the question whether it shall be engrossed and read a third 
time, and, lastly, whether it shall pass. The first of these is usually 
the most interesting contest, because then the whole subject is new and 
engaging, and the minds of the Members having not yet been declared by 
any trying vote the issue is the more doubtful. In this stage, 
therefore, is the main trial of strength between its friends and 
opponents, and it behooves everyone to make up his mind decisively for 
this question, or he loses the main battle; and accident and management 
may, and often do, prevent a successful rallying on the next and last 
question, whether it shall pass.



<>   
When the bill is engrossed the title is to be indorsed on the back, and 
not within the bill. Hakew, 250.



Sec. 430. Test of strength on a bill before amending.

  In  the House of Representatives there are two other means of testing 
strength--one by raising the question of consideration when the bill 
first comes up (clause 3 of rule XVI), and the other by moving to strike 
out the enacting words when it is first open to amendment (clause 7 of 
rule XXIII). By these methods an adverse opinion may be expressed 
without permitting the bill to consume the time of the House.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 212-214]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-62]

 
  In the practice of the House of Representatives and the Senate the 
title appears in its proper place in the engrossed bill, and also is 
endorsed, with the number, on the back.


                      SEC. XXXII.--READING PAPERS.



[[Page 213]]



Sec. 432. Parliamentary law as to the reading of 
papers.

  Where  papers are laid before the House or referred to a committee 
every Member has a right to have them once read at the table before he 
can be compelled to vote on them; but it is a great though common error 
to suppose that he has a right, toties quoties, to have acts, journals, 
accounts, or papers on the table read independently of the will of the 
House. The delay and interruption which this might be made to produce 
evince the impossibility of the existence of such a right. There is, 
indeed, so manifest a propriety of permitting every Member to have as 
much information as possible on every question on which he is to vote, 
that when he desires the reading, if it be seen that it is really for 
information and not for delay, the Speaker directs it to be read without 
putting a question, if no one objects; but if objected to, a question 
must be put. 2 Hats., 117, 118.



  At one time, the House, by rule XXX, had a provision regarding the 
reading a paper other than that on which the House is called to give a 
final vote.



Sec. 433. Papers not necessarily to be read on plea of 
privilege.

  It  is equally an error to suppose that any Member has a right, 
without a question put, to lay a book or paper on the table, and have it 
read, on suggesting that it contains matter infringing on the privileges 
of the House. Ib.




Sec. 434. Member not always privileged to read a paper in 
his place.

  For  the same reason a Member has not a right to read a paper in 
his place, if it be objected to, without leave of the House. But this 
rigor is never exercised but where there is an intentional or gross 
abuse of the time and patience of the House.


  A Member has not a right even to read his own speech, committed to 
writing, without leave. This also is to prevent an abuse of time, and 
therefore is not refused but where that is intended. 2 Grey, 227.




Sec. 435. Reports of committees not read except on order or 
in debate.

  A  report of a committee of the Senate on a bill from the 
House of Representatives being under consideration: on motion that the 
report of the committee of the House of Representatives on the same bill 
be read in the Senate, it passed in the negative. Feb. 28, 1793.




[[Page 214]]

  In the House of Representatives ordinary reports are read only in time 
of debate (V, 5292), and subject to the authority of the House (V, 
5293). But in a few cases, where a report does not accompany a bill or 
other proposition of action, but presents facts and conclusions, it is 
read to the House if acted on (II, 1364; IV, 4663).




Sec. 436. Reading of papers on reference.

  Formerly,  when 
papers were referred to a committee, they used to be first read; but of 
late only the titles, unless a Member insists they shall be read, and 
then nobody can oppose it. 2 Hats., 117.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 214-218]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-63]

 
  Under the rules, petitions, memorials, and communications are referred 
through the Clerk's desk, so that there is no opportunity for reading 
before reference, though messages from the President are read (clauses 1 
and 4 of rule XXII; clause 2 of rule XXIV).


                   SEC. XXXIII.--PRIVILEGED QUESTIONS.



Sec. 437. Possession of a bill by the 
House.

  It is no  possession of a bill unless it be delivered to the Clerk to 
read, or the Speaker reads the title. Lex. Parl., 274; Elysynge Mem., 
85; Ord. House of Commons, 64.





Sec. 438. Theory as to privileged questions.

  It is a  general 
rule that the question first moved and seconded shall be first put. 
Scob., 28, 22; 2 Hats., 81. But this rule gives way to what may be 
called privileged questions; and the privileged questions are of 
different grades among themselves.



  In the House of Representatives, by rule and practice the system of 
privileged motions and privileged questions has been highly developed 
(rule IX, clause 4 of rule XI, clause 4 of rule XVI, and clause 1 of 
rule XXIV).




Sec. 439. Precedence of the motion to adjourn.

  A motion  to 
adjourn simply takes place of all others; for otherwise the House might 
be kept sitting against its will, and indefinitely. Yet this motion can 
not be received after another question is actually put and while the 
House is engaged in voting.



[[Page 215]]
tween a vote by division and a vote by yeas and nays, as after the yeas 
and nays are ordered and before the roll call begins (V, 5366). But 
after the roll call begins it may not be interrupted (V, 6053). Clause 4 
of rule XVI was amended in the 93d Congress to provide that a motion 
that when the House adjourns on that day it stand adjourned to meet at a 
day and time certain is of equal privilege with the motion to adjourn, 
if the Speaker in his discretion recognizes for that purpose (H. Res. 6, 
pp. 26-27). In the 102d Congress the motion to authorize the Speaker to 
declare a recess was given an equal privilege (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, 
p. ----).
  The rules and practice of the House of Representatives have prescribed 
comprehensively the privilege and status of the motion to adjourn 
(clause 4 of rule XVI). The motion intervenes between the putting of the 
question and the voting, and also between the different methods of 
voting, as be




Sec. 440. Obsolete parliamentary law governing 
orders of the day.

  Orders of  the day take place of all other questions, except 
for adjournment--that is to say, the question which is the subject of an 
order is made a privileged one, pro hac vice. The order is a repeal of 
the general rule as to this special case. When any Member moves, 
therefore, for the order of the day to be read, no further debate is 
permitted on the question which was before the House; for if the debate 
might proceed it might continue through the day and defeat the order. 
This motion, to entitle it to precedence, must be for the orders 
generally, and not for any particular one; and if it be carried on the 
question, ``Whether the House will now proceed to the orders of the 
day?'' they must be read and proceeded on in the course in which they 
stand, 2 Hats., 83; for priority of order gives priority of right, which 
can not be taken away but by another special order.



[[Page 216]]

  ``Orders of the day'' are part of the regular and daily order of 
business (IV, 3151). Although a mention of them has survived in clause 1 
of rule XXIV, ``orders of the day'' have disappeared from the practice 
of the House (IV, 3057) and should not be confused with ``special 
orders,'' which are resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules 
pursuant to clause 4 of rule XI to provide for consideration of matters 
not regularly in order. The term ``special orders'' is also used 
separately to describe permissions for Members to address the House at 
the conclusion of legislative business.



Sec. 441. Jefferson's discussion of certain privileged 
motions.

  After  these there are other privileged questions, which will 
require considerable explanation.



  It is proper that every parliamentary assembly should have certain 
forms of questions, so adapted as to enable them fitly to dispose of 
every proposition which can be made to them. Such are: 1. The previous 
question. 2. To postpone indefinitely. 3. To adjourn a question to a 
definite day. 4. To lie on the table. 5. To commit. 6. To amend. The 
proper occasion for each of these questions should be understood.


  The House of Representatives by clause 4 of rule XVI has established 
the priority and other conditions of motions of this kind.




Sec. 442. Obsolete use of the previous 
question.

  1. When a  proposition is moved which it is useless or inexpedient now 
to express or discuss, the previous question has been introduced for 
suppressing for that time the motion and its discussion. 3 Hats., 188, 
189.



  The previous question of the parliamentary law has been changed by the 
House of Representatives into an instrument of entirely different use 
(V, 5445; rule XVII).



[[Page 217]]



Sec. 443. The motion to postpone indefinitely.

  2. But as  the 
previous question gets rid of it only for that day, and the same 
proposition may recur the next day, if they wish to suppress it for the 
whole of that session, they postpone it indefinitely. 3 Hats., 183. This 
quashes the proposition for that session, as an indefinite adjournment 
is a dissolution, or the continuance of a suit sine die is a 
discontinuance of it.



  As already explained, in the House of Representatives the previous 
question is no longer used as a method of postponement (V, 5445) but a 
means to bring the pending matter to an immediate vote. The House does 
use the motion to postpone indefinitely, and in clause 4 of rule XVI and 
the practice thereunder, has defined the nature and use of the motion.




Sec. 444. Postponement to a day certain.

  3. When a  motion is 
made which it will be proper to act on, but information is wanted, or 
something more pressing claims the present time, the question or debate 
is adjourned to such a day within the session as will answer the views 
of the House. 2 Hats., 81. And those who have spoken before may not 
speak again when the adjourned debate is resumed. 2 Hats., 73. 
Sometimes, however, this has been abusively used by adjourning it to a 
day beyond the session, to get rid of it altogether as would be done by 
an indefinite postponement.



  The House of Representatives does not use the motion to adjourn a 
debate. But it accomplishes the purpose of such a procedure by the 
motion to postpone to a day certain, which applies, not to a debate, but 
to the bill or other proposition before the House. Of course, if a bill 
which is under debate is postponed, the effect is to postpone the 
debate. The conditions and use of the motion are treated under clause 4 
of rule XVI.




Sec. 445. Motion to lay on the table.

  4. When the  House has 
something else which claims its present attention, but would be willing 
to reserve in their power to take up a proposition whenever it shall 
suit them, they order it to lie on their table. It may then be called 
for at any time.



[[Page 218]]
a matter of privilege (V, 5438, 5439) such as bills vetoed by the 
President (IV, 3549; V, 5439). A proposition to impeach having been laid 
on the table, a similar or identical proposition may be again brought up 
(III, 2049; VI, 541).

  This is the use of the motion to lay on the table which is established 
in the general parliamentary law, and was followed in the early practice 
of the House of Representatives. But by an interesting evolution in the 
House the motion has now come to serve an entirely new purpose, being 
used for the final, adverse disposition of a matter (clause 4 of rule 
XVI; V, 5389). And a matter once laid on the table may be taken 
therefrom only by suspension of the rules (V, 6288) or similar process, 
unless it be 



Sec. 446. Delegation of consideration to 
committee.

  5. If the  proposition will want more amendment and digestion than the 
formalities of the House will conveniently admit, they refer it to a 
committee.



  6. But if the proposition be well digested, and may need but few and 
simple amendments, and especially if these be of leading consequence, 
they then proceed to consider and amend it themselves.


  In the House of Representatives it is a general rule that all business 
goes to committees before receiving consideration in the House itself. 
Occasionally a question of privilege or a minor matter of business is 
presented and considered at once by the House.





[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 218-228]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-64]

 


Sec. 447. Privileged motions in the Senate and in 
Parliament.

  The Senate,  in their practice, vary from this regular graduation of 
forms. Their practice comparatively with that of Parliament stands thus:



                 FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY: THE SENATE USES:


                                        [   Postponement to a day beyond 
Postponement indefinite,                [   the session.


                                        [   Postponement to a day within 
Adjournment,                            [   the session.



[[Page 219]]

                                        [   Postponement indefinite. 
Lying on table,                         [   Lying on the table.


  In their eighth rule, therefore, which declares that while a question 
is before the Senate no motion shall be received, unless it be for the 
previous question, or to postpone, commit, or amend the main question, 
the term postponement must be understood according to their broad use of 
it, and not in its parliamentary sense. Their rule, then, establishes as 
privileged questions the previous question, postponement, commitment, 
and amendment.


  The House of Representatives governs these motions by clause 4 of rule 
XVI.


[[Page 220]]

1. Previous question and postpone             


Sec. 448. Obsolete provision as to priority of 
privileged motions.

  But it may  be asked: Have these questions any privilege among 
themselves? or are they so equal that the common principle of the 
``first moved first put'' takes place among them? This will need 
explanation. Their competitions may be as follows:


                    commit              <3-l  }>

                    amend                   In the first, second, and 
2. Postpone and previous question           third classes, and the first 

                    commit                  member of the fourth class, 

                    amend                   the rule ``first moved first 
3. Commit and previous question         <3-lput'' takes place.

                    postpone

                    amend                
4. Amend and previous question

                    postpone


                    commit              <3-ln }>



                                         



                                        <3-ln }>



[[Page 221]]

  In the first class, where the previous question is first moved, the 
effect is peculiar; for it not only prevents the after motion to 
postpone or commit from being put to question before it, but also from 
being put after it; for if the previous question be decided 
affirmatively, to wit, that the main question shall now be put, it would 
of course be against the decision to postpone or commit; and if it be 
decided negatively, to wit, that the main question shall not now be put, 
this puts the House out of possession of the main question, and 
consequently there is nothing before them to postpone or commit. So that 
neither voting for nor against the previous question will enable the 
advocates for postponing or committing to get at their object. Whether 
it may be amended shall be examined hereafter.


  While clause 4 of rule XVI now governs the priority of motions, these 
provisions of the Manual remain of interest because of the parliamentary 
theory they present.




Sec. 449. General principles of priority of 
motions.

  Second class.  If postponement be decided affirmatively, the proposition is 
removed from before the House, and consequently there is no ground for 
the previous question, commitment or amendment; but if decided 
negatively (that it shall not be postponed), the main question may then 
be suppressed by the previous question, or may be committed, or amended.



  The previous question is used now for bringing a vote on the main 
question and not for suppressing it.

  The third class is subject to the same observations as the second.


  The fourth class. Amendment of the main question first moved, and 
afterwards the previous question, the question of amendment shall be 
first put.


  In present practice of the House the question on the previous question 
would be put first, and being decided affirmatively would force a vote 
on the amendment and then on the main question.


[[Page 222]]
ment, if the House had it not in their power to postpone the whole 
subject.
  Amendment and postponement competing, postponement is first put, as 
the equivalent proposition to adjourn the main question would be in 
Parliament. The reason is that the question for amendment is not 
suppressed by postponing or adjourning the main question, but remains 
before the House whenever the main question is resumed; and it might be 
that the occasion for other urgent business might go by, and be lost by 
length of debate on the amend


  Amendment and commitment. The question for committing, though last 
moved shall be first put; because, in truth, it facilitates and 
befriends the motion to amend. Scobell is express: ``On motion to amend 
a bill, anyone may notwithstanding move to commit it, and the question 
for commitment shall be first put.'' Scob., 46.


  These principles of priority of privileged motions are recognized in 
the House of Representatives, and are provided for by clause 4 of rule 
XVI.



Sec. 450. Applications of the previous question to 
debatable secondary and privileged motions.

  We have  hitherto considered the 
case of two or more of the privileged questions contending for privilege 
between themselves, when both are moved on the original or main 
question; but now let us suppose one of them to be moved, not on the 
original primary question, but on the secondary one, e.g.:



  Suppose a motion to postpone, commit, or amend the main question, and 
that it be moved to suppress that motion by putting a previous question 
on it. This is not allowed, because it would embarrass questions too 
much to allow them to be piled on one another several stories high; and 
the same result may be had in a more simple way--by deciding against the 
postponement, commitment, or amendment. 2. Hats., 81, 2, 3, 4.


[[Page 223]]
an immediate vote, makes obsolete the parliamentary rule. For as the 
motions to postpone, commit, and amend, are all debatable, the modern 
previous question of course applies to them (clause 1 of rule XVII).

  While the general principle that one secondary or privileged motion 
should not be applied to another is generally recognized in the House of 
Representatives, yet the entire change in the nature of the previous 
question (V, 5445) from a means of postponing a matter to a means of 
compelling 



Sec. 451. Motion to postpone not applicable to other 
secondary motions.

  Suppose a  motion for the previous question, or commitment or 
amendment of the main question, and that it be then moved to postpone 
the motion for the previous question, or for commitment or amendment of 
the main question. 1. It would be absurd to postpone the previous 
question, commitment, or amendment, alone, and thus separate the 
appendage from its principal; yet it must be postponed separately from 
its original, if at all; because the eighth rule of the Senate says that 
when a main question is before the House no motion shall be received but 
to commit, amend, or pre-question the original question, which is the 
parliamentary doctrine also. Therefore the motion to postpone the 
secondary motion for the previous question, or for committing or 
amending, can not be received. 2. This is a piling of questions one on 
another; which, to avoid embarrassment, is not allowed. 3. The same 
result may be had more simply by voting against the previous question, 
commitment, or amendment.



  Suppose a commitment moved of a motion for the previous question, or 
to postpone or amend. The first, second, and third reasons, before 
stated, all hold against this.



[[Page 224]]

  The principles of this paragraph are in harmony with the practice of 
the House of Representatives, which provides further that a motion to 
suspend the rules may not be postponed (V, 5322).



Sec. 452. The motion to amend not applicable to the 
previous question.

  Suppose an  amendment moved to a motion for the previous 
question. Answer: The previous question can not be amended. 
Parliamentary usage, as well as the ninth rule of the Senate, has fixed 
its form to be, ``Shall the main question be now put?''--i.e., at this 
instant; and as the present instant is but one, it can admit of no 
modification. To change it to to-morrow, or any other moment, is without 
example and without utility. * * *



  Although the nature of the previous question has entirely changed, yet 
the principle of the parliamentary law applies to the new form.



Sec. 453. Motion to amend applicable to 
motions to postpone or refer.

  * * * But suppose a  motion to amend a motion for 
postponement, as to one day instead of another, or to a special instead 
of an indefinite time. The useful character of amendment gives it a 
privilege of attaching itself to a secondary and privileged motion; that 
is, we may amend a postponement of a main question. So, we may amend a 
commitment of a main question, as by adding, for example, ``with 
instructions to inquire,'' &c. * * *



  This principle is recognized in the practice of the House of 
Representatives (V, 5521).


[[Page 225]]
where, and usage has drawn it after the amendment to the amendment. The 
same result must be sought by deciding against the amendment to the 
amendment, and then moving it again as it was wished to be amended. In 
this form it becomes only an amendment to an amendment.



Sec. 454. Amendment in the third degree not in 
order.

  * * * In like  manner, if an amendment be moved to an amendment, it is 
admitted; but it would not be admitted in another degree, to wit, to 
amend an amendment to an amendment of a main question. This would lead 
to too much embarrassment. The line must be drawn some



  This rule of the parliamentary law is considered fundamental in the 
House of Representatives (rule XIX).


[[Page 226]]
he should vote in the affirmative, every question for more would be 
precluded; but at that extreme which would unite few, and then to 
advance or recede till you get to a number which will unite a bare 
majority. 3 Grey, 376, 384, 385. ``The fair question in this case is not 
that to which, and more, all will agree, but whether there shall be 
addition to the question.'' 1 Grey, 365.



Sec. 455. Filling blanks; and amendment to 
numbers.

  [In filling  a blank with a sum, the largest sum shall be first put to the 
question, by the thirteenth rule of the Senate, contrary to the rule of 
Parliament, which privileges the smallest sum and longest time. 5 Grey, 
179; 2 Hats., 8, 83; 3 Hats., 132, 133.] And this is considered to be 
not in the form of an amendment to the question, but as alternative or 
successive originals. In all cases of time or number, we must consider 
whether the larger comprehends the lesser, as in a question to what day 
a postponement shall be, the number of a committee, amount of a fine, 
term of an imprisonment, term of irredeemability of a loan, or the 
terminus in quem in any other case; then the question must begin a 
maximo. Or whether the lesser includes the greater, as in questions on 
the limitation of the rate of interest, on what day the session shall be 
closed by adjournment, on what day the next shall commence, when an act 
shall commence or the terminus a quo in any other case where the 
question must begin a minimo; the object being not to begin at that 
extreme which, and more, being within every man's wish, no one could 
negative it, and yet, if 



  The thirteenth rule of the Senate has been dropped. The House of 
Representatives has no rule on the subject other than this provision of 
the parliamentary law. It is very rare for the House to fill blanks for 
numbers. When a number in pending text is to be changed by amendment, 
the practice of the House permits to be pending: the alternative number 
proposed in the amendment to the text; a second alternative number as an 
amendment to the amendment; a third as a substitute; and a fourth as an 
amendment to the substitute. Thus, if the pending text itself states a 
number, then five alternative numbers may be pending simultaneously. 
With respect to a concurrent resolution on the budget (which is 
considered as read and open to amendment at any point and to which 
amendments must be mathematically consistent under clause 8 of rule 
XXIII), adoption of a perfecting amendment changing several figures 
precludes further amendment merely changing those figures, but does not 
preclude more comprehensive amendments changing other portions of the 
resolution which have not been amended as well (Apr. 27, 1977, p. 
12485).




Sec. 456. Priority of amendments over motions to 
strike out or agree.

  Another  exception to the rule of priority is when a 
motion has been made to strike out, or agree to, a paragraph. Motions to 
amend it are to be put to the question before a vote is taken on 
striking out or agreeing to the whole paragraph.




[[Page 227]]

  In the House of Representatives the principle that a text should be 
perfected before a question is taken on striking it out, and that an 
amendment should be perfected before agreeing to it, is well 
established. But in considering bills, even by paragraphs, the House 
does not agree to the paragraphs severally; but after amending one 
passes to the next, and the question on agreeing is taken only on the 
whole bill by the several votes on engrossment and passage.




Sec. 457. Incidental questions, like points of 
order, which intervene during consideration of the main question.

  But there  are 
several questions which, being incidental to every one, will take place 
of every one, privileged or not; to wit, a question of order arising out 
of any other question must be decided before that question. 2 Hats., 88.


  This principle governs the procedure of the House of Representatives, 
but a question of order arising after a motion for the previous question 
must be decided without debate (clause 3 of rule XVII).




Sec. 458. Matters of privilege as intervening 
questions.

  A matter of  privilege arising out of any question, or from a quarrel 
between two Members, or any other cause, supersedes the consideration of 
the original question, and must be first disposed of. 2 Hats., 88.





Sec. 459. Intervention of questions relating to reading of 
papers.

  Rule IX of the House of Representatives and the practice thereunder, 
confirm and amplify the principles of this provision of the 
parliamentary law.
   Reading papers relative to the question before the House. 
This question must be put before the principal one. 2 Hats., 88.



  This provision formerly applied in the House of Representatives to the 
reading of papers other than those on which the House was to vote. That 
was under an earlier form of rule XXX, which now applies only to the use 
of exhibits in debate. For a history of the former rule on reading 
papers and an explanation of the earlier practice, see Secs. 916-
917, infra.



[[Page 228]]



Sec. 460. Withdrawal of motions.

  Leave asked  to withdraw a 
motion. The rule of Parliament being that a motion made and seconded is 
in the possession of the House, and can not be withdrawn without leave, 
the very terms of the rule imply that leave may be given, and, 
consequently, may be asked and put to the question.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 228-229]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-65]

 
  The House of Representatives does not vote on the withdrawal of 
motions, but provides by clause 2 of rule XVI and clause 5 of rule XXIII 
the conditions under which a Member may of his own right withdraw a 
motion.


                   SEC. XXXIV.--THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.



Sec. 461. The previous question of 
Parliament.

  When any  question is before the House, any Member may move a 
previous question, ``Whether that question (called the main question) 
shall now be put?'' If it pass in the affirmative, then the main 
question is to be put immediately, and no man may speak anything further 
to it, either to add or alter. Memor. in Hakew., 28; 4 Grey, 27.





Sec. 462. Manner of putting the previous 
question.

  The previous  question being moved and seconded, the question from the 
Chair shall be, ``Shall the main question be now put?'' and if the nays 
prevail, the main question shall not then be put.



  In the modern practice of the House of Representatives the previous 
question is put as follows: ``The gentleman from ------ demands the 
previous question. As many as are in favor of ordering the previous 
question will say aye; as many as are opposed will say no'' (V, 5443).


[[Page 229]]



Sec. 463. History, use etc., of the previous 
question of Parliament.

  This kind of  question is understood by Mr. Hatsell to have 
been introduced in 1604. 2 Hats., 80. Sir Henry Vane introduced it. 2 
Grey, 113, 114; 3 Grey, 384. When the question was put in this form, 
``Shall the main question be put?'' a determination in the negative 
suppressed the main question during the session; but since the words 
``now put'' are used, they exclude it for the present only; formerly, 
indeed, only till the present debate was over, 4 Grey, 43, but now for 
that day and no longer. 2 Grey, 113, 114. 


  Before the question ``Whether the main question shall now be put?'' 
any person might formerly have spoken to the main question, because 
otherwise he would be precluded from speaking to it at all. Mem. in 
Hakew., 28.


  The proper occasion for the previous question is when a subject is 
brought forward of a delicate nature as to high personages, &c., or the 
discussion of which may call forth observations which might be of 
injurious consequences. Then the previous question is proposed, and in 
the modern usage the discussion of the main question is suspended and 
the debate confined to the previous question. The use of it has been 
extended abusively to other cases, but in these it has been an 
embarrassing procedure. Its uses would be as well answered by other more 
simple parliamentary forms, and therefore it should not be favored, but 
restricted within as narrow limits as possible.





[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 229-238]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-66]

 
  As explained in connection with rule XVII, the House of 
Representatives has changed entirely the old use of the previous 
question (V, 5445).


<>   On an amendment being moved, a 
Member who had spoken to the main question may speak again to the 
amendment. Scob., 23.

                         SEC. XXXV.--AMENDMENTS.



[[Page 230]]

  This parliamentary rule applies in the House of Representatives, where 
the hour rule of debate (clause 2 of rule XIV) has been in force for 
many years. A member who has spoken an hour to the main question, may 
speak another hour to an amendment (V, 4994; VIII, 2449).




Sec. 466. The Speaker not to decide as to consistency of 
a proposed amendment with one already agreed to.

  If an  amendment be 
proposed inconsistent with one already agreed to, it is a fit ground for 
its rejection by the House, but not within the competence of the Speaker 
to suppress as if it were against order. For were he permitted to draw 
questions of consistence within the vortex or order, he might usurp a 
negative on important modifications, and suppress, instead of 
subserving, the legislative will.


  The practice of the House of Representatives follows and extends the 
principle set forth by Jefferson. Thus it has been held that the fact 
that a proposed amendment is inconsistent with the text or embodies a 
proposition already voted (II, 1328-1336; VIII, 2834), or would in 
effect change a provision of text to which both Houses have agreed (II, 
1335; V, 6183-6185), or is contained in substance in a later portion of 
the bill (II, 1327), is a matter to be passed on by the House rather 
than by the Speaker. It is for the House rather than the Speaker to 
decide on the legislative or legal effect of a proposition (II, 1323, 
1324; VI, 254; VII, 2112; VIII, 2280, 2841); and the change of a single 
word in the text of a proposition may be sufficient to prevent the 
Speaker from ruling it out of order as one already disposed of by the 
House (II, 1274). The principle has been the subject of conflicting 
decisions, from which may be deduced the rule that the Chair may not 
rule out the proposition unless it presents a substantially identical 
proposition (VI, 256; VIII, 2834, 2835, 2838, 2840, 2842, 2850, 2856).



[[Page 231]]

  A perfecting amendment offered to an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute may be offered again as an amendment to the original bill if 
the amendment is first rejected or if the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as perfected is rejected (Sept. 28, 1976, p. 33075). 
Rejection of an amendment consisting of two sections does not preclude 
one of those sections being subsequently offered as a separate amendment 
(July 15, 1981, pp. 15898-99), and the rejection of several amendments 
considered en bloc does not preclude their being offered separately at a 
subsequent time (Deschler's Precedents, vol. 9, ch. 27, sec. 35.15; Nov. 
4, 1991, p. ----). A point of order against an amendment to a substitute 
does not lie merely because its adoption would have the same effect as 
the adoption of a pending amendment to the original amendment and would 
render the substitute as amended identical to the original amendment as 
amended (May 4, 1983, p. 11059).




Sec. 467. The parliamentary law and the rules 
of the House as to germane amendments.

  Amendments may  be made so as totally to alter 
the nature of the proposition; and it is a way of getting rid of a 
proposition by making it bear a sense different from what it was 
intended by the movers, so that they vote against it themselves. 2 
Hats., 79; 4, 82, 84. A new bill may be ingrafted, by way of amendment, 
on the words, ``Be it enacted,'' etc. 1 Grey, 190, 192.



  This was the rule of Parliament, which did not require an amendment to 
be germane (V, 5802, 5825). But the House of Representatives from its 
first organization, has by rule required that an amendment should be 
germane to the pending proposition (clause 7 of rule XVI).




Sec. 468. The amendment to strike out certain words 
of a bill.

  If it be  proposed to amend by leaving out certain words, it may be 
moved, as an amendment to this amendment, to leave out a part of the 
words of the amendment, which is equivalent to leaving them in the bill. 
2 Hats., 80, 9. The parliamentary question is, always, whether the words 
shall stand part of the bill.



[[Page 232]]
one already stricken out by amendment (V, 5760; Sept. 2, 1976, pp. 
28939-58).

  In the House of Representatives the question herein described is never 
put as in Parliament, but is always, whether the words shall be stricken 
out; and if there is a desire that certain of the words included in the 
amendment remain part of the bill, it is expressed, not by amending the 
amendment, but by a preferential perfecting amendment to strike from the 
specified words in the text of the bill a portion of them. If this is 
carried that portion of the specified words is stricken from the bill 
and the vote then recurs on the original amendment (V, 5770). Where a 
motion to strike an entire title of a bill is pending, it is in order to 
offer, as a perfecting amendment to that title, a motion to strike out a 
lesser portion thereof, and the perfecting amendment is voted on first 
(June 11, 1975, p. 18435). And when a motion to strike out certain words 
is disagreed to, it is in order to move to strike out a portion of those 
words (V, 5769); but when it is proposed to strike out certain words in 
a paragraph, it is not in order to amend those words by including with 
them other words of paragraph (V, 5768; VIII, 2848; June 2, 1976, pp. 
16208-10). It is in order to insert by way of amendment a paragraph 
similar (but not actually identical) to 




Sec. 469. Principles as to perfecting before 
inserting or striking out.

  When it is  proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, 
or part of one, the friends of the paragraph may make it as perfect as 
they can by amendments before the question is put for inserting it. If 
it be received, it cannot be amended afterward in the same stage, 
because the House has, on a vote, agreed to it in that form. In like 
manner, if it is proposed to amend by striking out a paragraph, the 
friends of the paragraph are first to make it as perfect as they can by 
amendments, before the question is put for striking it out. If on the 
question it be retained, it cannot be amended afterward, because a vote 
against striking out is equivalent to a vote agreeing to it in that 
form.



[[Page 233]]
and are no longer open to amendment (July 12, 1983, p. 18771), or to 
amend a figure already amended (Procedure, ch. 27, sec. 31), even if 
also changing other matter not already amended, where drafted as though 
the earlier amendment had not been adopted (Mar. 15, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 
16, 1995, p. ----; Mar. 16, 1995, p. ----). When it is proposed to 
perfect a paragraph the motions to insert the paragraph, or strike it 
out, if already pending, must remain in abeyance until the amendments to 
perfect have been moved and voted on (V, 5758; VIII, 2860; May 5, 1992, 
p. ----); and while amendments are pending to a section a motion to 
strike it out may not be offered (V, 5771; VIII, 2861). While a motion 
to strike out is pending, it is in order to offer an amendment to 
perfect the language proposed to be stricken; such an amendment, which 
is in the first degree, may be amended by a substitute, and amendments 
to the substitute are also in order (Oct. 19, 1983, p. 28283), and such 
perfecting amendment, if agreed to when voted on first, remains part of 
the bill if the motion to strike is then rejected (Sept. 18, 1986, p. 
28123). When a motion to strike out a paragraph is pending and the 
paragraph is perfected by an amendment, striking and inserting an entire 
new text, the pending motion to strike out must fall, since it would not 
be in order to strike out exactly what has been just voted to insert (V, 
5792; VIII, 2854; July 12, 1951, p. 8090; Sept. 23, 1975, p. 29835; Aug. 
5, 1986, p. 19059; May 18, 1988, p. 11404). A motion to strike out and 
insert a portion of a pending section is not in order as a substitute 
for a motion to strike out the section, but may be offered as a 
perfecting amendment to the section and is voted on first, subject to 
being eliminated by subsequent adoption of the motion to strike out 
(July 16, 1981, p. 16057). A motion to strike out an entire subsection 
of a bill is not a proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to the 
subsection, since it is broader in scope, but may be offered after 
disposition of the perfecting amendment (Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963).

  These principles are recognized as in force in the House of 
Representatives, with the exception that clause 7 of rule XVI 
specifically provides that ``a motion to strike out being lost shall 
neither preclude amendments nor a motion to strike out and insert.'' But 
after an amendment to insert has been agreed to, the matter inserted 
ordinarily may not then be amended (V, 5761-5763; VIII, 2852) in any way 
that would change its text; but an amendment may be added at the end (V, 
5759, 5764, 5765; Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41740; Oct. 1, 1974, p. 33364), even 
if the perfecting amendment which was adopted struck out all after the 
short title of the amendment in the nature of a substitute and inserted 
a new text (May 16, 1979, p. 11480). While an amendment which has been 
adopted to an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) may not be 
further amended, another amendment adding language at the end of the 
amendment may still be offered (June 10, 1976, pp. 17368-75, 17381; 
Procedure, ch. 27, sec. 27.4 and 27.9; May 16, 1984, pp. 12566-67), and 
the Chair will not rule on the consistency of that language with the 
adopted amendment (June 10, 1976, p. 17381). While it may be in order to 
offer an amendment to the pending portion of the bill which not only 
changes a provision already amended but also changes an unamended 
pending portion of the bill, it is not in order merely to amend portions 
of the bill which have been changed by amendment, or to amend unamended 
portions which have been passed in the reading 



[[Page 234]]



Sec. 470. Reading the motion and putting the 
question on a motion to strike out and insert.

  When it is  moved to amend by 
striking out certain words and inserting others, the manner of stating 
the question is first to read the whole passage to be amended as it 
stands at present, then the words proposed to be struck out, next those 
to be inserted, and lastly the whole passage as it will be when amended. 
And the question, if desired, is then to be divided, and put first on 
striking out. If carried, it is next on inserting the words proposed. If 
that be lost, it may be moved to insert others. 2 Hats., 80, 7.



  Clause 7 of rule XVI of the House of Representatives provides 
specifically that the motion to strike out and insert shall not be 
divided. Otherwise, as to the manner of stating the question, it is 
usual for the clerk to read only the words to be stricken out and the 
words to be inserted. Usually this is sufficient, as the Members may 
have before them printed copies of the bill under consideration.




Sec. 471. Conditions of repetition of motions to 
strike out and insert.

  A motion  is made to amend by striking out certain words 
and inserting others in their place, which is negatived. Then it is 
moved to strike out the same words, and to insert others of a tenor 
entirely different from those first proposed. It is negatived. Then it 
is moved to strike out the same words and insert nothing, which is 
agreed to. All this is admissible, because to strike out and insert A is 
one proposition. To strike out and insert B is a different proposition. 
And to strike out and insert nothing is still different. And the 
rejection of one proposition does not preclude the offering a different 
one. Nor would it change the case were the first motion divided by 
putting the question first on striking out, and that negatived; for, as 
putting the whole motion to the question at once would not have 
precluded, the putting the half of it cannot do it.



[[Page 235]]

  As to Jefferson's supposition that the principle would hold good in 
case of division of the motion to strike out and insert it is not 
necessary to inquire, since clause 7 of rule XVI of the House of 
Representatives forbids division of the motion. In a footnote Jefferson 
expressed himself as follows: ``In the case of a division of the 
question, and a decision against striking out, I advanced doubtingly the 
opinion here expressed. I find no authority either way, and I know it 
may be viewed under a different aspect. It may be thought that, having 
decided separately not to strike out the passage, the same question for 
striking out cannot be put over again, though with a view to a different 
insertion. Still I think it more reasonable and convenient to consider 
the striking out and insertion as forming one proposition, but should 
readily yield to any evidence that the contrary is the practice in 
Parliament.''




Sec. 472. Application of the motion to strike 
out.

  The principle  set forth by Jefferson as to repetition of the motion to strike 
out prevails in the House of Representatives, where it has been held in 
order, after the failure of a motion to strike out certain words, to 
move to strike out a portion of those words (V, 5769; VIII, 2858). When 
a bill is under consideration by paragraphs, a motion to strike out 
applies only to the paragraph under consideration (V, 5774).





Sec. 473. Effect of affirmative vote on motion to 
strike out and insert.

  But if  it had been carried affirmatively to strike out 
the words and to insert A, it could not afterward be permitted to strike 
out A and insert B. The mover of B should have notified, while the 
insertion of A was under debate, that he would move to insert B; in 
which case those who preferred it would join in rejecting A.



  This principle controls the practice of the House of Representatives 
(July 17, 1985, p. 19444; July 18, 1985, p. 19649; see Procedure, ch. 
27, sec. 31).




Sec. 474. Conditions of striking out an amendment 
already agreed to.

  After A  is inserted, however, it may be moved to strike out 
a portion of the original paragraph, comprehending A, provided the 
coherence to be struck out be so substantial as to make this effectively 
a different proposition; for then it is resolved into the common case of 
striking out a paragraph after amending it. Nor does anything forbid a 
new insertion, instead of A and its coherence.




[[Page 236]]

  While it is not in order to move to strike a provision inserted by 
amendment (Oct. 9, 1985, p. 26957), a motion to strike more than that 
provision inserted would be in order (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11536). But an 
amendment to strike out the pending title of a bill and re-insert all 
sections of that title except one is not in order where that section has 
previously been amended in its entirety (Aug. 1, 1975, p. 26946).


[[Page 237]]
fect of the present proceeding; only, instead of one motion and two 
questions, there are two motions and two questions to effect it--the 
motion being divided as well as the question.



Sec. 475. Amendments filling blanks as to time.

  In Senate,  January 25, 1798, a motion to postpone until the second Tuesday in 
February some amendments proposed to the Constitution; the words ``until 
the second Tuesday in February'' were struck out by way of amendment. 
Then it was moved to add, ``until the first day of June.'' Objected that 
it was not in order, as the question should be first put on the longest 
time; therefore, after a shorter time decided against, a longer cannot 
be put to question. It was answered that this rule takes place only in 
filling blanks for time. But when a specific time stands part of a 
motion, that may be struck out as well as any other part of the motion; 
and when struck out, a motion may be received to insert any other. In 
fact, it is not until they are struck out, and a blank for the time 
thereby produced, that the rule can begin to operate, by receiving all 
the propositions for different times, and putting the questions 
successively on the longest. Otherwise it would be in the power of the 
mover by inserting originally a short time, to preclude the possibility 
of a longer; for till the short time is struck out, you cannot insert a 
longer; and if, after it is struck out, you cannot do it, then it cannot 
be done at all. Suppose the first motion had been made to amend by 
striking out ``the second Tuesday in February,'' and inserting instead 
thereof ``the first of June,'' it would have been regular, then, to 
divide the question, by proposing first the question to strike out, and 
then that to insert. Now, this is precisely the ef


  The principles of this paragraph have been followed in the House of 
Representatives (V, 5763; Aug. 16, 1961, pp. 16059-60), but in one case 
wherein words embodying a distinct substantive proposition had been 
agreed to as an amendment to a paragraph, it was held not in order to 
strike out a part of the words of this amendment with other words of the 
paragraph (V, 5766).


  The motion to strike out and insert may not be divided in the House of 
Representatives (clause 7 of rule XVI).




Sec. 476. Joining and dividing bills.

  When the  matter 
contained in two bills might be better put into one, the manner is to 
reject the one and incorporate its matter into another bill by way of 
amendment. So if the matter of one bill would be better distributed into 
two, any part may be struck out by way of amendment, and put into a new 
bill. * * *



  In the modern practice of the House of Representatives each bill comes 
before the House by itself; and if it were proposed to join one bill to 
another it would be done by offering the text of the one as an amendment 
to the other, without disturbing the first bill in its place on the 
calendar. Where it is proposed to divide a bill, the object is 
accomplished in the House of Representatives by moving to recommit with 
instructions to the committee to report two bills (V, 5527, 5528).




Sec. 477. Transposition of the sections of a 
bill.

  * * * If a  section is to be transposed, a question must be put on striking 
it out where it stands and another for inserting it in the place 
desired.




[[Page 238]]

  This principle is followed in the practice of the House of 
Representatives (V, 5775, 5776).



Sec. 478. Filling blanks left by the other House.

  A bill  passed by the one House with blanks. These may be filled up by the 
other by way of amendments, returned to the first as such, and passed 3 
Hats., 83.





Sec. 479. Clerk amends the section numbers of a 
bill.

  The number  prefixed to the section of a bill, be merely a marginal 
indication, and no part of the text of the bill, the Clerk regulates 
that--the House or committee is only to amend the text.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 238-241]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-67]

 
  In the modern practice of the House, section numbers and other 
internal references are considered as part of the text which may be 
altered by amendment. The House sometimes authorizes the Clerk to make 
appropriate changes in section numbers, paragraphs and punctuation, and 
cross references when preparing the engrossment of the bill. Such a 
request is properly made in the House, following passage of the bill 
(Apr. 29, 1969, p. 10753).


                 SEC. XXXVI.--DIVISION OF THE QUESTION.


[[Page 239]]
2 Hats., 85, 86. So, wherever there are several names in a question, 
they may be divided and put one by one. 9 Grey, 444. So, 1729, April 17, 
on an objection that a question was complicated, it was separated by 
amendment. 2 Hats., 79.



Sec. 480. Parliamentary law for division of the 
question.

  If a question  contain more parts than one, it may be divided into two or 
more questions. Mem. in Hakew., 29. But not as the right of an 
individual member, but with the consent of the House. For who is to 
decide whether a question is complicated or not--where it is 
complicated--into how many propositions it may be divided? The fact is, 
that the only mode of separating a complicated question is by moving 
amendments to it; and these must be decided by the House, on a question, 
unless the House orders it to be divided; as, on the question, December 
2, 1640, making void the election of the knights for Worcester, on a 
motion it was resolved to make two questions of it, to wit, one on each 
knight. 



  The House of Representatives, by clause 6 of rule XVI and the practice 
thereunder, has entitled a procedure differing materially from that 
above set forth. While a resolution electing Members to committees is 
not divisible (clause 6 of rule XVI), other types of resolutions 
containing several names may be divided for voting (Mar. 19, 1975, p. 
7344).



Sec. 481. Jefferson's discussion of division of 
the question.

  The soundness  of these observations will be evident from the 
embarrassments produced by the XVIIIth rule of the Senate, which says, 
``if the question in debate contains several points, any member may have 
the same divided.''



[[Page 240]]
sweeps away the exceptions with the rule, and relieves from 
inconsistence. A question to be divisible must comprehend points so 
distinct and entire that one of them being taken away, the other may 
stand entire. But a proviso or exception, without an enacting clause, 
does not contain an entire point or proposition.
  1798, May 30, the alien bill in quasi-committee. To a section and 
proviso in the original, had been added two new provisos by way of 
amendment. On a motion to strike out the section as amended, the 
question was desired to be divided. To do this it must be put first on 
striking out either the former proviso, or some distinct member of the 
section. But when nothing remains but the last member of the section and 
the provisos, they cannot be divided so as to put the last member to 
question by itself, for the provisos might thus be left standing alone 
as exceptions to a rule when the rule is taken away; or the new provisos 
might be left to a second question, after having been decided on once 
before at the same reading, which is contrary to rule. But the question 
must be on striking out the last member of the section as amended. This 


[[Page 241]]

  May 31.--The same bill being before the Senate. There was a proviso 
that the bill should not extend--1. To any foreign minister; nor, 2. To 
any person to whom the President should give a passport; nor, 3. To any 
alien merchant conforming himself to such regulations as the President 
shall prescribe; and a division of the question into its simplest 
elements was called for. It was divided into four parts, the 4th taking 
in the words ``conforming himself,'' &c. It was objected that the words 
``any alien merchant,'' could not be separated from their modifying 
words, ``conforming,'' &c., because these words, if left by themselves, 
contain no substantive idea, will make no sense. But admitting that the 
divisions of a paragraph into separate questions must be so made as that 
each part may stand by itself, yet the House having, on the question, 
retained the two first divisions, the words ``any alien merchant'' may 
be struck out, and their modifying words will then attach themselves to 
the preceding description of persons, and become a modification of that 
description.




Sec. 482. Division of question as related to debate or 
amendment.

  When a  question is divided, after the question on the 1st member, 
the 2d is open to debate and amendment; because it is a known rule that 
a person may rise and speak at any time before the question has been 
completely decided, by putting the negative as well as the affirmative 
side. But the question is not completely put when the vote has been 
taken on the first member only. One-half the question, both affirmative 
and negative, remains still to be put. See Execut. Jour., June 25, 1795. 
The same decision by President Adams.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 241-242]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-68]

 
  Where a division of the question is demanded on a portion of an 
amendment, the Chair puts the question first on the remaining portions 
of the amendment, and that portion on which the division is demanded 
remains open for further debate and amendment (Oct. 21, 1981, p. 24785). 
However, where neither portion of a divided question remains open to 
further debate or amendment, the question may be put first on the 
portion identified by the demand for division and then on the remainder 
(June 8, 1995, p. ----).


                   SEC. XXXVII.--COEXISTING QUESTIONS.


[[Page 242]]
previous question, postponement, or commitment), remove it from before 
the House. But it is only suspended by a motion to amend, to withdraw, 
to read papers, or by a question of order or privilege, and stands again 
before the House when these are decided. None but the class of 
privileged questions can be brought forward while there is another 
question before the House, the rule being that when a motion has been 
made and seconded, no other can be received except it be a privileged 
one.



Sec. 483. Fundamental principles as to coexisting 
questions.

  It may be  asked whether the House can be in possession of two motions 
or propositions at the same time? so that, one of them being decided, 
the other goes to question without being moved anew? The answer must be 
special. When a question is interrupted by a vote of adjournment, it is 
thereby removed from before the House, and does not stand ipso facto 
before them at their next meeting, but must come forward in the usual 
way. So, when it is interrupted by the order of the day. Such other 
privileged questions also as dispose of the main question (e.g., the 






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 242-245]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-69]

 
  The principles of this provision must, of course, be viewed in the 
light of a more highly perfected order of business than existed in 
Jefferson's time (rule XXIV). The motion to withdraw is not known in the 
practice of the House, not being among the motions enumerated in clause 
4 of rule XVI, but a motion before the House may be withdrawn by the 
mover thereof before a decision is reached (clause 2 of rule XVI).


                  SEC. XXXVIII.--EQUIVALENT QUESTIONS.




Sec. 484. Former practice as to rejection and second 
reading of bills.

  If, on a  question for rejection, a bill be retained, it 
passes, of course, to its next reading. Hakew., 141; Scob., 42. And a 
question for a second reading, determined negatively, is a rejection 
without further question. 4 Grey, 149. And see Elsynge's Memor., 42, in 
what case questions are to be taken for rejection.



  The House of Representatives has abandoned the question ``Shall the 
bill be rejected?'' (IV, 3391), and the question is now taken in 
accordance with clause 1 of rule XXI. A vote is not taken on the second 
reading, the first test coming in the modern practice of the House on 
the engrossment and third reading.


[[Page 243]]
other, and leaves no other alternative, the decision of the one 
concludes necessarily the other. 4 Grey, 157. Thus the negative of 
striking out amounts to the affirmative of agreeing; and therefore to 
put a question on agreeing after that on striking out, would be to put 
the same question in effect twice over. Not so in questions of 
amendments between the two Houses. A motion to recede being negatived, 
does not amount to a positive vote to insist, because there is another 
alternative, to wit, to adhere.



Sec. 485. Equivalent questions in 
general.

  Where questions  are perfectly equivalent, so that the negative of the one 
amounts to the affirmative of the 



  The principles set forth in this paragraph are recognized by the 
practice of the House of Representatives; but Jefferson's use of the 
motion to strike out as an illustration is no longer justified, since 
the practice of the House under clause 7 of rule XVI does not permit the 
negative of the motion to strike out to be equivalent to the affirmative 
of agreeing.




Sec. 486. Equivalent questions on amendments between 
the Houses.

  A bill  originating in one House is passed by the other with an 
amendment. A motion in the originating House to agree to the amendment 
is negatived. Does there result from this a vote of disagreement, or 
must the question on disagreement be expressly voted? The question 
respecting amendments from another House are--1st, to agree; 2d, 
disagree; 3d, recede; 4th, insist; 5th, adhere.



[[Page 244]]
5488). The motion to refer also takes precedence of the motions to 
agree or disagree (V, 6172-6174), but the demanding or ordering of the 
previous question does not prevent a motion to refer (V, 5575). The 
motion to refer takes precedence of the motions to agree or disagree 
and, under clause 1, of rule XVII is in order pending a demand for or 
after the ordering of the previous question, before the stage of 
disagreement has been reached (V, 6172-6174, 5575) but not after the 
stage of disagreement when the most preferential motion tending to bring 
the two Houses together is already pending (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 
1976, pp. 30887-88).

  In the House of Representatives and the Senate the order of precedence 
of motions is as given in the parliamentary law, and the motions take 
precedence in that order without regard to the order in which they are 
moved (V, 6270, 6324). But a motion to amend an amendment of the other 
House has precedence of the motion to agree or disagree either before 
the stage of disagreement has been reached or after the House has 
receded from its disagreement (V, 6164, 6169-6171; VIII, 3203) even 
after the previous question has been ordered on both motions before the 
question is divided (Feb. 12, 1923, p. 3512). See also the discussion in 
Sec. 525, infra. But it has been held that when the previous question 
has been demanded or ordered on a motion to concur, a motion to amend is 
not in order (V, 



Sec. 487. The motions to agree and disagree as related 
to motions to amend.

  1st. To  agree; 2d. To disagree.--Either of these 
concludes the other necessarily, for the positive of either is exactly 
the equivalent to the negative of the other, and no other alternative 
remains. On either motion amendments to the amendment may be proposed; 
e.g., if it be moved to disagree, those who are for the amendment have a 
right to propose amendments, and to make it as perfect as they can, 
before the question of disagreeing is put.




Sec. 488. No equivalent questions on 
motions to recede, insist, and adhere.

  3d. To recede.--You  may then either insist or 
adhere.                          4th. To insist.--You may then either 
recede or adhere.


  5th. To adhere.--You may then either recede or insist.


  Consequently the negative of these is not equivalent to a positive 
vote the other way. It does not raise so necessary an implication as may 
authorize the Secretary by inference to enter another vote; for two 
alternatives still remain, either of which may be adopted by the House.


[[Page 245]]
the more recent practice is that when the House disagrees to a motion 
to recede and concur in a Senate amendment some further action must be 
taken to dispose of the amendment (Speaker Bankhead, July 9, 1937, p. 
7007; Speaker McCormack, Sept. 19, 1962, p. 19945) and the question may 
recur on a pending motion to insist or such a motion is then entertained 
from the floor.




[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 245]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-70]

 
  Under the earlier practice in the House it was held that voting down 
the motion to recede and concur was tantamount to insistence but not the 
equivalent of adherence (Speaker Clark, July 2, 1918, p. 8648). But 


<>   The question is to be put 
first on the affirmative, and then on the
negative side.

                       SEC. XXXIX.--THE QUESTION.


  Clause 5 of rule I of the House of Representatives, provides more 
fully for putting the question.



Sec. 490. Effect of putting the question in ending 
debate.

  After the  Speaker has put the affirmative part of the question, any 
Member who has not spoken before to the question may rise and speak 
before the negative be put; because it is no full question till the 
negative part be put. Scob., 23; 2 Hats., 73.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 245-249]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-71]

 


Sec. 491. Informal putting of the question.

  But in  small 
matters, and which are of course, such as receiving petitions, reports, 
withdrawing motions, reading papers, &c., the Speaker most commonly 
supposes the consent of the House where no objection is expressed, and 
does not give them the trouble of putting the question formally. Scob., 
22; 2 Hats., 79, 2, 87; 5 Grey, 129; 9 Grey, 301.



                     SEC. XL.--BILLS, THIRD READING.


[[Page 246]]



Sec. 492. Obsolete requirements as to reading and 
passage of bills.

  To prevent  bills from being passed by surprise, the House, by a 
standing order, directs that they shall not be put on their passage 
before a fixed hour, naming one at which the house is commonly full. 
Hakew., 153. 


  The usage of the Senate is not to put bills on their passage till 
noon.

  A bill reported and passed to the third reading, cannot on that day be 
read the third time and passed; because this would be to pass on two 
readings in the same day.



Sec. 493. Obsolete parliamentary law as to third 
reading.

  At the  third reading the Clerk reads the bill and delivers it to the 
Speaker, who states the title, that it is the third time of reading the 
bill, and that the question will be whether it shall pass. Formerly the 
Speaker, or those who prepared a bill, prepared also a breviate or 
summary statement of its contents, which the Speaker read when he 
declared the state of the bill, at the several readings. Sometimes, 
however, he read the bill itself, especially on its passage. Hakew., 
136, 137, 153; Coke, 22, 115. Latterly, instead of this, he, at the 
third reading, states the whole contents of the bill verbatim, only, 
instead of reading the formal parts, ``Be it enacted,'' &c., he states 
that ``preamble recites so and so--the 1st section enacts that, &c. the 
2d section enacts,'' &c.



  But in the Senate of the United States, both of these formalities are 
dispensed with; the breviate presenting but an imperfect view of the 
bill, and being capable of being made to present a false one; and the 
full statement being a useless waste of time, immediately after a full 
reading by the Clerk, and especially as every member has a printed copy 
in his hand.


[[Page 247]]
time and passed on the same day, and it is in order to proceed with a 
bill at any time, unless the absence of a quorum be shown.
  None of the restrictions is of effect in the modern practice of the 
House of Representatives. Clause 1 of rule XXI permits a bill to be read 
a third 


  In the House of Representatives there is no practice justifying the 
presentation of a breviated summary; and the procedure on third reading 
is definitely prescribed by clause 1 of rule XXI.




Sec. 494. Committal of a bill on third 
reading.

  A bill on  the third reading is not to be committed for the matter or 
body thereof, but to receive some particular clause or proviso, it hath 
been sometimes suffered, but as a thing very unusual. Hakew., 156. Thus, 
27 El., 1584, a bill was committed on the third reading, having been 
formerly committed on the second, but is declared not usual. D'Ewes, 
337, col. 2; 414, col. 2.



  In the House of Representatives it is in order to commit a bill after 
the engrossment and third reading where the previous question is not 
ordered (V, 5562); and by clause 1 of rule XVII and clause 4 of rule XVI 
the House has preserved this opportunity to commit even after the 
previous question has been ordered.




Sec. 495. Obsolete parliamentary practice as to 
riders.

  When an  essential provision has been omitted, rather than erase the 
bill and render it suspicious, they add a clause on a separate paper, 
engrossed and called a rider, which is read and put to the question 
three times. Elsynge's Memo., 59; 6 Grey, 335; 1 Blackst., 183. For 
examples of riders, see 3 Hats., 121, 122, 124, 156. Every one is at 
liberty to bring in a rider without asking leave. 10 Grey, 52.



  This practice is never followed in the House of Representatives.


[[Page 248]]
read; as also all amendments from the other House. Town., col. 19, 23, 
24, 25, 26, 27, 28.



Sec. 496. Obsolete requirements as to reading of 
amendments.

  It is  laid down, as a general rule, that amendments proposed at 
the second reading shall be twice read, and those proposed at the third 
reading thrice 



  In the practice of the House of Representatives, amendments, whether 
offered in the House or coming from the other House, do not come under 
the rule requiring different readings.



Sec. 497. Amendments before the third reading.

  It is  with 
great and almost invincible reluctance that amendments are admitted at 
this reading, which occasion erasures or interlineations. Sometimes a 
proviso has been cut off from a bill; sometimes erased. 9 Grey, 513.



  This is the proper stage for filling up blanks; for if filled up 
before, and now altered by erasure, it would be peculiarly unsafe.


  In the House of Representatives bills are amended after the second 
reading (IV, 3392), and before the engrossment and third reading (V, 
5781; VII, 1051, 1052) but not afterwards.



Sec. 498. Debate in relation to the third 
reading.

  At this  reading the bill is debated afresh, and for the most part is 
more spoken to at this time than on any of the former readings. Hakew., 
153.




[[Page 249]]

  The debate on the question whether it should be read a third time, has 
discovered to its friends and opponents the arguments on which each side 
relies, and which of these appear to have influence with the House; they 
have had time to meet them with new arguments, and to put their old ones 
into new shapes. The former vote has tried the strength of the first 
opinion, and furnished grounds to estimate the issue; and the question 
now offered for its passage is the last occasion which is ever to be 
offered for carrying or rejecting it.


  In the House of Representatives it is usual to debate a bill before 
and not after the engrossment and third reading, probably because of the 
frequent use of the previous question, which prevents all debate after 
it is ordered. When the previous question is not ordered, debate may 
occur pending the vote on the passage.




Sec. 499. Putting the question on the passage of a 
bill.

  When the  debate is ended, the Speaker, holding the bill in his hand, puts 
the question for its passage, by saying, ``Gentlemen, all you who are of 
opinion that this bill shall pass, say aye;'' and after the answer of 
the ayes, ``All those of the contrary opinion, say no.'' Hakew., 154.



<>   After the 
bill is passed, there can be no further alteration of it in any
point. Hakew., 159.

  In the House of Representatives the bill is usually in the hands of 
the Clerk. The Speaker states that ``The question is on the passage of 
the bill,'' and puts the question in the form prescribed by clause 5 of 
rule I.





[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 249-255]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-72]

 
  This principle controls the practice of the House of Representatives. 
However, a bill may be changed if the votes on passage, engrossment, and 
ordering the previous question have been reconsidered. In addition, the 
Clerk may be authorized to make changes in the engrossed copy by 
unanimous consent.


                    SEC. XLI.--DIVISION OF THE HOUSE.


[[Page 250]]
decision, then the Speaker is to divide the House. Scob., 24; 2 Hats., 
140.



Sec. 501. Division of the House after 
determination by sound.

  The affirmative and  negative of the question having been both put 
and answered, the Speaker declares whether the yeas or nays have it by 
the sound, if he be himself satisfied, and it stands as the judgment of 
the House. But if he be not himself satisfied which voice is the 
greater, or if before any other Member comes into the House, or before 
any new motion made (for it is too late after that), any Member shall 
arise and declare himself dissatisfied with the Speaker's 



  This practice is provided for in different language by clause 5 of 
rule I.



Sec. 502. Parliamentary provisions as to division, 
not applicable in the House.

  When the  House of Commons is divided, the one 
party goes forth, and the other remains in the House. This has made it 
important which go forth and which remain; because the latter gain all 
the indolent, the indifferent, and inattentive. Their general rule, 
therefore, is that those who give their vote for the preservation of the 
orders of the House shall stay in, and those who are for introducing any 
new matter or alteration, or proceeding contrary to the established 
course, are to go out. But this rule is subject to many exceptions and 
modifications. 2 Hats., 134; 1 Rush., p. 3, fol. 92; Scob., 43, 52; Co., 
12, 116; D'Ewes, 505, col. 1; Mem. in Hakew., 25, 29.



  The one party being gone forth, the Speaker names two tellers from the 
affirmative and two from the negative side, who first count those 
sitting in the House and report the number to the Speaker. Then they 
place themselves within the door, two on each side, and count those who 
went forth as they come in and report the number to the Speaker. Mem. in 
Hakew., 26.



[[Page 251]]

<>   
A mistake in the report of the tellers may be rectified after the report 
made. 2 Hats., 145, note.

  The House of Representatives formerly employed a vote ``by tellers'' 
that was perhaps comparable to that described above. However, the 
provision in clause 5 of rule I that provided for teller votes was 
repealed by the 103d Congress. Under the former procedure tellers took 
their place at the rear of the center aisle when named by the Chair, and 
Members passed between them to be counted. Clause 5 of rule I also 
provides for taking a ``recorded vote'' by means of the electronic 
voting system when seconded by one-fifth of a quorum.


         *            *            *            *            *        




Sec. 504. Voting by yeas and nays.

  When it  is proposed to 
take the vote by yeas and nays, the President or Speaker states that 
``the question is whether, e.g., the bill shall pass--that it is 
proposed that the yeas and nays shall be entered on the journal. Those, 
therefore, who desire it will rise.'' If he finds and declares that one-
fifth have risen, he then states that ``those who are of opinion that 
the bill shall pass are to answer in the affirmative; those of the 
contrary opinion in the negative.'' The Clerk then calls over the names 
alphabetically, notes the yea or nay of each, and gives the list to the 
President or Speaker, who declares the result. In the Senate if there be 
an equal division the Secretary calls on the Vice-President and notes 
his affirmative or negative, which becomes the decision of the House.




[[Page 252]]

  In the House of Representatives tellers were sometimes, though rarely, 
ordered to determine whether one-fifth joined in the demand for the yeas 
and nays (V, 6045) but in the later practice the Speaker's count is not 
subject to verification (VIII, 3114-3118), and it is not in order to 
demand a rising vote of those opposed on a count by the Speaker to 
ascertain if one-fifth concur in demand for yeas and nays (VIII, 3112, 
3113). Clause 1 of rule XV of the House provides the method for taking 
the yeas and nays in the modern practice; but under clause 5 of that 
rule both the yeas and nays and calls of the House are taken by means of 
the electronic voting system unless the Speaker in his discretion orders 
the utilization of other prescribed procedures.



Sec. 505. Parliamentary law as to giving of votes.

  In the  House of Commons every member must give his vote the one way or the 
other, Scob., 24, as it is not permitted to anyone to withdraw who is in 
the House when the question is put, nor is anyone to be told in the 
division who was not in when the question was put. 2 Hats., 140.



  This last position is always true when the vote is by yeas and nays; 
where the negative as well as affirmative of the question is stated by 
the President at the same time, and the vote of both sides begins and 
proceeds pari passu. It is true also when the question is put in the 
usual way, if the negative has also been put; but if it has not, the 
member entering, or any other member may speak, and even propose 
amendments, by which the debate may be opened again, and the question be 
greatly deferred. And as some who have answered aye may have been 
changed by the new arguments, the affirmative must be put over gain. If, 
then, the member entering may, by speaking a few words, occasion a 
repetition of a question, it would be useless to deny it on his simple 
call for it.



[[Page 253]]

  Clause 1 of rule VIII of the House of Representatives requires Members 
to vote; but no rule excludes from voting those not present at the 
putting of the question, and this requirement of the parliamentary law 
is not observed in the House. No attempt is made to prevent Members from 
withdrawing after a question is put, unless there be a question as to a 
quorum, when the House proceeds under clauses 2 and 4 of rule XV.




Sec. 506. Movements of Members during voting.

  While the  House is telling, no member may speak or move out of his place, for 
if any mistake be suspected it must be told again. Mem. in Hakew., 26; 2 
Hats., 143.



  This rule applies in the House of Representatives on a vote by 
division, where the Speaker counts; but did not apply to the former vote 
by ``tellers,'' where Members passed between tellers at the rear of the 
center aisle to be counted.




Sec. 507. Decisions of points of order during a 
division.

  If any  difficulty arises in point of order during the division, the 
Speaker is to decide peremptorily, subject to the future censure of the 
House if irregular. He sometimes permits old experienced members to 
assist him with their advice, which they do sitting in their seats, 
covered, to avoid the appearance of debate; but this can only be with 
the Speaker's leave, else the division might last several hours. 2 
Hats., 143.



  Representatives no longer sit with their hats on (clause 7 of rule 
XIV) and always rise to speak; respectfully addressing their remarks to 
``Mr. Speaker'' (clause 1 of rule XIV).




Sec. 508. Decision by voice of majority; and tie 
votes.

  The voice  of the majority decides; for the lex majoris partis is the law 
of all councils, elections, &c., where not otherwise expressly provided. 
Hakew., 93. But if the House be equally divided, semper presuamtur pro 
negante; that is, the former law is not to be changed but by a majority. 
Towns., col. 134.



[[Page 254]]

  The House of Representatives provides also by rule (clause 6 of rule 
I) that in the case of a tie vote the question shall be lost.-


-  The standing <> rules also 
require a three-fifths vote for passage or adoption of a bill, a joint 
resolution, an amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon, if 
carrying a Federal income tax rate increase (clause 5(c) of rule XXI) or 
for passage of a bill called from the Corrections Calendar (clause 4(c) 
of rule XIII).



Sec. 509. Twothirds votes.

  The House of  Representatives, 
however, requires a two-thirds vote on a motion to suspend the rules 
(clause 1 of rule XXVII), on a motion to dispense with Calendar 
Wednesday (clause 7 of rule XXIV), on a motion to dispense with the call 
of the Private Calendar on the first Tuesday of each month (clause 6 of 
rule XXIV), and to consider a special rule immediately (clause 4(b) of 
rule XI), and the Constitution of the United States requires two-thirds 
votes for the expulsion of a Member, passing vetoed bills, removing 
political disabilities, and passing resolutions proposing amendments to 
the Constitution.





Sec. 510. Business suspended by the failure of a 
quorum.

  When from  counting the House on a division it appears that there is not 
a quorum, the matter continues exactly in the state in which it was 
before the division, and must be resumed at that point on any future 
day. 2 Hats., 126.



  While under the rules first adopted in the 95th Congress it is not in 
order to make or entertain a point of no quorum unless the question has 
been put on the pending motion or proposition, if a quorum in fact does 
not respond on a call of the House or on a vote, even the most highly 
privileged business must terminate (IV, 2934; VI, 662) and even debate 
must stop until a quorum is established (see IV, 2935-2949). No motion 
is entertained in the absence of a quorum other than a motion relating 
to the call of the House or to adjourn (IV, 2950; VI, 680). Even in the 
closing hours of a Congress business has been stopped by the failure of 
a quorum (V, 6309; Oct. 18, 1972, pp. 37199-37200).



[[Page 255]]



Sec. 511. Change of a vote.

  1606, May 1,  on a question 
whether a Member having said yea may afterwards sit and change his 
opinion, a precedent was remembered by the Speaker, of Mr. Morris, 
attorney of the wards, in 39 Eliz., who in like case changed his 
opinion. Mem. in Hakew., 27.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 255]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-73]

 
  The House of Representatives is governed in this respect by the 
practice under clause 1 of rule XV.


                           SEC. XLII.--TITLES.




Sec. 512. Amendments to the title of a bill.

  After the  bill 
has passed, and not before, the title may be amended, and is to be fixed 
by a question; and the bill is then sent to the other House.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 255-258]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-74]

 
  The House of Representatives by rule XIX embodies this principle with 
an additional provision as to debate.


                      SEC. XLIII.--RECONSIDERATION.



Sec. 513. Early Senate practice as to 
reconsideration.

  1798, Jan.  A bill on its second reading being amended, and on 
the question whether it shall be read a third time negatived, was 
restored by a decision to reconsider that question. Here the votes of 
negative and reconsideration, like positive and negative quantities in 
equation, destroy one another, and are as if they were expunged from the 
journals. Consequently the bill is open for amendment, just so far as it 
was the moment preceding the question for the third reading; that is to 
say, all parts of the bill are open for amendment except those on which 
votes have been already taken in its present stage. So, also, it may be 
recommitted.



[[Page 256]]
sent to the other House. But where the paper remains, as on a bill 
rejected, when or under what circumstances does it cease to be 
susceptible of reconsideration? This remains to be settled, unless a 
sense that the right of reconsideration is a right to waste the time of 
the House in repeated agitations of the same question, so that it shall 
never know when a question is done with, should induce them to reform 
this anomalous proceeding.

  The rule permitting a reconsideration of a question affixing it to no 
limitation of time or circumstance, it may be asked whether there is no 
limitation? If, after the vote, the paper on which it is passed has been 
parted with, there can be no reconsideration, as if a vote has been for 
the passage of a bill and the bill has been 


  The House of Representatives provides for reconsideration by clause 1 
of rule XVIII.



Sec. 514. Parliamentary law as to 
reconsideration.

  In Parliament  a question once carried can not be questioned again 
at the same session, but must stand as the judgment of the House. 
Towns., col. 67; Mem. in Hakew., 33. * * *



[[Page 257]]
House and sent to the other and there rejected, may be renewed again in 
that other, passed, and sent back. Ib., 92; 3 Hats., 161. Or if, instead 
of being rejected, they read it once and lay it aside or amend it and 
put it off a month, they may order in another to the same effect, with 
the same or a different title. Hakew., 97, 98.



Sec. 515. A bill once rejected not to be brought 
up again at the same session.

  * * * And a  bill once rejected, another of the same 
substance can not be brought in again the same session. Hakew., 158; 6 
Grey, 392. But this does not extend to prevent putting the same question 
in different stages of a bill, because every stage of a bill submits the 
whole and every part of it to the opinion of the House as open for 
amendment, either by insertion or omission, though the same amendment 
has been accepted or rejected in a former stage. So in reports of 
committees, e.g., report of an address, the same question is before the 
House, and open for free discussion. Towns., col. 26; 2 Hats., 98, 100, 
101. So orders of the House or instructions to committees may be 
discharged. So a bill, begun in one 



  In the House of Representatives, with its rule for reconsideration, 
there is rarely an attempt to bring forward a bill once rejected at the 
same session. One instance is recorded (IV, 3384), but the House has 
declined to consider a bill brought forward after a rejection (IV, 3384; 
Mar. 9, 1910, p. 2966). The Committee on Rules may report as privileged 
a resolution making in order the consideration of a measure of the same 
substance as one previously rejected and to rescind or vacate the action 
whereby the House had rejected a measure (Mar. 17, 1976, p. 6776; see 
VIII, 3391); and a special order of business nearly identical to one 
previously rejected by the House, but providing a different scheme for 
general debate, was held not to violate this section (July 27, 1993, p. 
----).


[[Page 258]]
may be taken up by another bill or taken up in a different way. 6 Grey, 
304, 316.


Sec. 516. Expedients for changing the effect 
of bills once passed.

  Divers expedients  are used to correct the effects of this rule, 
as, by passing an explanatory act, if anything has been omitted or ill 
expressed, 3 Hats., 278, or an act to enforce and make more effectual an 
act, &c., or to rectify mistakes in an act, &c., or a committee on one 
bill may be instructed to receive a clause to rectify the mistakes of 
another. Thus, June 24, 1685, a clause was inserted in a bill for 
rectifying a mistake committed by a clerk in engrossing a bill of 
supply. 2 Hats., 194, 6. Or the session may be closed for one, two, 
three, or more days and a new one commenced. But then all matters 
depending must be finished, or they fall, and are to begin de novo. 2 
Hats., 94, 98. Or a part of the subject 




Sec. 517. Exceptions to the rule against bringing up a 
matter once rejected.

  And in  cases of the last magnitude this rule has not 
been so strictly and verbally observed as to stop indispensable 
proceedings altogether. 2 Hats., 92, 98. Thus when the address on the 
preliminaries of peace in 1782 had been lost by a majority of one, on 
account of the importance of the question and smallness of the majority, 
the same question in substance, though with some words not in the first, 
and which might change the opinion of some Members, was brought on again 
and carried, as the motives for it were thought to outweigh the 
objection of form. 2 Hats, 99, 100.





Sec. 518. Passage of supplementary bills.

  A second  bill may 
be passed to continue an act of the same session or to enlarge the time 
limited for its execution. 2 Hats., 95, 98. This is not in contradiction 
to the first act.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 258-259]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-75]

 
  The House of Representatives has by a joint resolution corrected an 
error in a bill that had gone to the President (IV, 3519).


<>   A 
bill from the other House is sometimes ordered to lie on the table. 2 
Hats., 97.

               SEC. XLIV.--BILLS SENT TO THE OTHER HOUSE.


[[Page 259]]
does not carry the amendment and bill to the table, and other motions 
are in order to dispose of the Senate amendment (Feb. 22, 1978, p. 
4072).

  This principle is recognized in the practice of the House of 
Representatives, both as to Senate bills (IV, 3418, 3419; V, 5437), and 
as to House bills returned with Senate amendments (V, 5424, 6201-6203). 
The motion to lay on the table Senate amendments to a House bill does 
not take precedence over the motion to recede and concur, since the 
motion would table the entire bill (Speaker Longworth, Jan. 24, 1927, p. 
2165), but the motion to lay on the table a motion to recede and concur 
in a Senate amendment 




Sec. 520. Requests for information from the other 
House.

  When bills  passed in one House and sent to the other are ground on special 
facts requiring proof, it is usual, either by message or at a 
conference, to ask the grounds and evidence, and this evidence, whether 
arising out of papers or from the examination of witnesses, is 
immediately communicated. 3 Hats., 48.






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 259-268]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-76]

 
  The Houses of Congress transmit with bills accompanying papers, which 
are returned when the bills pass or at final adjournment (V, 7259, 
footnote). Sometimes one House has asked, by resolution, for papers from 
the files of the other (V, 7263, 7264). Testimony is also requested 
(III, 1855).


                SEC. XLV.--AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES.


[[Page 260]]
less. 3 Hats., 268, 270. The term of insisting, we are told by Sir John 
Trevor, was then (1679) newly introduced into parliamentary usage by the 
Lords. 7 Grey, 94. It was certainly a happy innovation, as it multiplies 
the opportunities of trying modifications which may bring the Houses to 
a concurrence. Either House, however, is free to pass over the term of 
insisting, and to adhere in the first instance; 10 Grey, 146; but it is 
not respectful to the other. In the ordinary parliamentary course there 
are two free conferences, at least, before an adherence. 10 Grey, 147.



Sec. 521. Parliamentary principles as to 
disagreeing, insisting, and adhering.

  When either  House, e.g., the House of 
Commons, send a bill to the other, the other may pass it with 
amendments. The regular progression in this case is, that the Commons 
disagree to the amendment; the Lords insist on it; the Commons insist on 
their disagreement; the Lords adhere to their amendment; the Commons 
adhere to their disagreement. The term of insisting may be repeated as 
often as they choose to keep the question open. But the first adherence 
by either renders it necessary for the other to recede or adhere also; 
when the matter is usually suffered to fall. 10 Grey, 148. Latterly, 
however, there are instances of their having gone to a second adherence. 
There must be an absolute conclusion of the subject somewhere, or 
otherwise transactions between the Houses would become end


  The House of Representatives and the Senate follow the principles set 
forth in this paragraph of the parliamentary law, and sometimes dispose 
of differences without resorting to conferences (V, 6165).




Sec. 522. Insisting and adhering in the practice of 
the House.

  Where both  Houses insist and neither ask a conference nor recede, the 
bill fails (V, 6228). Where both Houses adhere, the bill fails (V, 6163, 
6313, 6324, 6325) even though the difference may be over a very slight 
amendment (V, 6233-6240). In rare instances in Congress there have been 
immediate adherences on the first disagreement (V, 6303); but this does 
not preclude the granting of the request of the other House for a 
conference (V, 6241-6244). Sometimes the House recedes from its 
disagreement as to certain amendments and adheres as to others (V, 
6229). A House having adhered may at the next stage vote to further 
adhere (V, 6251). Sometimes the House has receded from adherence (V, 
6252, 6401) or reconsidered its action of adherence (V, 6253), after 
which it has agreed to the amendment with or without amendment (V, 6253, 
6401).




[[Page 261]]



Sec. 523. Parliamentary law as to receding.

  Either House  may 
recede from its amendment and agree to the bill; or recede from their 
disagreement to the amendment, and agree to the same absolutely, or with 
an amendment; for here the disagreement and receding destroy one 
another, and the subject stands as before the disagreement. Elysnge, 23, 
27; 9 Grey, 476.




Sec. 524. Practice of the House as to receding from its 
own amendment to a bill of the other House.

  In the  practice of the two 
Houses of Congress the motion is to recede from the amendment without at 
the same time agreeing to the bill, for the bill has already been passed 
with the amendment, and receding from the amendment leaves the bill 
passed (V, 6312). But where the House has previously concurred in a 
Senate amendment with an amendment, the House does not by receding from 
its amendment agree to the Senate amendment, since the House may then 
(1) concur in the Senate amendment or (2) concur in the Senate amendment 
with another amendment (VIII, 3199; Oct. 12, 1977, pp. 33448-54). The 
House may not through one motion, however, recede from its amendment 
with an amendment (V, 6212; see Sec. 526, infra). A motion in the House 
to recede from a House amendment to a Senate amendment, and concur in 
the Senate amendment, is divisible (VIII, 3199). One House has receded 
from its own amendment after the other House had returned it concurred 
in with an amendment (V, 6226). But this has been held not sufficient to 
pass the bill without further action by House which has concurred with 
an amendment (VIII, 3177; June 26, 1984, pp. 18733-34).


  Where one House has receded from an amendment, it may not at a 
subsequent stage recall its action in order to form a new basis for a 
conference (V, 6251). Sometimes one House has receded from its amendment 
although it had previously insisted and asked a conference which had 
been agreed to (V, 6319). After the Senate has amended a House amendment 
it is not proper for the House to recede from its amendment directly, 
but the Senate may recede from its amendment and then the House recede 
from its amendment (Speaker Reed, June 12, 1890, p. 5981). The motion to 
recede takes precedence over the motion to insist and ask a conference 
(V, 6270).



Sec. 525. Practice of the House as to receding 
from disagreement to amendment of the other House.

  By receding  from its 
disagreement to an amendment of the Senate the House does not thereby 
agree to it (V, 6215); but the Senate amendment is then open to 
amendment precisely as before the original disagreement (V, 6212-6214). 
The stage of disagreement having been reached, the motion to recede and 
concur takes precedence of the motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment (V, 6219-6223; VIII, 3198, 3200, 3202); but a motion to recede 
and concur is divisible (VIII, 3199) and being divided and the House 
having receded, a motion to amend has precedence of the motion to concur 
(V, 6209-6211; VIII, 3198), even after the previous question is ordered 
on both motions before being divided (Feb. 12, 1923, p. 3512).



[[Page 262]]
concur, a motion to amend is not in order (V, 5488); but where the 
previous question has been demanded on a motion to insist, a motion to 
recede and concur has been admitted (V, 6208, 6321a).

  The motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an 
amendment takes precedence of a motion to insist further on the House's 
disagreement to the Senate amendment (V, 6224; VIII, 3204), and a motion 
to lay certain amendments on the table (Speaker Longworth, Jan. 24, 
1927, p. 2165). It has been held that after the previous question has 
been moved on a motion to adhere, a motion to recede may not be made (V, 
6310); and after the previous question is demanded or ordered on a 
motion to 



Sec. 526. One House not to recede from its own 
amendment with an amendment; or depart from form fixed by 
adherence.

  But the  House can not recede from or insist on its own amendment, 
with an amendment; for the same reason that it can not send to the other 
House an amendment to its own act after it has passed the act. They may 
modify an amendment from the other House by ingrafting an amendment on 
it, because they have never assented to it; but they can not amend their 
own amendment, because they have, on the question, passed it in that 
form. 9 Grey, 363; 10 Grey, 240. In Senate, March 29, 1978. Nor where 
one House has adhered to their amendment, and the other agrees with an 
amendment, can the first House depart from the form which they have 
fixed by an adherence.




[[Page 263]]

  In the case of a money bill, the Lord's proposed amendments become, by 
delay, confessedly necessary. The Commons, however, refused them as 
infringing on their privilege as to money bills; but they offered 
themselves to add to the bill a proviso to the same effect, which had no 
coherence with the Lords' amendments; and urged that it was an expedient 
warranted by precedent, and not unparliamentary in a case become 
impracticable, and irremediable in any other way. 3 Hats., 256, 266, 
270, 271. But the Lords refused, and the bill was lost. 1 Chand., 288. A 
like case, 1 Chand., 311. * * *


  In the House of Representatives it is a recognized principle that the 
House may not recede from its own amendments with an amendment (V, 6216-
6218). The House may not amend its own amendment to a Senate amendment 
to a House bill (Mar. 16, 1934, p. 4685). However, the stage of 
disagreement having been reached on a House amendment to a Senate 
amendment to a House proposition, the House may first recede from its 
amendment and, having receded, may then concur in the Senate amendment 
with a different amendment without violating this paragraph (Speaker 
O'Neill, Oct. 12, 1977, pp. 33448-54).




Sec. 527. Text to which both Houses have agreed 
not to be changed.

  * * * So the  Commons resolved that it is unparliamentary to 
strike out, at a conference, anything in a bill which hath been agreed 
and passed by both Houses, 6 Grey, 274; 1 Chand., 312.


  The practice of the two Houses has confirmed this principle of the 
parliamentary law and established the rule that managers of a conference 
may not change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6417, 6418, 
6420; VIII, 3257; see clause 3 of rule XXVIII), and neither House, 
alone, may empower the managers by instruction to make such a change (V, 
6388). In the earlier practice, when it was necessary to change text 
already agreed to, the managers appended a supplementary paragraph to 
their report, and this was agreed to by unanimous consent in the two 
Houses (V, 6433-6436); or the two Houses agreed to a concurrent 
resolution giving the managers the necessary powers (V, 6437-6439; Dec. 
17, 1974, p. 40472). Under the current practice the House considers a 
conference report that changes text already agreed to by unanimous 
consent, under suspension of the rules, or by report from the Committee 
on Rules waiving clause 3 of rule XXVIII.

  To change text finally agreed to by both Houses, each House may adopt 
a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the House or the 
Secretary of the Senate to correct the enrollment. Such a concurrent 
resolution may be considered by unanimous consent, under suspension of 
the rules, or by report from the Committee on Rules.



[[Page 264]]

<>   A motion to amend an amendment from the 
other House takes precedence of a motion to agree or disagree.

  The further principle has been established in practice of the House of 
Representatives that it may not, even by unanimous consent (V, 6179), 
change in the slightest particular (V, 6181) the text to which both 
Houses have agreed (V, 6180; VIII, 3257). And this prohibition extends, 
also, to a case wherein it is proposed to add a new section at the end 
of a bill which has passed both Houses (V, 6182).

  This is the rule of the House of Representatives where the stage of 
disagreement has not been reached (V, 6164, 6169-71; VIII, 3202), or 
when the House has receded from its disagreement to the amendment in 
question (VIII, 3196, 3197, 3203). The following discussion summarizes 
the precedence and consideration of motions to dispose of Senate or 
House amendments in contemporary practice.



Sec. 528a. Consideration of Senate or House 
Amendments.

  When Senate  amendments are before the House for the first time, or 
when the Senate has returned a bill with House amendments to which it 
has disagreed (and on which the House has not insisted), no privileged 
motion is in order in the House except a motion pursuant to clause 1 of 
rule XX, made by direction of the committee with subject-matter 
jurisdiction, to disagree to the Senate amendments or insist on the 
House amendment and request or agree to a conference with the Senate 
(see Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32308). Other motions to dispose of amendments 
between the Houses are not privileged until the stage of disagreement 
has been reached on a bill with amendments of the other House (IV, 3149, 
3150; VI, 756; VIII, 3185, 3194). The stage of disagreement is not 
reached until the House has either disagreed to Senate amendments or has 
insisted on its own amendments to a Senate bill, and has notified the 
Senate. Further House action can only occur when the House has received 
the papers back from the Senate (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868).


  Prior to the stage of disagreement, an amendment to a Senate amendment 
to a House passed measure on the Speaker's table is not in order until 
unanimous consent is granted for immediate consideration of the Senate 
amendment in the House (Speaker O'Neill, June 19, 1986, pp. 14638-40).

  If the House does agree to consider a bill with Senate amendments 
before the stage of disagreement has been reached, by unanimous consent 
or special order, a motion to amend takes precedence over the motion to 
agree. However, the usual practice in such a situation is to consider a 
request, either by unanimous consent, suspension of the rules, or 
special order reported by the Committee on Rules, simultaneously 
providing for consideration and disposition of the Senate amendment 
(thus precluding the consideration of other requests to dispose of the 
amendment (see Procedure, ch. 32, sec. 5).


[[Page 265]]
the vast majority of legislation does affect the Treasury (as described 
in clause 1 of rule XIII) and requires consideration in Committee of the 
Whole.
  It should be noted that a small category of Senate amendments, those 
not requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole, may be taken 
from the Speaker's table and disposed of by motion pursuant to clause 2 
of rule XXIV before the stage of disagreement has been reached, but 



Sec. 528b. Precedence of Motions Before the Stage 
of Disagreement.

  Should the  House consider Senate amendments before the stage of 
disagreement, the precedence of motions is as follows (disregarding the 
most privileged motion, to disagree and send to conference by direction 
of the committee): (1) to concur with an amendment or amendments; (2) to 
concur; (3) to disagree and request or agree to a conference; and (4) to 
disagree. With respect to consideration of House amendments before the 
stage of disagreement, the precedence of motions is (1) to recede; (2) 
to insist and request or agree to a conference; and (3) to insist. While 
the House may adhere, adherence is seldom utilized (since it precludes a 
conference unless receded from) and is extremely rare on first 
disagreement (see Sec. 522, supra; see also the discussion of adherence 
in Procedure, ch. 32, sec. 12.1). A motion to adhere is the least 
privileged motion.


  It was formerly held that a motion to send to conference yielded to 
the simple motion to disagree, or to insist (see Cannon's Procedure in 
the House of Representatives, p. 120). In current practice, however, the 
compound motion to disagree to Senate amendments and request or agree to 
a conference, or to insist on House amendments and request or agree to a 
conference, has replaced the two-step procedure for getting to 
conference and, since it brings the two Houses together, takes 
precedence over simple motions to insist or disagree (or to adhere).

  Notwithstanding the foregoing precedence of motions, the ordinary 
motions applicable to any question which is under debate--to table, to 
postpone to a day certain, and to refer--remain privileged under clause 
4 of rule XVI. A motion to table Senate amendments brings the bill to 
the table (V, 5424, 6201-03; Sept. 28, 1978, p. 32334). It must also be 
noted that before consideration of any motions to dispose of Senate 
amendments, the Speaker has the discretionary authority, under clause 2 
of rule XXIV, to refer such amendments to the appropriate committee, 
with or without a time limitation for committee consideration. It has 
been held that before the stage of disagreement, the motion to table the 
Senate amendment or amendments (V, 6201-03) or the motion to refer the 
Senate amendment or amendments (V, 5301, 6172, 6174) take precedence (in 
that order) over motions to amend, agree, or disagree. And if the 
previous question has been ordered on another motion to dispose of the 
Senate amendment, a motion to refer is in order (V, 5575).


[[Page 266]]
example, where the House has concurred in a Senate amendment to a House 
bill with an amendment, insisted on the House amendment and requested a 
conference, and the Senate has then concurred in the House amendment 
with a further amendment, the matter is privileged for further 
disposition in the House since the House has communicated to the Senate 
its insistence and request for a conference (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 20868). 
Of course, if the Senate has agreed to a House request for a conference, 
the bill is committed to conference and motions are not in order for its 
disposition until after the conferees have reported (the House may 
unilaterally discharge its conferees and consider the bill, where in 
possession of the papers, only by unanimous consent and not by motion).


Sec. 528c. Reaching the Stage of Disagreement.

  The House  has 
reached the stage of disagreement on a bill when it is again in 
possession of the papers thereon, having previously disagreed to Senate 
amendments or insisted on House amendments (with or without requesting 
or agreeing to a conference). Only previous insistence or disagreement 
by the House itself places the House in disagreement (and not merely 
disagreement, insistence, or amendment by the Senate). For 


  Once the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill with 
amendments, the House remains in the stage of disagreement until the 
matter is finally disposed of and motions for its disposition are 
privileged whenever the House is in possession of the papers. This 
principle applies both where the stage of disagreement is reached 
without a conference, and where matters remain in disagreement after 
conferees have reported. It is possible, therefore, for motions to be 
privileged since the House is in disagreement on the bill, but for the 
House to have receded from its disagreement or insistence on a 
particular amendment or to have received a new Senate amendment for the 
first time. In those cases motions remain privileged, but the precedence 
of motions on the amendment in question reverts to the precedence of 
motions before the stage of disagreement, as set forth in Sec. 528b, 
supra (see discussion below of the effect of the House receding). The 
two Houses having permitted the amendment process to go beyond the 
second degree, a motion to concur in a Senate amendment (in the 4th 
degree), the stage of disagreement having been reached, is privileged 
but is subject to the motion to lay on the table (Mar. 18, 1986, p. 
5217).


[[Page 267]]
carries to the table only the motion to dispose and not the amendment 
or bill (see Procedure, ch. 32, sec. 7.6). With respect to the motion to 
refer (or recommit), a simple motion to refer or recommit only takes 
precedence over a motion to adhere, after the stage of disagreement has 
been reached on the bill. After the previous question is ordered on a 
pending motion to dispose of a Senate amendment, a motion to recommit 
(pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI or clause 1 of rule XVII) may only be 
offered if it constitutes, in effect, a motion which takes precedence 
over the pending motion to dispose of a Senate amendment. Thus, after 
the stage of disagreement has been reached on a Senate amendment, a 
motion to recommit with instructions to report back forthwith with an 
amendment may not be offered after the previous question has been 
ordered on a motion to recede and concur, a motion of higher privilege 
(see Procedure, ch. 23, sec. 12.8). But after the House has receded from 
disagreement to a Senate amendment, a motion to amend is preferential 
over a motion to agree, and thus after the previous question is ordered 
on a motion to concur, the House having already receded, a motion to 
recommit with instructions to amend would be in order (VIII, 2744). 
Motions to postpone, either to a day certain or indefinitely, may be 
presumed to have the lowest privilege with respect to a Senate amendment 
after the stage of disagreement has been reached. For old examples where 
the House postponed indefinitely consideration of Senate amendments, see 
V, 6199, 6200 (in the latter case the Senate had adhered).


Sec. 528d. Precedence of Motions After the 
Stage of Disagreement.

  Generally, after  the stage of disagreement has been reached on a 
Senate amendment, the precedence of motions is as follows: (1) to recede 
and concur; (2) to recede and concur with an amendment or amendments; 
(3) to insist on disagreement and request a (further) conference; (4) to 
insist on disagreement; and (5) to adhere. The Chair may examine the 
substance of a pending motion to determine the order of voting thereon 
in relation to another motion, even though in form it may appear 
preferential. Thus, a proper motion to concur with an amendment to a 
Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement (the House 
having receded) has been offered and voted on before a pending motion 
drafted as one to concur with an amendment but in actual effect a motion 
to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment, since simply 
reinserting the original House text without change (July 2, 1980, pp. 
18357-61, sustained by tabling of appeal; see Procedure, ch. 32, sec. 
7.8 and 7.9). The ordinary motion to table under clause 4 of rule XVI 
may be applied to a Senate amendment but carries the bill to the table; 
when applied to a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment, the motion to 
table 


  Where the matter in question is a House amendment or amendments after 
the stage of disagreement has been reached, the precedence of motions is 
(1) to recede; (2) to further insist on the amendment and request a 
(further) conference; and (3) to adhere. For discussion of possible 
options of the House, having receded from its amendment or amendments, 
see Sec. 524, supra, and Procedure, ch. 32, sec. 10.1. If the House 
recedes from its amendment to a Senate bill, the bill is passed unless 
otherwise specified. If the House recedes from its amendment to a Senate 
amendment, the bill is not passed unless the House takes another step, 
either to concur in the Senate amendment or amend it. The House having 
receded from its amendment to a Senate amendment, it is no longer in 
disagreement on the amendment (although it is on the bill if the stage 
of disagreement has previously been reached), and the motion to amend 
the Senate amendment takes precedence over the motion to concur therein. 
Until the House recedes, however, a motion to recede from the House 
amendment and concur in the Senate amendment is preferential.


[[Page 268]]
ered as pending if part of the original motion, and is voted on first 
(Sept. 30, 1988, pp. 27265-74; Oct. 11, 1989, p. 24097). As indicated in 
Procedure, ch. 32, sec. 8, a Member offering a preferential motion does 
not thereby gain control of the debate, which remains in the control of 
the floor manager recognized to offer the original motion to dispose of 
amendments between the Houses (and which is divided equally between the 
majority and minority floor managers with respect to amendments reported 
from conference in disagreement under clause 2(b) of rule XXVIII). 
Recognition to offer a preferential motion goes to the senior committee 
member seeking the floor who is not the offeror of a displaced motion of 
lesser privilege (Nov. 16, 1989, p. ----).

  The same principle as to the precedence of motions after a division of 
the question applies to a motion to recede and concur in a Senate 
amendment, the stage of disagreement having been reached. While the 
motion to recede and concur takes precedence over the motion to recede 
and concur with an amendment, the former motion may be divided on the 
demand of any Member. If the House agrees to recede, a motion to concur 
with an amendment then takes precedence over the motion to concur, is 
consid




Sec. 529. Degree of amendments between the 
Houses.

  A bill  originating in one House is passed by the other with an 
amendment.     The originating House agrees to their amendment with an 
amendment. The other may agree to their amendment with an amendment, 
that being only in the 2d and not the 3d degree; for, as to the amending 
House, the first amendment with which they passed the bill is a part of 
its text. It is the only text they have agreed to. The amendment to that 
text by the originating House therefore is only in the 1st degree, and 
the amendment to that again by the amending House is only in the 2d, to 
wit, an amendment to an amendment, and so admissible. Just so, when, on 
a bill from the originating House, the other, at its second reading, 
makes an amendment; on the third reading this amendment is become the 
text of the bill, and if an amendment to it be moved an amendment to 
that amendment may also be moved, as being only in the 2d degree.








[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 269-281]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-77]

[[Page 269]]

 
  This principle is followed in the practice of the House of 
Representatives (V, 6176, 6177, 6178). For a discussion of the attitude 
of the Senate on this topic, see October 31, 1991 (p. ----). 


                        SEC. XLVI.--CONFERENCES.




Sec. 530. Parliamentary law as to asking 
conferences.

  It is on the  occasion of amendments between the Houses that 
conferences are usually asked; but they may be asked in all cases of 
difference of opinion between the two Houses on matters depending 
between them. The request of a conference, however, must always be by 
the House which is possessed of the papers. 3 Hats., 31; 1 Grey, 425.


  The House of Representatives follows the principles set forth in this 
paragraph of the parliamentary law. A conference may be asked on only a 
portion of the amendments in disagreement, leaving the differences as to 
the remainder to be settled by the action of the two Houses themselves 
(V, 6401). In very rare instances conferences have been asked by one 
House after the other has absolutely rejected a main proposition (IV, 
3442; V, 6258). A difference over an amendment to a proposed 
constitutional amendment may be committed to a conference (V, 7037).



Sec. 531. Conferences over matters other 
than differences as to amendments.

  While conferences  between the two Houses of Congress 
are usually held over differences as to amendments to bills, 
occasionally differences arise as to the respective prerogatives of the 
Houses (II, 1485-1495) or as to matters of procedures (V, 6401), as in 
impeachment proceedings (III, 2304), which are referred to conference. 
In early and exceptional instances conferences have been asked as to 
legislative matters when no propositions relating thereto were pending 
(V, 6255-6257).




Sec. 532. Conferences by means of select 
committees.

  In very  rare cases, also, the Houses interchange views and come to 
conclusions by means of select committees appointed on the part of each 
House (I, 3). Thus, in 1821, a joint committee was chosen to consider 
and report to the two Houses whether or not it was expedient to provide 
for the admission of Missouri into the Union (IV, 4471), and in 1877 
similar committees were appointed to devise a method for counting the 
electoral vote (III, 1953).



[[Page 270]]
that an omission to do so has even raised a question (V, 6273). Yet it 
can not be said that the practice requires a request for a conference to 
be made by the House disagreeing to the amendments of the other (V, 
6274-6277). One House having asked a conference at one session, the 
other House may agree to the conference at the next session of the same 
Congress (V, 6286).


Sec. 533. Requests for conferences.

  The  parliamentary law 
provides that the request for a conference must always be by the House 
which is possessed of the papers (V, 8254). It was formerly the more 
regular practice for the House disagreeing to amendments of the other to 
leave the asking of a conference to that other House if it should decide 
to insist (V, 6278-6285, 6324); but it is so usual in the later practice 
for the House disagreeing to an amendment of the other to ask a 
conference 




Sec. 534. Requests for conferences declined or 
neglected.

  In rare  instances one House has declined the request of the other 
for a conference (V, 6313-6315; Mar. 20, 1951, p. 2683), sometimes 
accompanying it by adherence (V, 6313, 6315). In one instance, where the 
Senate declined a conference, it transmitted, by message, its reasons 
for so doing (V, 6313). Sometimes, also, one House disregards the 
request of the other for a conference and recedes from its disagreement, 
thereby rendering a conference unnecessary (V, 6316-6318). And in one 
case, where one House has asked a conference to which the other has 
assented, the asking House receded before the conference took place (V, 
6319). Also, a bill returned to the House with a request for a 
conference has been postponed indefinitely (V, 6199).




Sec. 535. Motions to request conferences.

  After the  stage of 
disagreement has been reached, a motion to ask a conference is 
considered as distinct from motions to agree or disagree to amendments 
of the other House (V, 6268) and the motions to agree, recede, or insist 
are considered as preferential (V, 6269, 6270). Where a motion to 
request a conference at this stage has been rejected, its repetition at 
the same stage of the proceedings, no other motion to dispose of the 
matter in disagreement having been considered, has not been permitted 
(V, 6325). Where a conference results in disagreement, a motion to 
request a new conference is privileged (V, 6586). Sometimes 
disagreements are voted on by the House and conferences asked through 
the medium of special orders (IV, 3242-3249).


  Before the stage of disagreement, any motion with respect to 
amendments between the two Houses is without privilege, except for 
motions with respect to the limited number of amendments that qualify 
under clause 2 of rule XXIV or motions under clause 1 of rule XX, to 
disagree to Senate amendments (or insist on House amendments) and to 
request or agree to an initial conference if the motion is authorized by 
the Committee which reported the bill and if the Speaker, in his 
discretion, recognizes for that purpose. A motion under the latter 
clause may be repeated, if again authorized by the committee concerned, 
and if the Speaker again agrees to recognize for that purpose, even 
though the House has once rejected a motion to send the same matter to 
conference (Speaker Albert, Oct. 3, 1972, pp. 33502-03).


[[Page 271]]
which acts by a majority (V, 6334). The Speaker appoints the managers 
on the part of the House (clause 6(f) of rule X) and has discretion as 
to the number to serve on a given bill (V, 6336; VIII, 2193) but must 
appoint (1) a majority of Members who generally support the House 
position, as determined by the Speaker; (2) Members who are primarily 
responsible for the legislation; and (3) to the fullest extent feasible 
the principal proponents of the major provisions of the bill as it 
passed the House (clause 6(f) of rule X). While the practice used to be 
to appoint three managers from each house (V, 6336), in the absence of 
joint rules each House may appoint whatever number it sees fit (V, 6328-
6330). The two Houses have frequently appointed a disparate number of 
managers (V, 6331-6333; VIII, 3221); and where the Senate appointed nine 
and the House but three, a motion to instruct the Speaker to appoint a 
greater number of managers on the part of the House was held out of 
order (VII, 2193). In appointing managers the Speaker usually consults 
the Member in charge of the bill (V, 6336); and where an amendment in 
disagreement falls within the jurisdiction of two committees of the 
House, the Speaker has named Members from both committees and specified 
the respective areas on which they were to confer (Speaker Albert, Nov. 
30, 1971, p. 43422). In appointing conferees on the general 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1951, Speaker Rayburn appointed a set 
of managers for each chapter of the bill and four Members to sit on all 
chapters (Aug. 7, 1950, p. 11894). While the appointment of conferees, 
both as to their number and composition, is within the discretion of the 
Chair (Speaker Martin, July 8, 1947, p. 8469; Speaker Garner, June 24, 
1932, p. 13876), and while a point of order will not lie against his 
exercise of this discretion (VIII, 2193, 3221), the Speaker normally 
takes into consideration the attitude of the majority and minority of 
the House on the disagreements in issue (V, 6336-6338; VIII, 3223), the 
varying views of the members of the House (V, 6339, 6340), and does not 
necessarily confine his appointments to members of the committee in 
charge of the bill (V, 6370). In one case, where the prerogatives of the 
House were involved, all of the managers were appointed to represent the 
majority opinion (V, 6338). See also Sec. 701e, infra.


Sec. 536. Managers of conferences.

  While usual,  it is not 
essential that one House, in asking a conference, transmit the names of 
its managers at the same time (V, 6405). The managers, properly so 
called (V, 6335), constitute practically two distinct committees, each 
of 




Sec. 537. Reappointment of, at second and 
subsequent conferences.

  Where there  were several conferences on a bill, it was the 
early practice to change the managers at each conference (V, 6288-6291, 
6324), and so fixed was this practice that their reappointment had a 
special significance, indicating an unyielding temper (V, 6352-6368); 
but in the later practice it is the rule to reappoint managers (V, 6341-
6344) unless a change be necessary to enable the sentiment of the House 
to be represented (V, 6369).



[[Page 272]]
6372; VIII, 3228). Where one House makes a change in its managers, it 
informs the other House, by message (V, 6377, 6378). According to the 
later practice the powers of managers who have not reported do not 
expire by reason of the termination of a session of Congress, unless it 
be the last session (V, 6260-6262).



Sec. 538. Vacancies, etc., in managers of 
conferences.

  Managers of  a conference are excused from service either by authority 
of the House (V, 6373-6376; VIII, 3224, 3227) or, since the 103d 
Congress, by removal by the Speaker (clause 6(f) of rule X). The absence 
of a manager may cause a vacancy, which the Speaker fills by appointment 
(V, 





Sec. 539. Parliamentary law as to free and simple 
conferences.

  Conferences  may be either simple or free. At a conference simply, 
written reasons are prepared by the House asking it, and they are read 
and delivered, without debate, to the managers of the other House at the 
conference, but are not then to be answered. 4 Grey, 144. The other 
House then, if satisfied, vote the reasons satisfactory, or say nothing; 
if not satisfied they resolve then not satisfactory and ask a conference 
on the subject of the last conference, where they read and deliver, in 
like manner, written answer to those reasons. 3 Grey, 183. They are 
meant chiefly to record the justification of each House to the nation at 
large and to posterity and in proof that the miscarriage of a necessary 
measure is not imputable to them. 3 Grey, 255. At free conferences the 
managers discuss, viva voce and freely, and interchange propositions for 
such modifications as may be made in a parliamentary way, and may bring 
the sense of the two Houses together. * * *



[[Page 273]]
the body appointing it'' (V, 6403). And where the House had asked a 
free conference it was held not in order to instruct the managers (V, 
6384). But it is very rare for the House in asking a conference to 
specify whether it shall be free or simple.


Sec. 540. Free and simple conferences in modern 
practice.

  This provision  of the parliamentary law bears little relation to the modern 
practice of the two Houses of Congress, and that practice has evolved a 
new definition: ``A free conference is that which leaves the committee 
of conference entirely free to pass upon any subject where the two 
branches have disagreed in their votes, not, however, including any 
action upon any subject where there has been a concurrent vote of both 
branches. A simple conference--perhaps it should more properly be termed 
a strict or a specific conference, though the parliamentary term is 
`simple'--is that which confines the committee of conference to the 
specific instructions of 



[[Page 274]]



Sec. 541. Instruction of managers of a 
conference.

  In their practices  as to the instruction of managers of a conference, the 
House of Representatives and the Senate do not agree. Only in rare 
instances has the Senate instructed (V, 6398), and these instances are 
at variance with its declaration, made after full consideration, that 
managers may not be instructed (V, 6397). And where the House has 
instructed its managers, the Senate sometimes has declined to 
participate and asked a free conference (V, 6402-6404). In the later 
practice the House does not inform the Senate when it instructs its 
managers (V, 6399), the Senate having objected to the transmittal of 
instructions by message (V, 6400, 6401). In one instance where the 
Senate learned indirectly that the House had instructed its managers, it 
declared that the conference should be full and free, and instructed its 
own managers to withdraw if they should find the freedom of the 
conference impaired (V, 6406). But the House of Representatives holds to 
the opinion that the House may instruct its managers (V, 6379-6382), 
although the propriety of doing so at a first conference has been 
questioned (V, 6388, footnote). And in rare instances where a free 
conference is asked instruction is not in order (V, 6384). At a new 
conference the instructions of a former conference are not in force (V, 
6383; VIII, 3240). And instructions may not direct the managers to do 
that which they might not otherwise do (V, 6386, 6387; VIII, 3235, 
3244), as to effect a change in part of a bill not in disagreement (V, 
6391-6394) or change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 
6388). Although managers may disregard instructions, their report may 
not for that reason be ruled out of order (V, 6395; VIII, 3246; June 8, 
1972, p. 20282), and when a conference report is recommitted with 
instructions the managers are not confined to the instructions alone 
(VIII, 3247). The motion to instruct managers should be offered after 
the vote to ask for or agree to a conference and before the managers are 
appointed (V, 6379-6382; VIII, 3233, 3240, 3256). The motion to instruct 
may be amended unless the previous question is ordered (V, 6525; VIII, 
3231, 3240); thus a motion to instruct House conferees to agree to a 
numbered Senate amendment with an amendment may be amended, upon 
rejection of the previous question, to instruct the conferees to agree 
to the Senate amendment (June 9, 1982, pp. 13027, 13028, 13039, 13049). 
The motion to instruct may be laid on the table without carrying the 
bill to the table (VIII, 2658). The motion is debatable (see clause 1(b) 
of rule XXVIII) unless the previous question is ordered (VIII, 2675, 
3240). After a motion to ask or agree to a conference is agreed to, only 
one valid motion to instruct is in order (VIII, 3236; Speaker Wright, 
Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583); but this restriction does not apply to a motion 
to instruct under clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII (Aug. 22, 1935, pp. 14162-
64). 



  A member of the minority is first entitled to recognition for a motion 
to instruct conferees (Speaker Bankhead, Oct. 31, 1939, pp. 1103-05; 
Speaker Albert, Oct. 19, 1971, pp. 36832-35), and where two minority 
members of the reporting committee seek recognition to offer a motion to 
instruct conferees prior to their appointment, the Chair will recognize 
the senior minority member of the committee (Oct. 10, 1986, p. 30181; 
Speaker Wright, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583). The ruling out of a motion to 
instruct conferees does not preclude the offering of a proper motion to 
instruct (VIII, 3235), but one motion to instruct having been considered 
and disposed of, further motions to instruct are not in order (VIII, 
3236). Such additional instructions should have been offered as 
amendments to the original motion to instruct.




Sec. 542. Parliamentary law as to reports of 
managers of a conference.

  * * * And each  party report in writing to their respective 
Houses the substance of what is said on both sides, and it is entered in 
their journals. 9 Grey, 220; 3 Hats; 280. This report can not be amended 
or altered, as that of a committee may be. Journal Senate, May 24, 1796.



[[Page 275]]
on as part of the report (V, 6465-6467; see also clause 3 of rule 
XXVIII). A quorum among the managers on the part of the House at a 
committee of conference is established by their signatures on the 
conference report and joint explanatory statement (Oct. 4, 1994, p. ----
).


Sec. 543. Forms of conference reports.

  In the two  Houses of 
Congress conference reports were originally merely suggestions for 
action and were neither identical in the two Houses nor acted on as a 
whole (V, 6468-6471). In the House of Representatives, rule XXVIII 
provides that conference reports may be received at any time, except 
when the Journal is being read, while the roll is being called or the 
House is dividing. They are privileged on or after the third calendar 
day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays) after they have 
been filed and printed in the Record, together with the accompanying 
statement (clause 2 of rule XXVIII). The early reports were not signed 
by the managers (IV, 3905); but in the later practice the signatures of 
the majority of the managers of each House is required (V, 6497-6502; 
VIII, 3295). Sometimes a manager indorses the report with a conditional 
approval or dissent (V, 6489-6496, 6538), but supplemental reports or 
minority views may not be filed in connection with conference reports 
(VIII, 3302). The name of an absent manager may not be affixed, but the 
two Houses by concurrent action may authorize him to sign the report 
after it has been acted on (V, 6488). The minority portion of the 
managers of a conference have no authority to make either a written or 
verbal report concerning the conference (V, 6406). In the later practice 
reports of managers are identical, and made in duplicate for the two 
Houses, the House managers signing first the report for their House and 
the Senate managers signing the other report first (V, 6323, 6426, 6499, 
6500, 6504). Under certain circumstances managers may report an entirely 
new bill on a subject in disagreement, but this bill is acted 




Sec. 544. Partial conference reports.

  Managers may  report an 
agreement as to a portion of the numbered amendments in disagreement, 
leaving the remainder to be disposed of by subsequent action (V, 6460-
6464).




Sec. 545. Reports of inability to agree.

  Where managers  of a 
conference are unable to agree, or where a report is disagreed to in 
either House, another conference is usually asked (V, 6288-6291). When 
managers report that they have been unable to agree, the report is not 
acted on by the House of Representatives (V, 6562; VIII, 3329, Aug. 23, 
1957, p. 15816). While under the earlier practice, when conferees 
reported in complete disagreement, the amendments in disagreement were 
considered available for immediate disposition (VIII, 3299, 3332), the 
current practice (as a result of the amendment to clause 2(b) of rule 
XXVIII that became effective in the 93d Congress) is to require the 
matter to lay over until the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, 
Sundays, or legal holidays) after the report in disagreement is filed 
and printed in the Record. In the earlier practice reports of inability 
to agree were made verbally or by unsigned written reports (V, 6563-
6567); but in later practice they are written, in identical form, and 
signed by the managers of the two Houses (V, 6568, 6569).



[[Page 276]]



Sec. 546. Managers restricted to the 
disagreements of the two Houses.

  The managers  of a conference must confine 
themselves to the differences committed to them (V, 6417, 6418; VIII, 
3252, 3255, 3282), and may not include subjects not within the 
disagreements (V, 6407, 6408; VIII, 3253-3255, 3260, 3282, 3284), even 
though germane to a question in issue (V, 6419; VIII, 3256; Speaker 
Albert, Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41849). But they may perfect amendments 
committed to them if they do not in so doing go beyond the differences 
(V, 6409, 6413). Thus, where an amendment providing an appropriation to 
construct a road had been disagreed to, it was held in order to report a 
provision to provide for a survey for the road (V, 6425). Managers may 
not change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6417, 6418, 
6420, 6433-6436). But where the amendment in issue strikes out all of 
the bill after the enacting clause and substitutes a new text, the 
managers have the whole subject before them and may exercise a broad 
discretion as to details (V, 6424; VIII, 3266), and may even report an 
entirely new bill on the subject (V, 6421, 6423; VIII, 3248, 3263, 3265, 
3276; see also Sec. 913). Where the amendment in disagreement proposes a 
substitute differing greatly from the House provision they may eliminate 
the entire subject matter (Speaker Gillett, Sept. 14, 1922, p. 12598).




Sec. 547. Remedy where managers exceed their authority.

  In the  House of Representatives the Speaker may rule out a conference report 
if it be shown that the managers have exceeded their authority (V, 6409-
6416; VIII, 3256; Oct. 4, 1962, pp. 22332-33). In the House points of 
order against reports are made or reserved after the report is read and 
before the reading of the statement (V, 6424, 6441; VIII, 3282, 3284, 
3285, 3287), or consideration begins (V, 6903-6905; VIII, 3286), and 
comes too late after the report has been agreed to (V, 6442); and in 
case the statement is read in lieu of the report the point of order must 
be made or reserved before the statement is read (VIII, 3256, 3265, 
3285, 3288, 3289). Where clause 2(c) of rule XXVIII applies, points of 
order must be made before debate begins on the report.


  In the Senate under the former practice the Chair did not rule out 
conference reports, but the Senate itself expressed its opinion on the 
vote to agree to the report (V, 6426-6432) but on March 8, 1918, the 
Senate adopted a rule providing for a point of order against conferees 
inserting matter not committed to them or changing the text agreed to by 
both Houses and also providing for automatic recommitting of such report 
to the committee of conference in case the point of order is sustained. 
This rule of the Senate has been strictly construed (VIII, 3273, 3275).



Sec. 548. Meeting and action of 
managers.

  Before the  managers of a conference may report the other House must be 
notified of their appointment and a meeting must be held (V, 6458). 
Conferences are generally held in the Capitol, and formerly with closed 
doors, although in rare instances Members and others were admitted to 
make arguments (V, 6254, footnote, 6263). Clause 6 of rule XXVIII now 
provides for open conference meetings except where the House determines 
by rollcall vote that all or part of the meeting shall be closed to the 
public. The same rule now provides for a point of order in the House 
against the report and for an automatic request for a new conference if 
the House managers fail to meet in open session following appointment of 
the Senate conferees (Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32896). Rarely, also, papers in 
the nature of petitions have been referred to managers (V, 6263). The 
managers of the two Houses vote separately (V, 6336).



[[Page 277]]
not only a conference report and but also sundry motions to dispose of 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement (June 18, 1992, p. 
----). While ordinarily reports are agreed to by majority vote, a two-
thirds vote is required on a report relating to a constitutional 
amendment (V, 7036). Conference reports must be acted on in both Houses 
and in a case where the Senate had adopted a report which recommended 
that it recede from its amendments to a House Bill, the House rejected 
the report and then agreed to the Senate amendments (Mar. 21, 1956, p. 
5278). A conference report being made up but not acted on at the 
expiration of a Congress, the bill is lost (V, 6309). One House has, by 
message, reminded the other of its neglect to act on a conference 
report; but this was an occasion of criticism (V, 6309).


Sec. 549. Action on a conference report in the 
two Houses.

  The report of  the managers of a conference goes first to one House and 
then to the other, neither House acting until it is in possession of the 
papers, which means the original bill and amendments, as well as the 
report (V, 6322, 6518-6522, 6586; VIII, 3301). The report must be acted 
on as a whole, being agreed to or disagreed to as an entirety (V, 6472-
6480, 6530-6533; VIII, 3304, 3305; Speaker Bankhead, Aug. 22, 1940, p. 
10763; Speaker Albert, Nov. 10, 1971, pp. 40481-82); and until the 
report has been acted on no motion to deal with the individual 
amendments is in order (V, 6323, 6389, 6390; Speaker Rayburn, Mar. 16, 
1942, pp. 2502-04). Under a special order of business recommended by the 
Committee on Rules, the House has considered a single, indivisible 
motion to adopt 




Sec. 550. Motions in order during action on a 
conference report.

  When a  conference report is presented, the question on 
agreeing is regarded as pending (V, 6517; VIII, 3300), and as the 
negative of it is equivalent to disagreement, the motion to disagree is 
not admitted (II, 1473; V, 6517; VIII, 3300). The reading of the 
amendments to which the report relates is not in order during its 
consideration (V, 5298). The report may not be amended on motion made in 
either House alone (V, 6534, 6535; VIII, 3306), but amendment is 
sometimes made by concurrent action of the two Houses (V, 6536, 6537; 
VIII, 3308). A motion to refer to a standing committee (V, 6558) or to 
lay on the table is not entertained in the House (V, 6538-6544); and a 
conference report may not be sent to Committee of the Whole on 
suggestion that it contains matter ordinarily requiring consideration in 
that committee (V, 6559-6561). It is in order on motion to recommit a 
conference report if the other body, by action on the report, have not 
discharged their managers (V, 6545-6553, 6609; VIII, 3310), and by 
concurrent resolution a report may be recommitted to conference after 
each House has acted thereon (VIII, 3316), but such a proposition would 
not be privileged in the House (V, 6554-6557; VIII, 3309).


  A bill being recommitted to the committee of conference, no further 
action is taken by the House until it is again reported by the managers 
(VIII, 3326, 3327), and when reported is subject to another motion to 
recommit (VIII, 3325). Because instructions included in a motion to 
recommit a conference report are not binding, adoption of such a motion 
opens to further negotiation all issues committed to conference (Apr. 
21, 1988, p. 8198).


[[Page 278]]
question is as specified in those clauses and, depending on the nature 
of the text in disagreement, may be to recede and concur with an 
amendment, to insist on the House position, or to insist on disagreement 
(see Secs. 913b and 913c, infra).



Sec. 551. Effect of disagreement to a conference 
report.

  When either  House disagrees to a conference report the matter is left in 
the position it was in before the conference was asked (V, 6525), and 
the amendments in disagreement come up for further action (II, 1473), 
but do not return to the state they were in before disagreement, so that 
they need not be considered in Committee of the Whole (V, 6589). Motions 
for disposition of Senate amendments, sending to conference and 
instruction of conferees, are again in order (VIII, 3303). However, if a 
conference report is considered as rejected pursuant to the provisions 
of clauses 4 or 5 of rule XXVIII because of the inclusion of nongermane 
matter, the pending 





Sec. 552. Custody of papers when a conference is asked 
before disagreement.

  A  conference may be asked, before the House asking 
it has come to a resolution of disagreement, insisting or adhering. 3 
Hats., 269, 341. In which case the papers are not left with the other 
conferees, but are brought back to the foundation of the vote to be 
given. And this is the most reasonable and respectful proceeding; for, 
as was urged by the Lords on a particular occasion, ``it is held vain, 
and below the wisdom of Parliament, to reason or argue against fixed 
resolutions, and upon terms of impossibility to persuade.'' 3 Hats., 
226. * * *



  In the Houses of Congress conferences are sometimes asked before a 
disagreement, and while the rule as to retention of the papers 
undoubtedly holds good, neglect to observe it has not been questioned 
(V, 6585).


[[Page 279]]
299, 319, 322, 355; of adhering, 269, 270, 283, 300; and even of a 
second or final adherence. 3 Hats., 270. * * *



Sec. 553. Relations of adherence and conference 
under the parliamentary law.

  * * * So the  Commons say, ``an adherence is never 
delivered at a free conference, which implies debate.'' 10 Grey, 137. 
And on another occasion the Lords made it an objection that the Commons 
had asked a free conference after they had made resolutions of adhering. 
It was then affirmed, however, on the part of the Commons that nothing 
was more parliamentary than to proceed with free conferences after 
adhering, 3 Hats., 269, and we do in fact see instances of conference, 
or of free conference, asked after the resolution of disagreeing, 3 
Hats., 251, 253, 260, 286, 291, 316, 349; of insisting, ib., 280, 290, 





Sec. 554. Relations of adherence and conference 
under the practice of the two Houses of Congress.

  The two Houses  not observing the 
parliamentary distinctions as to free and other conferences, their 
practice in case of adherence is also different. Conferences are not 
asked after an adherence by both Houses, but have often been asked and 
granted where only one House has adhered (V, 6241-6244). A vote to 
adhere may not be accompanied by a request for a conference (V, 6303; 
VIII, 3208), as the House that votes to adhere does not ask a conference 
(V, 6304-6308). The request for a conference in such a case is properly 
accompanied by a motion to insist (V, 6308). And the House that has 
adhered may insist on its adherence when it agrees to the conference (V, 
6251). But it is not considered necessary either to recede or insist 
before agreeing to the conference (V, 6242, 6244, 6310, 6311).





Sec. 555. Custody of the papers after an 
effective conference.

  * * * And in  all cases of conference asked after a vote of 
disagreement, &c., the conferees of the House asking it are to leave the 
papers with the conferees of the other; and in one case where they 
refused to receive them they were left on the table in the conference 
chamber. Ib., 271, 317, 323, 354; 10 Grey, 146.


  This principle of the parliamentary law is recognized as of effect in 
the two Houses of Congress, and is customarily followed in cases wherein 
the managers of the conference come to an agreement on which a report 
may be based (July 31, 1981, pp. 18884-85). If conferees of House 
agreeing to conference surrender papers to House asking conference, the 
report can be received first by House asking the conference (VIII, 
3330). In the 101st Congress, where a report following a successful 
conference was filed in both Houses, an objection to a unanimous consent 
request in the Senate prevented the release of papers held at the Senate 
desk to the House, where the Senate in the normal course of events was 
scheduled to act first on the report (June 28, 1990, p. ----).


[[Page 280]]
pers were taken back to the Senate, which was the body agreeing to the 
conference, the Senate after consideration sent them to the House, since 
it seemed proper for the asking House to take the first action (V, 
6573). But sometimes managers have brought the papers to the agreeing 
House without question (V, 6239, footnote; July 14, 1988, p. 18411).



Sec. 556. Custody of papers when managers of a 
conference fail to agree.

  But where a  conference breaks up without reaching any 
agreement the managers for the House which asked the conference, who 
have the papers by right, are justified in retaining them and carrying 
them back to the House (IV, 3905 footnote, V, 6246, 6254, 6571-6584; 
VIII, 3332). And in one case wherein under such circumstances the pa




Sec. 557. Free or instructed conferences.

  After a  free 
conference the usage is to proceed with free conferences and not to 
return again to a conference. 3 Hats., 270; 9 Grey, 229.



  After a conference denied a free conference may be asked. 1 Grey, 45.


  The House of Representatives instructs its managers whenever it sees 
fit, without regard to whether or not the preceding conference has been 
free or instructed.


[[Page 281]]
were sometimes communicated by way of conference. 6 Grey, 128, 300, 
387; 7 Grey, 80; 8 Grey, 210, 255; 1 Torbuck's Deb., 278; 10 Grey, 293; 
1 Chandler, 49, 287. But this is not the modern practice. 8 Grey, 255.
<>   A conference has been asked after the first reading of a 
bill. 1 Grey, 194. This is a singular instance.



Sec. 558. Parliamentary law as to purposes for which 
conferences may be held.

  When a  conference is asked, the subject of it must 
be expressed or the conference not agreed to. Ord. H. Com., 89; 1 Grey, 
425; 7 Grey, 31. They are sometimes asked to inquire concerning an 
offense or default of a member of the other House. 6 Grey, 181; 1 
Chand., 304. Or the failure of the other House to present to the King a 
bill passed by both Houses. 8 Grey, 302. Or on information received and 
relating to the safety of the nation. 10 Grey, 171. Or when the methods 
of Parliament are thought by the one House to have been departed from by 
the other a conference is asked to come to a right understanding 
thereon. 10 Grey, 148. So when an unparliamentary message has been sent, 
instead of answering it they ask a conference. 3 Grey, 155. Formerly an 
address or articles of impeachment or a bill, with amendments, or a vote 
of the House, or concurrence in a vote, or a message from the King 






[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 281-285]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-78]

 
  The House of Representatives has no procedure conforming to this 
provision.


<>   
Messages between the Houses are to be sent only while both Houses are 
sitting. 3 Hats., 15. * * *

                         SEC. XLVII.--MESSAGES.


<>   * * * They are 
received during a debate without adjourning the debate. 3 Hats., 22.

  Formerly this rule was observed (V, 6603, 6604), but since the 62d 
Congress messages have been received by the House when the Senate was 
not in session (VIII, 3338). Clause 5 of rule III was added in the 97th 
Congress to authorize the Clerk to receive messages from the President 
and the Senate at any time that the House is not in session (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98).


  In the House of Representatives messages are received during debate, 
the Member having the floor yielding on request of the Speaker.


[[Page 282]]
rors difficult to be corrected. So arranged June 15, 1798.



Sec. 562. Reception of messages during voting, in 
absence of a quorum, etc.

  In Senate  the messengers are introduced in any state 
of business, except: 1. While a question is being put. 2. While the yeas 
and nays are being called. 3. While the ballots are being counted. The 
first case is short; the second and third are cases where any 
interruption might occasion er



  In the House of Representatives messages are not received while a 
question is being put or during a division by rising vote. However, they 
are received during the call of the yeas and nays, during consideration 
of a question of privilege (V, 6640-6642), during a call of the House 
(V, 6600, 6650; VIII, 3339), during debate on a motion to approve the 
Journal (Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23607), and before the organization of the 
House (V, 6647-6649). But the Speaker exercises his discretion about 
interrupting the pending business (V, 6602).




Sec. 563. Informal rising of Committee of the Whole to 
receive a message.

  In the  House of Representatives, as in Parliament, if the 
House be in committee when a messenger attends, the Speaker takes the 
chair to receive the message, and then quits it to return into committee 
without any question or interruption. 4 Grey, 226.
<>   
Messengers are not saluted by the Members, but by the Speaker for the 
House. 2 Grey, 253, 274.



  The practice of the House of Representatives as to reception of 
messages is founded on this paragraph of the parliamentary law and on 
the former joint rules (V, 6591-6595). The Speaker, with a slight 
inclination, addresses the messenger, by his title, after the messenger, 
with an inclination, has addressed ``Mr. Speaker'' (V, 6591).


[[Page 283]]
The Secretary was sent to the other House to correct his mistake, the 
correction was received, and the two amendments acted on de novo.



Sec. 565. Correction and return of messages.

  If  messengers 
commit an error in delivering their message, they may be admitted or 
called in to correct their message. 4 Grey, 41. Accordingly, March 13, 
1800, the Senate having made two amendments to a bill from the House of 
Representatives, their Secretary, by mistake, delivered one only, which 
being inadmissible by itself, that House disagreed, and notified the 
Senate of their disagreement. This produced a discovery of the mistake. 



  The request of the Senate that its Secretary be allowed to correct an 
error in a message was granted by order of the House (V, 6605), and in a 
similar case, when the House directed its clerk to correct an error in a 
message to the Senate, the Senate agreed to the correction (V, 6607). In 
the House a proposition to correct an error in a message to the Senate 
is received as a question of privilege (III, 2613; Oct. 1, 1982, p. 
27172). One House sometimes asks of the other the return of a message 
(V, 6609-6611; Nov. 16, 1989, p. ----).




Sec. 566. Disposal of messages after reception.

  As soon  as 
the messenger who has brought bills from the other House has retired, 
the Speaker holds the bills in his hand; and acquaints the House ``that 
the other House have by their messenger sent certain bills,'' and then 
reads their titles, and delivers them to the Clerk to be safely kept 
till they shall be called for to be read. Hakew., 178.



  In the House of Representatives the message goes to the Speaker's 
table, but the Speaker does not acquaint the House, as they have already 
heard the message. From the Speaker's table messages are disposed of 
under clause 2 of rule XXIV.




Sec. 567. Information by message as to bills 
passed.

  It is not  the usage for one House to inform the other by what numbers a 
bill is passed. 10 Grey, 150. Yet they have sometimes recommended a 
bill, as of great importance, to the consideration of the House to which 
it is sent. 3 Hats., 25. * * *




[[Page 284]]

  The Houses of Congress do not communicate by what numbers a bill is 
passed, or otherwise recommend their bills.



Sec. 568. Information by message as to 
rejection of bills.

  * * * Nor when  they have rejected a bill from the other House, 
do they give notice of it; but it passes sub silentio, to prevent 
unbecoming altercations. 1 Blackst., 183.



  But in Congress the rejection is notified by message to the House in 
which the bill originated.


  In the two Houses of Congress the fact of the rejection of a bill is 
messaged to the House in which the bill originated, as in the days of 
Jefferson, although the joint rule requiring it has disappeared (IV, 
3422; V, 6601). And in a case wherein the House had stricken out the 
enacting words of a Senate bill, the Senate was notified that the bill 
had been rejected (IV, 3423; VII, 2638; Oct. 4, 1972, pp. 33785-87).




Sec. 569. Questions asked by conference, not by 
message.

  A question  is never asked by the one House of the other by way of 
message, but only at a conference; for this is an interrogatory, not a 
message. 3 Grey, 151, 181.



  In 1798 the House of Representatives asked of the Senate a question by 
way of conference, but this appears to be the only instance (V, 6256).




Sec. 570. Messages as to neglected bills.

  When a  bill is 
sent by one House to the other, and is neglected, they may send a 
message to remind them of it. 3 Hats., 25; 5 Grey, 154. But if it be 
mere inattention, it is better to have it done informally by 
communication between the Speakers or Members of the two Houses.



  It does not appear that either House of Congress has by message 
reminded the other of a neglected bill.


[[Page 285]]
communication should be made to both on the same day. But where a 
message was accompanied with an original declaration, signed by the 
party to which the message referred, its being sent to one House was not 
noticed by the other, because the declaration being original, could not 
possibly be sent to both Houses at the same time. 2 Hats., 260, 261, 
262.


Sec. 571. Messages from the President of the two 
Houses.

  Where the  subject of a message is of a nature that it can properly be 
communicated to both Houses of Parliament, it is expected that this 



  The King having sent original letters to the Commons afterward desires 
they may be returned, that he may communicate them to the Lords. 1 
Chandler, 303.





[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 285-287]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-79]

 
  A message of the President of the United States is usually 
communicated to both Houses on the same day when its nature permits (V, 
6590); but an original document accompanying can, of course, be sent to 
but one House (V, 6616, 6617). The President having by inadvertence 
included certain papers in a message, was allowed to withdraw them (V, 
6651). In the House of Representatives the Speaker has the discretion, 
which he rarely exercises, to suspend a roll call in order to receive a 
message from the President.


                          SEC. XLVIII.--ASSENT.




Sec. 572. Parliamentary law as to presenting a bill for 
the King's assent.

  The  House which has received a bill and passed it may 
present it for the King's assent, and ought to do it, though they have 
not by message notified to the other their passage of it. Yet the 
notifying by message is a form which ought to be observed between the 
two Houses from motives of respect and good understanding. 2 Hats., 242. 
Were the bill to be withheld from being presented to the King, it would 
be an infringement of the rules of Parliament. Ib.




[[Page 286]]

  In the House of Representatives it was held that where there had been 
no unreasonable delay in transmitting an enrolled bill to the President, 
a resolution relating thereto did not present a question of privilege 
(III, 2601).




Sec. 573. Parliamentary law as to enrollment of bills.

  When a  bill has passed both Houses of Congress, the House last acting on it 
notifies its passage to the other, and delivers the bill to the Joint 
Committee on Enrollment, who sees that it is truly enrolled in 
parchment. When the bill is enrolled it is not to be written in 
paragraphs, but solidly, and all of a piece, that the blanks between the 
paragraphs may not give room for forgery. 9 Grey, 143. * * *




[[Page 287]]



Sec. 574. Practice of the two Houses of Congress 
as to enrollments of bills.

  Formerly the  enrollment in the House of Representatives 
and the Senate was in writing (IV, 3436, 3437); but in 1893 the two 
Houses, by concurrent resolution, provided that bills should be enrolled 
on parchment by printing instead of by writing, and also that the 
engrossment of bills prior to sending them to the other House for action 
should be in printing (IV, 3433), and in 1895 this concurrent resolution 
was approved by statute (IV, 3435; 1 U.S.C. 106). In the last six days 
of a session of Congress the two Houses, by concurrent resolution, may 
permit the enrolling and engrossing to be done by hand (IV, 3435, 3438; 
H. Con. Res. 436, Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32875; H. Con. Res. 375, Oct. 11, 
1984, p. 32149), and such a concurrent resolution is privileged for 
consideration in the House during the last six days of the session (see 
1 U.S.C. 106 for authority to waive ordinary printing requirements at 
the end of a session), but prior to the last six days, a joint 
resolution changing the law to permit hand enrollments is required and 
may be considered in the House by unanimous consent (Dec. 10, 1985, p. 
35741). The two Houses have by joint resolution authorized not only a 
``hand enrollment'' of a time-sensitive bill but also a parchment 
enrollment of the same measure, to be prepared at a later time for 
deposit in the National Archives with the original (P.L. 100-199, Dec. 
21, 1987; P.L. 100-454, Sept. 29, 1988). Only in a very exceptional case 
have the two Houses waived the requirement that bills shall be enrolled 
(IV, 3442). The enrolling clerk should make no change, however 
unimportant, in the text of a bill to which the House has agreed (III, 
2598); but the two Houses may by concurrent resolution authorize the 
correction of an error when enrollment is made (IV, 3446-3450), and this 
seems a better practice than earlier methods by authority of the 
Committee on Enrolled Bills (IV, 3444, 3445).





Sec. 575. Signing of enrolled bills for 
presentation to the President.

  * * * It is  then put into the hands of the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives to have it signed by the Speaker. The 
Clerk then brings it by way of message to the Senate to be signed by 
their President. The Secretary of the Senate returns it to the Committee 
of Enrollment, who present it to the President of the United States. * * 
*


  The practice of the two Houses of Congress for the signing of enrolled 
bills was formerly governed by joint rules, and has continued since 
those rules were abrogated in 1876 (IV, 3430). The bills are signed 
first by the Speaker, then by the President of the Senate (IV, 3429). By 
unanimous consent where errors are found in enrolled bills that have 
been signed, the two Houses by concurrent action may authorize the 
cancellation of the signatures and a reenrollment (IV, 3453-3459), and 
in the same way the signatures may be cancelled on a bill prematurely 
enrolled (IV, 3454).



Sec. 576. Authority of pro tempore presiding 
officers to sign enrolled bills.

  A Speaker pro  tempore elected by the House (II, 
1401), or whose designation has received the approval of the House (II, 
1404; VI, 277), signs enrolled bills (see clause 7 of rule I); but a 
Member merely called to the chair during the day (II, 1399, 1400; VI, 
276), or designated in writing by the Speaker, does not exercise this 
function (II, 1401).


  The Senate, by rule, has empowered a presiding officer by written 
designation to sign enrolled bills (II, 1403).







[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 288-290]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-80]

[[Page 288]]

 


Sec. 577. Presentation of enrolled bills to the 
President.

  In early  days a joint committee took enrolled bills to the President 
(IV, 3432); but in the later practice the chairman of the committee in 
each House having responsibility for the enrollment of bills also has 
the responsibility of presenting the bills from that House, and submits 
from his committee daily a report of the bills presented for entry in 
the journal (IV, 3431). Enrolled bills pending at the close of a session 
have, at the next session of the same Congress, been ordered to be 
treated as if no adjournment had taken place (IV, 3487-3488). And 
enrolled bills signed by the presiding officers at one session have been 
sent to the President and approved at the next session of the same 
Congress (IV, 3486). At the close of the 97th Congress, some enrollments 
were presented to the President, and were signed by him, after the 
convening of the 98th Congress. 



                          SEC. XLIX.--JOURNALS.


         *            *            *            *            *        




Sec. 578. Obsolete provisions as to entry of motions in 
the journal.

  If a  question is interrupted by a vote to adjourn, or to 
proceed to the orders of the day, the original question is never printed 
in the journal, it never having been a vote, nor introductory to any 
vote; but when suppressed by the previous question, the first question 
must be stated, in order to introduce and make intelligible the second. 
2 Hats., 83.


  This provision of the parliamentary law is superseded by clause 1 of 
rule XVI, which requires every motion entertained by the Speaker to be 
entered on the Journal.




Sec. 579. Journal entries of questions postponed, or 
laid on the table.

  So also  when a question is postponed, adjourned, or laid on 
the table, the original question, though not yet a vote, must be 
expressed in the journals, because it makes part of the vote of 
postponement, adjourning, or laying it on the table.



  In the House of Representatives a question is not adjourned, except in 
the sense that it may be left to go over as unfinished business by 
reason of a vote to adjourn.


[[Page 289]]
world in the form in which they are made. 2 Hats., 85.



Sec. 580. Entry of amendments in the 
journal.

  Where  amendments are made to a question, those amendments are not 
printed in the journals, separated from the question; but only the 
question as finally agreed to by the House. The rule of entering in the 
journals only what the House has agreed to, is founded in great prudence 
and good sense, as there may be many questions proposed which it may be 
improper to publish to the 



  In the practice of the House of Representatives a motion to amend is 
entered on the Journal as any other motion, under clause 1 of rule XVI.


<>   
The first order for printing the votes of the House of Commons was 
October 30, 1685. 1 Chandler, 387.
         *            *            *            *            *        




Sec. 582. The journal as an official record.

  Some  judges 
have been of opinion that the journals of the House of Commons are no 
records, but only remembrances. But this is not law. Hob., 110, 111; 
Lex. Parl., 114, 115; Jour. H. C., Mar. 17, 1592; Hale, Parl., 105. For 
the Lords in their House have power of judicature, the Commons in their 
House have power of judicature, and both Houses together have power of 
judicature; and the book of the Clerk of the House of Commons is a 
record, as is affirmed by act of Parl., 6 H. 8, c. 16; 4 Inst., 23, 24; 
and every member of the House of Commons hath a judicial place. 4 Inst., 
15. As records they are open to every person, and a printed vote of 
either House is sufficient ground for the other to notice it. Either may 
appoint a committee to inspect the journals of the other, and report 
what has been done by the other in any particular case. 2 Hats., 261; 3 
Hats., 27-30. Every member has a right to see the journals and to take 
and publish votes from them. Being a record, every one may see and 
publish them. 6 Grey, 118, 119.



[[Page 290]]
evidence in the courts of the United States (IV, 2810; 28 U.S.C. 1736). 
A Senate committee concluded that the Journal entries of a legislative 
body were conclusive as to all the proceedings had, and might not be 
contradicted by ex parte evidence (I, 563).

  The Journal of the House of Representatives is the official record of 
the proceedings of the House (IV, 2727), and certified copies are 
admitted as 





[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 290-291]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-81]

 


Sec. 583. Correction of the journal through a 
committee.

  On  information of a misentry or omission of an entry in the 
journal, a committee may be appointed to examine and rectify it, and 
report it to the House. 2 Hats., 194, 195.



                          SEC. L.--ADJOURNMENT.




Sec. 584. Parliamentary law as to adjournment of the 
Commons and Lords.

  The two  Houses of Parliament have the sole, separate, and 
independent power of adjourning each their respective Houses. The King 
has no authority to adjourn them; he can only signify his desire, and it 
is in the wisdom and prudence of either House to comply with his 
requisition, or not, as they see fitting. 2 Hats., 232; 1 Blackst., 186; 
5 Grey, 122.



         *            *            *            *            *        




Sec. 585. Motion to adjourn not to be amended.

  A motion  to 
adjourn, simply cannot be amended, as by adding ``to a particular day;'' 
but must be put simply ``that this House do now adjourn;'' and if 
carried in the affirmative, it is adjourned to the next sitting day, 
unless it has come to a previous resolution, ``that at its rising it 
will adjourn to a particular day,'' and then the House is adjourned to 
that day. 2 Hats., 82.



[[Page 291]]
ent with article I, section 5, clause 4 of the Constitution, not in 
excess of three days).

  The modern practice of the House of Representatives adheres to this 
principle (Secs. 783-784, infra). Clause 4 of rule XVI admits at the 
discretion of the Speaker a separate motion of equal privilege that when 
the House adjourns on that day it stand adjourned to a day and time 
certain (consist




Sec. 586. Motion for a recess.

  Where it is  convenient that 
the business of the House be suspended for a short time, as for a 
conference presently to be held, &c., it adjourns during pleasure; 2 
Hats., 305; or for a quarter of an hour. 4 Grey, 331.



  An adjournment during pleasure is effected in the House of 
Representatives by a motion for a recess. A recess may not be taken by 
less than a quorum (IV, 2958-2960), and consequently the motion for it 
is not in order in the absence of a quorum (IV, 2955-2957). When the 
hour previously fixed for a recess arrives, the Chair declares the House 
in recess even in the midst of a division or when a quorum is not 
present (V, 6665, 6666; IV, 664); but a roll call is not in this way 
interrupted (V, 6054, 6055). Where a special order requires a recess at 
a certain hour of a certain day, the recess is not taken if the 
encroachment of a prior legislative day prevents the existence of the 
said certain day as a legislative day (IV, 3192). And an adjournment at 
a time prior to the hour fixed for a recess vacates the recess (IV, 
3283). A motion for a recess must, when entertained, be voted on, even 
though the taking of the vote may have been prevented until after the 
hour specified for the conclusion of the proposed recess (V, 6667). A 
Committee of the Whole takes a recess only by permission of the House 
(V, 6669-6671; VIII, 3362). The motion for a recess is not privileged 
(V, 4302, 5301, 6740), in the House or in Committee of the Whole (June 
26, 1981, p. 14356) against a demand that business proceed in the 
regular order (V, 6663; VIII, 3354-3356). However, beginning in the 102d 
Congress a motion to authorize the Speaker to declare a recess was given 
a privilege equal to that of the motion to adjourn (clause 4 of rule 
XVI); and beginning in the 103d Congress the Speaker was authorized to 
declare a recess ``for a short time when no question is pending'' 
(clause 12 of rule I).







[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 292-295]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-82]

[[Page 292]]

 


Sec. 587. Adjournment pronounced by the 
Speaker.

  If a  question be put for adjournment, it is no adjournment till 
the Speaker pronounces it. 5 Grey, 137. And from courtesy and respect, 
no member leaves his place till the Speaker has passed on. 



                          SEC. LI.--A SESSION.



Sec. 588. Sessions of Parliament.

  Parliament have  three 
modes of separation, to wit: by adjournment, by prorogation or 
dissolution by the King, or by the efflux of the term for which they 
were elected. Prorogation or dissolution constitutes there what is 
called a session; provided some act was passed. In this case all matters 
depending before them are discontinued, and at their next meeting are to 
be taken up de novo, if taken up at all. 1 Blackst., 186. Adjournment, 
which is by themselves, is no more than a continuance of the session 
from one day to another, of for a fortnight, a month, &c., ad libitum. 
All matters depending remain in statu quo, and when they meet again, be 
the term ever so distant, are resumed, without any fresh commencement, 
at the point at which they were left. 1 Lev., 165; Lex. Parl., c. 2; 1 
Ro. Rep., 29; 4 Inst., 7, 27, 28; Hutt., 61; 1 Mod., 252; Ruffh. Jac., 
L. Dict. Parliament; 1 Blackst., 186. Their whole session is considered 
in law but as one day, and has relation to the first day thereof. Bro. 
Abr. Parliament, 86.



[[Page 293]]
constituting them commissioners for the particular purpose.



Sec. 589. Sitting of committees in recesses, 
and creation of commissions to sit after Congress adjourns.

  Committees may be  appointed 
to sit during a recess by adjournment, but not by prorogation. 5 Grey, 
374; 9 Grey, 350; 1 Chandler, 50. Neither House can continue any portion 
of itself in any parliamentary function beyond the end of the session 
without the consent of the other two branches. When done, it is by a 
bill 



  The House of Representatives may empower a committee to sit during a 
recess which is within the constitutional term of the House (IV, 4541-
4543), but not thereafter (IV, 4545). Therefore committees are created 
commissions by law if their functions are to extend beyond the term of 
the Congress (IV, 4545). Under clause 2(m)(1)(A) of rule XI, all 
committees are authorized to sit and act anywhere within the United 
States whether the House is in session or has adjourned. By unanimous 
consent, all committees may be authorized to file investigative reports 
and annual activities reports following sine die adjournment (Oct. 17, 
1986, p. 33099).



[[Page 294]]



Sec. 590. Sessions and recesses of 
Congress.

  Congress separate  in two ways only, to wit, by adjournment, or dissolution by 
the efflux of their time. What, then, constitutes a session with them? A 
dissolution certainly closes one session, and the meeting of the new 
Congress begins another. The Constitution authorizes the President, ``on 
extraordinary occasions to convene both Houses, or either of them.'' I. 
3. If convened by the President's proclamation, this must begin a new 
session, and of course determine the preceding one to have been a 
session. So if it meets under the clause of the Constitution which says, 
``the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such 
meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by 
law appoint a different day.'' I. 4. This must begin a new session; for 
even if the last adjournment was to this day the act of adjournment is 
merged in the higher authority of the Constitution, and the meeting will 
be under that, and not under their adjournment. So far we have fixed 
landmarks for determining sessions. * * *


  The twentieth amendment to the Constitution, clause 2, now provides 
that the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, at noon on 
the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. 
Section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812, 
as amended by section 461 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 
84 Stat. 1140, provides that except in time of war the two Houses shall 
adjourn sine die not later than the last day of July (Sundays excepted) 
unless otherwise provided by the Congress. (For form of resolution used 
to continue in session past July 31, see H. Con. Res. 648, 92d Cong., 
July 25, 1972, pp. 25145-46.) The same section contemplates an 
adjournment of Congress from the thirtieth day before to the second day 
following Labor Day in the first session of a Congress (each odd-
numbered year) in lieu of a sine die adjournment. See Sec. 947, infra. 
Congress is adjourned for more than three days by a concurrent 
resolution (IV, 4031, footnote), and such adjournments to a day certain, 
within the session, do not terminate the session (V, 6676, 6677). In one 
instance the two Houses by concurrent resolution provided for 
adjournment to a day certain with the provision that if there be no 
quorum present on that day the session should terminate (V, 6686). Prior 
to the adoption of the twentieth amendment it had become established 
practice that a meeting of Congress once within the year did not make 
uncertain the constitutional mandate to meet on the first Monday of 
December (I, 10, 11). And where a special session continued until the 
time prescribed by the Constitution for the annual meeting without an 
appreciable intervening time (V, 6690, 6692), a question arose as to 
whether there had actually been a recess of Congress (V, 6687, 6693), 
with the conclusion that a recess was a real and not an imaginary time 
(V, 6687).




Sec. 591. Manner of closing a session by action 
of the two Houses.

  * * * In other  cases it is declared by the joint vote authorizing 
the President of the Senate and the Speaker to close the session on a 
fixed day, which is usually in the following form: ``Resolved by the 
Senate and House of Representatives, that the President of the Senate 
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be authorized to close 
the present session by adjourning their respective Houses on the ---- 
day of ----.''



[[Page 295]]
sine die on August 20, 1954, with consent of the House to adjournment 
sine die of the Senate at any time prior to December 25, 1954 (Aug. 20, 
1954, p. 15554). In the 93d Congress, the two Houses adopted concurrent 
resolutions adjourning their sessions sine die or until reconvened by 
the Joint House-Senate leadership (see H. Con. Res. 412, Dec. 22, 1973, 
p. 43327; H. Con Res. 697, Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41815). In the 97th 
Congress, 2d Session, a concurrent resolution provided for the 
adjournment sine die of the House on December 20 or December 21 pursuant 
to a motion made by the Majority Leader or his designee, and provided 
the consent of the House to the adjournment sine die of the Senate at 
any time prior to January 3, 1983 as determined by the Senate, and also 
provided the consent of the House for adjournments and recesses or the 
Senate for more than three days as determined by the Senate during such 
period (H. Con. Res. 438, Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32951). Under the current 
practice, first session sine die adjournment concurrent resolutions 
contain House-Senate leadership recall authority, while second session 
resolutions usually do not (for the unusual cases, see H. Con. Res. 697, 
93d Cong., Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41815; H. Con. Res. 399, 101st Cong., Oct. 
27, 1990, p. ----), and all such resolutions permit the motion to 
adjourn sine die only by the Majority Leaders or their designees (Dec. 
19, 1985, p. 38358; Oct. 17, 1986, p. 33096).

  In the modern practice the resolving clause of the concurrent 
resolution is in form different from that given by Jefferson. At the 
close of the first session of the 66th Congress, the two Houses 
adjourned sine die under authority granted each House by simple 
resolutions consenting to such adjournment sine die at any time prior to 
a specified date (Nov. 19, 1919, p. 8810). Pursuant to H. Con. Res. 266, 
83d Congress, the House adjourned 



Sec. 592. Parliamentary law as to business at the 
termination of a session.

  When it was  said above that all matters depending before 
Parliament were discontinued by the determination of the session, it was 
not meant for judiciary cases depending before the House of Lords, such 
as impeachments, appeals, and writs of error. These stand continued, of 
course, to the next session. Raym., 120, 381; Ruffh. Fac., L. D., 
Parliament.



  Impeachments stand, in like manner, continued before the Senate of the 
United States.







[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 296-299]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-83]

[[Page 296]]

 
  In the House of Representatives rule XXVI and the practice thereunder 
show that the two Houses of Congress have departed from the law of 
Parliament.


                          SEC. LII.--TREATIES.


         *            *            *            *            *        



Sec. 593. General nature of 
treaties.

  Treaties are  legislative acts. A treaty is the law of the land. It 
differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign 
nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation. In all 
countries, I believe, except England, treaties are made by the 
legislative power; and there, also, if they touch the laws of the land 
they must be approved by Parliament. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dallas's Rep., 
223. It is acknowledged, for instance, that the King of Great Britain 
cannot by a treaty make a citizen of an alien. Vattel, b. 1, c. 19, sec. 
214. An act of Parliament was necessary to validate the American treaty 
of 1783. And abundant examples of such acts can be cited. In the case of 
the treaty of Utrecht, in 1712, the commercial articles required the 
concurrence of Parliament; but a bill brought in for that purpose was 
rejected. France, the other contracting party, suffered these articles, 
in practice, to be not insisted on, and adhered to the rest of the 
treaty. 4 Russell's Hist. Mod. Europe, 457; 2 Smollet, 242, 246.



[[Page 297]]
entirely agreed among ourselves. 1. It is admitted that it must concern 
the foreign nation party to the contract, or it would be a mere nullity, 
res inter alias acta. 2. By the general power to make treaties, the 
Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those subjects which 
are usually regulated by treaty, and can not be otherwise regulated. 3. 
It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the 
States; for surely the President and Senate can not do by treaty what 
the whole Government is interdicted from doing in any way. 4. And also 
to except those subjects of legislation in which it gave a participation 
to the House of Representatives. This last exception is denied by some 
on the ground that it would leave very little matter for the treaty 
power to work on. The less the better, say others. The Constitution 
thought it wise to restrain the Executive and Senate from entangling and 
embroiling our affairs with those of Europe. Besides, as the 
negotiations are carried on by the Executive alone, the subjecting to 
the ratification of the representatives such articles as are within 
their participation is no more inconvenient than to the Senate. But the 
ground of this exception is denied as unfounded. For examine, e.g., the 
treaty of commerce with France, and it will be found that, out of 
thirty-one articles, there are not more than small portions of two or 
three of them which would not still remain as subjects of treaties, 
untouched by these exceptions.


[[Page 298]]



Sec. 594. Jefferson's discussion of treaties under the 
Constitution.

  By the  Constitution of the United States this department of 
legislation is confined to two branches only of the ordinary 
legislature--the President originating and the Senate having a negative. 
To what subjects this power extends has not been defined in detail by 
the Constitution; nor are we 




Sec. 595. General action of the House as to treaties.

  The  participation of the House of Representatives in the treaty-making 
power has been often examined since Jefferson's Manual was written. The 
House has in several instances taken action in carrying into effect, 
terminating, enforcing, and suggesting treaties (II, 1502-1505, 1520-
1522), although sometimes the propriety of requesting the Executive to 
negotiate a treaty has been questioned (II, 1514-1517).




Sec. 596. Authority of the House as to treaties in 
general.

  The exact  authority of the House in the making of general treaties has 
been the subject of differences of opinion. In 1796 the House affirmed 
that, when a treaty related to subjects within the power of Congress, it 
was the constitutional duty of the House to deliberate on the expediency 
of carrying such treaty into effect (II, 1509); and in 1816, after a 
discussion with the Senate, the House maintained its position that a 
treaty must depend on a law of Congress for its execution as to such 
stipulations as relate to subjects constitutionally entrusted to 
Congress (II, 1506). In 1868 the House's assertion of right to a voice 
in carrying out the stipulations of certain treaties was conceded in a 
modified form (II, 1508). Again, in 1871, the House asserted its 
prerogative (II, 1523). In 1820 and 1868 there were discussions of the 
House's functions as to treaties ceding or acquiring foreign territory 
(II, 1507, 1508), and at various other times there have been discussions 
of the general subject (II, 1509, 1546, 1547; VI, 324-326).




Sec. 597. Authority of the House as to revenue 
treaties.

  After long and  careful consideration the Judiciary Committee of the House 
decided, in 1887, that the executive branch of the Government might not 
conclude a treaty affecting the revenue without the assent of the House 
(II, 1528-1530), and a Senate committee after examination concluded that 
duties were more properly regulated with the publicity of congressional 
action than by treaties negotiated by the President and ratified by the 
Senate in secrecy (II, 1532). In practice the House has acted on revenue 
treaties (II, 1531, 1533); and in 1880 it declared the negotiation of a 
revenue treaty an invasion of its prerogatives (II, 1524). At other 
times the subject has been discussed (II, 1525-1528, 1531, 1533).




Sec. 598. House approves Indian 
treaties.

  After long  discussion the House, in 1871, successfully asserted its 
right to a voice in approving Indian treaties (II, 1535, 1536), although 
in earlier times this prerogative had been jealously guarded by the 
Executive (II, 1534).



  There have been various conflicts with the Executive over requests of 
the House for papers relating to treaties (II, 1509-1513, 1518, 1519, 
1561).


[[Page 299]]
cordingly the process adopted in the case of France in 1798.



Sec. 599. Treaties abrogated by 
law.

  Treaties being  declared, equally with the laws of the United States, to be the 
supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act of the legislature 
alone can declare them infringed and rescinded. This was ac



  Notice to a foreign government of the abrogation of a treaty is 
authorized by a joint resolution (V, 6270).



Sec. 600. Procedure of the Senate as to 
treaties.

  It has  been the usage for the Executive, when it communicates a 
treaty to the Senate for their ratification, to communicate also the 
correspondence of the negotiators. This having been omitted in the case 
of the Prussian treaty, was asked by a vote of the House of February 12, 
1800, and was obtained. And in December, 1800, the convention of that 
year between the United States and France, with the report of the 
negotiations by the envoys, but not their instructions, being laid 
before the Senate, the instructions were asked for and communicated by 
the President.



  The mode of voting on questions of ratification is by nominal call.





[House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 103-342]
[Page 299-312]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrmanual-84]

 
  The Senate now has rules governing its procedure on treaties.


                        SEC. LIII.--IMPEACHMENT.


         *            *            *            *            *        



Sec. 601. Jurisdiction of Lords and Commons as 
to impeachments.

  These are the  provisions of the Constitution of the United States 
on the subject of impeachments. The following is a sketch of some of the 
principles and practices of England on the same subject:



[[Page 300]]
The Lords may not, by the law, try a commoner for a capital offense, on 
the information of the King or a private person, because the accused is 
entitled to a trial by his peers generally; but on accusation by the 
House of Commons, they may proceed against the delinquent, of whatsoever 
degree, and whatsoever be the nature of the offense; for there they do 
not assume to themselves trial at common law. The Commons are then 
instead of a jury, and the judgment is given on their demand, which is 
instead of a verdict. So the Lords do only judge, but not try the 
delinquent. Ib., 6, 7. But Wooddeson denies that a commoner can now be 
charged capitally before the Lords, even by the Commons; and cites 
Fitzharris's case, 1681, impeached of high treason, where the Lords 
remitted the prosecution to the inferior court. 8 Grey's Deb., 325-7; 2 
Wooddeson, 576, 601; 3 Seld., 1604, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1641; 4 Blackst., 
25; 9 Seld., 1656; 73 Seld., 1604-18.
  Jurisdiction. The Lords can not impeach any to themselves, nor join in 
the accusation, because they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in Parl., 12, 
63. Nor can they proceed against a commoner but on complaint of the 
Commons. Ib., 84. 


[[Page 301]]
order for his appearance. Sachev. Trial, 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' 
Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616; 6 Grey, 324.



Sec. 602. Parliamentary law as to accusation 
in impeachment.

  Accusation. The  Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, becomes 
suitors for penal justice. 2 Wood., 597; 6 Grey, 356. The general course 
is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the 
supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by 
oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the 
Commons. The person signifies that the articles will be exhibited, and 
desires that the delinquent may be sequestered from his seat, or be 
committed, or that the peers will take 




Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the 
House.

  In the  House of Representatives there are various methods of setting 
an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the 
responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; 
VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which 
is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 
2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); or by a resolution dropped in the 
hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941-
42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III, 
2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a 
State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 
2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating 
committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444). In the 93d Congress, the Vice 
President sought to initiate an investigation by the House of charges 
against him of possibly impeachable offenses; the Speaker and the House 
took no action on the request since the matter was pending in the courts 
and the offenses did not relate to activities during the Vice 
President's term of office (Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368); see III, 2510, 
wherein the Committee on the Judiciary (to which the matter had been 
referred by privileged resolution) reported that a civil officer (the 
Vice President) could not be impeached for acts or omissions committed 
prior to his term of office; but see III, 1736, however, the Vice 
President's request that the House investigate charges against his prior 
offical conduct as Secretary of War was referred, on motion, to a select 
committee.



[[Page 302]]
resolution simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment 
may be a possible consequence, is not privileged (III, 2050, 2546; VI, 
463). But where a resolution of investigation positively proposes 
impeachment or suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege 
(III, 2051, 2052, 2401, 2402). A committee to which has been referred 
privileged resolutions for the impeachment of a federal civil officer 
may call up as privileged resolutions incidental to consideration of the 
impeachment question, including conferral of subpoena authority and 
funding of the investigation from the contingent fund (VI, 549; Feb. 6, 
1974, p. 2349). A resolution authorizing depositions by committee 
counsel in an impeachment inquiry is privileged under rule IX and the 
Constitution as incidental to impeachment (Speaker Wright, Oct. 3, 1988, 
p. 27781).


Sec. 604. A proposition to impeach a question of 
privilege.

  A direct  proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in 
the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the 
rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048; VI, 468, 469; 
July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814; 
see Procedure, ch. 14, sec. 1-5). It may not even be superseded by an 
election case, which is also a matter of high privilege (III, 2581). It 
does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has 
been made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 
2408), previous action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053). So, 
also, propositions relating to an impeachment already made are 
privileged (III, 2400, 2402, 2410; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 
1988, p. 20206), such as resolutions providing for selection of managers 
of an impeachment (VI, 517), proposing abatement of impeachment 
proceedings (VI, 514), reappointing managers for impeachment proceedings 
continued in the Senate from the previous Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 
84), empowering managers to hire special legal and clerical personnel 
and providing money for their payment (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84), and 
replacing an excused manager (Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726); but a 




Sec. 605. Investigation of impeachment 
charges.

  The impeachment  having been made on the floor by a Member (III, 2342, 2400; 
VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536), or charges suggesting impeachment having 
been made by memorial (III, 2495, 2516; 2520, VI, 552), or even 
appearing through common fame (III, 2385, 2506), the House has at times 
ordered an investigation at once. At other times it has refrained from 
ordering investigation until the charges had been examined by a 
committee (III, 2364, 2488, 2491, 2492, 2494, 2504, 2513). Under the 
later practice, resolutions introduced through the hopper under clause 4 
of rule XXII that directly call for the impeachment of a federal civil 
officer have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, while 
resolutions calling for an investigation by that committee or by a 
select committee with a view toward impeachment have been referred to 
the Committee on Rules (Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873).



[[Page 303]]
chairman and members of the committee for their efforts (Aug. 20, 1974, 
p. 29361).


Sec. 606. Procedure of committee in 
investigating.

  The House has  always examined the charges by its own committee before 
it has voted to impeach (III, 2294, 2487, 2501). This committee has 
sometimes been a select committee (III, 2342, 2487, 2494), sometimes a 
standing committee (III, 2400, 2409). In some instances the committee 
has made its inquiry ex parte (III, 2319, 2343, 2366, 2385, 2403, 2496, 
2511); but in the later practice the sentiment of committees has been in 
favor of permitting the accused to explain, present witnesses, cross-
examine (III, 2445, 2471, 2518), and be represented by counsel (III, 
2470, 2501, 2511, 2516; 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219). The 
Committee on the Judiciary having been directed by the House to 
investigate whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of 
President Nixon, and the President having resigned following the 
decision of that committee to recommend his impeachment to the House, 
the chairman of the committee submitted from the floor as privileged the 
committee's report containing the articles of impeachment approved by 
the committee but without an accompanying resolution of impeachment. The 
House thereupon adopted a resolution (1) taking notice of the 
committee's action on a resolution and Articles of Impeachment and of 
the President's resignation; (2) accepting the report and authorizing 
its printing, with additional views; and (3) commending the 





Sec. 607. Impeachment carried to the 
Senate.

  Its committee  on investigation having reported, the House may vote the 
impeachment (III, 2367, 2412; VI, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, p. 3067-91), 
and, after having notified the Senate by message (III, 2413, 2446), may 
direct the impeachment to be presented at the bar of the Senate by a 
single Member (III, 2294), or by two (III, 2319, 2343, 2367), or five 
Members (III, 2445) or nine (July 22, 1986, p. 17306). These Members in 
one notable case represented the majority party alone, but ordinarily 
include representation of the minority party (III, 2445, 2472, 2505). 
The chairman of the committee impeaches at the bar of the Senate by oral 
accusation (III, 2413, 2446, 2473), and requests that the Senate take 
order as to appearance; but in only one case has the parliamentary law 
as to sequestration and committal been followed (III, 2118, 2296), later 
inquiry resulting in the conclusion that the Senate had no power to take 
into custody the body of the accused (III, 2324, 2367). Having delivered 
the impeachment, the committee returns to the House and reports verbally 
(III, 2413, 2446; VI, 501). In the later practice the House considers 
together the resolution and articles of impeachment (VI, 499, 500, 514; 
Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3067-91) and following their adoption adopts 
resolutions electing managers to present the articles before the Senate, 
notifying the Senate of the adoption of articles and election of 
managers, and authorizing the managers to prepare for and to conduct the 
trial in the Senate (VI, 500, 514, 517; Mar. 6, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394; 
July 22, 1986, p. 17306; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206).





Sec. 608. The writ of summons for appearance 
of respondent.

  Process. If the  party do not appear, proclamations are to be issued, 
giving him a day to appear. On their return they are strictly examined. 
If any error be found in them, a new proclamation issues, giving a short 
day. If he appear not, his goods may be arrested, and they may proceed. 
Seld. Jud. 98, 99.




[[Page 304]]

  The managers for the House of Representatives attend in the Senate 
after the articles have been exhibited and demand that process issue for 
the attendance of respondent (III, 2451, 2478), after which they return 
and report verbally to the House (III, 2423, 2451; VI, 501). The Senate 
thereupon issue a writ of summons, fixing the day of return (III, 2423, 
2451); and in a case wherein the respondent did not appear by person or 
attorney the Senate published a proclamation for him to appear (III, 
2393). But the respondent's goods were not attached.




Sec. 609. Exhibition and form of 
articles.

  Articles. The accusation  (articles) of the Commons is substituted in place of an 
indictment. Thus, by the usage of Parliament, in impeachment for writing 
or speaking, the particular words need not be specified. Sach. Tr., 325; 
2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616.


  Formerly, the House exhibited its articles after the impeachment had 
been carried to the bar of the Senate; in the later practice, the 
resolution and articles of impeachment have been considered together and 
exhibited simultaneously in the Senate by the managers (VI, 501, 515; 
Mar. 10, 1936, pp. 3485-88; Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29126). The managers, who 
are elected by the House (III, 2300, 2345, 2417, 2448; VI, 500, 514, 
517; Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394) or appointed by the Speaker (III, 
2388, 2475), carry the articles in obedience to a resolution of the 
House (III, 2417, 2419, 2448) to the bar of the Senate (III, 2420, 2449, 
2476), the House having previously informed the Senate (III, 2419, 2448) 
and received a message informing them of the readiness of the latter 
body to receive the articles (III, 2078, 2325, 2345; Aug. 6, 1986, p. 
19335). Having exhibited the articles the managers return and report 
verbally to the House (III, 2449, 2476). The articles in the Belknap 
impeachment were held sufficient, although attacked for not describing 
the respondent as one subject to impeachment (III, 2123). In the 
proceedings against Judge Ritter, objections to the articles of 
impeachment, on the ground that they duplicated and accumulated separate 
offenses, were overruled (Apr. 3, 1936, p. 4898; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 
5606). These articles are signed by the Speaker and attested by the 
Clerk (III, 2302, 2449), and in form approved by the practice of the 
House (III, 2420, 2449, 2476).

  Articles of impeachment which have been exhibited to the Senate may be 
subsequently modified or amended by the House (VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, 
pp. 4597-99), and a resolution proposing to amend articles of 
impeachment previously adopted by the House is privileged for 
consideration when reported by the managers on the part of the House 
(VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, p. 4597).


  For discussion of substantive charges contained in articles of 
impeachment and the constitutional grounds for impeachment, see 
Sec. 175, supra (accompanying Const., art. II, sec. 4).


[[Page 305]]
cial accusations. If it be for a misdemeanor only, he answers, a lord 
in his place, a commoner at the bar, and not in custody, unless, on the 
answer, the Lords find cause to commit him, till he finds sureties to 
attend, and lest he should fly. Seld. Jud., 98, 99. A copy of the 
articles is given him, and a day fixed for his answer. T. Ray.; 1 
Rushw., 268; Fost., 232; 1 Clar. Hist. of the Reb., 379. On a 
misdemeanor, his appearance may be in person, or he may answer in 
writing, or by attorney. Seld. Jud., 100. The general rule on accusation 
for a misdemeanor is, that in such a state of liberty or restraint as 
the party is when the Commons complain of him, in such he is to answer. 
Ib., 101. If previously committed by the commons, he answers as a 
prisoner. But this may be called in some sort judicium parium suorum. 
Ib. In misdemeanors the party has a right to counsel by the common law, 
but not in capital cases. Seld. Jud., 102, 105.



Sec. 610. Parliamentary law as to appearance 
of respondent.

  Appearance. If he  appear, and the case be capital, he answers in custody; 
though not if the accusation be general. He is not to be committed but 
on spe




[[Page 306]]



Sec. 611. Requirements of the Senate as to 
appearance of respondent.

  This paragraph  of the parliamentary law is largely obsolete 
so far as the practice of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
are concerned. The accused may appear in person or by attorney (III, 
2127, 2349, 2424), and take the stand in his own behalf (VI, 511, 524; 
Apr. 11, 1936, pp. 5370-86; Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29149), or he may not 
appear at all (III, 2307, 2333, 2393). In case he does not appear the 
House does not ask that he be compelled to appear (III, 2308), but the 
trial proceeds as on a plea of ``not guilty.'' It has been decided that 
the Senate has no power to take into custody the body of the accused 
(III, 2324, 2367). The writ of summons to the accused recites the 
articles and notifies him to appear at a fixed time and place and file 
his answer (III, 2127). In all cases respondent may appear by counsel 
(III, 2129), and in one trial, when a petition set forth that respondent 
was insane, the counsel of his son was admitted to be heard and present 
evidence in support of the petition, but not to make argument (III, 
2333).





Sec. 612. Answer of respondent.

  Answer. The  answer need not 
observe great strictness of the form. He may plead guilty as to part, 
and defend as to the residue; or, saving all exceptions, deny the whole 
or give a particular answer to each article separately. 1 Rush., 274; 2 
Rush., 1374; 12 Parl. Hist., 442; 3 Lords' Journ., 13 Nov., 1643; 2 
Wood., 607. But he cannot plead a pardon in bar to the impeachment. 2 
Wood., 615; 2 St. Tr., 735.



  In the proceedings following the impeachment of President Andrew 
Johnson, the answer of the President took up the articles one by one, 
denying some of the charges, admitting others but denying that they set 
forth impeachable offenses, and excepting to the sufficiency of others 
(III, 2428). The form of this answer was commented on during preparation 
of the replication in the House (III, 2431). Blount and Belknap demurred 
to the charges on the ground that they were not civil officers within 
the meaning of the Constitution (III, 2310, 2453), and Swanye also 
raised questions as to the jurisdiction of the Senate (III, 2481). The 
answer is part of the pleadings, and exhibits in the nature of evidence 
may not properly be attached thereto (III, 2124). The answer of the 
respondent in impeachment proceedings is messaged to the House and 
subsequently referred to the managers on the part of the House (VI, 506; 
Apr. 6, 1936, p. 5020; Sept. 9, 1986, p. 22317).




Sec. 613. Other pleadings.

  Replication, rejoinder,  &c. There 
may be a replication, rejoinder, &c. Sel. Jud., 114; 8 Grey's Deb., 233; 
Sach. Tr., 15; Journ. H. of Commons, 6 March, 1640-1.



[[Page 307]]
(III, 2457). In the Louderback (VI, 522) and Ritter (Apr. 6, 1936, p. 
4971) impeachment proceedings, the managers on the part of the House 
prepared and submitted the replication to the Senate without its 
consideration by the House, contrary to former practice (VI, 506). The 
Senate may consider in closed session various preliminary motions made 
by respondent (e.g., to declare the Senate rule on appointment of a 
committee to receive evidence to be unconstitutional, to declare beyond 
a reasonable doubt as the standard of proof in an impeachment trial, and 
to postpone the impeachment trial) prior to voting in open session to 
dispose of those motions (Oct. 7 and 8, 1986, pp. 29151 and 29412).

  A replication is always filed (for the form of replication in modern 
practice, see Sept. 26, 1988, p. 25357), and in one instance the 
pleadings proceeded to a rejoinder, surrejoinder, and similiter (III, 
2455). A respondent has also filed a protest instead of pleading on the 
merits (III, 2461), but there was objection to this and the Senate 
barely permitted it. In another case respondent interposed a plea as to 
jurisdiction of offenses charged in certain articles, but declined to 
admit that it was a demurrer with the admissions pertinent thereto (III, 
2125, 2431). In the Belknap trial the House was sustained in averring in 
pleadings as to jurisdiction matters not averred in the articles (III, 
2123). The right of the House to allege in the replication matters not 
touched in the articles has been discussed 




Sec. 614. Examination of witnesses.

  Witnesses. The  practice 
is to swear the witnesses in open House, and then examine them there; or 
a committee may be named, who shall examine them in committee, either on 
interrogatories agreed on in the House, or such as the committee in 
their discretion shall demand. Seld. Jud., 120, 123.



  In trials before the Senate witnesses have always been examined in 
open Senate, although examination by a committee has been suggested 
(III, 2217) and utilized (S. Res. 38, 101st Cong., Mar. 16, 1989, p. 
4533). In the 74th Congress, the Senate amended its rules for 
impeachment trials to allow the Presiding Officer, upon the order of the 
Senate, to appoint a committee to receive evidence and take testimony in 
the trial of any impeachment (May 28, 1935, p. 8309). In the trial of 
Judge Claiborne the Senate directed the appointment of a committee of 
twelve Senators to take evidence and testimony pursuant to rule XI of 
the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on 
Impeachment Trials (S. Res. 481, Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22035); and in Nixon 
v. United States, 113 S. Ct. 732 (1993), the Supreme Court refused to 
declare unconstitutional the appointment of such a committee to take 
evidence and testimony.


[[Page 308]]
and goods. Id., 188. This, Selden says, is the only jury he finds 
recorded in Parliament for misdemeanors; but he makes no doubt, if the 
delinquent doth put himself on the trial of his country, a jury ought to 
be impaneled, and he adds that it is not so on impeachment by the 
Commons, for they are in loco proprio, and there no jury ought to be 
impaneled. Id., 124. The Ld. Berkeley, 6 E., 3, was arraigned for the 
murder of L. 2, on an information on the part of the King, and not on 
impeachment of the Commons; for then they had been patria sua. He waived 
his peerage, and was tried by a jury of Gloucestershire and 
Warwickshire. Id., 126. In 1 H., 7, the Commons protest that they are 
not to be considered as parties to any judgment given, or hereafter to 
be given in Parliament. Id., 133. They have been generally and more 
justly considered, as is before stated, as the grand jury; for the 
conceit of Selden is certainly not accurate, that they are the patria 
sua of the accused, and that the Lords do only judge, but not try. It is 
undeniable that they do try; for they examine witnesses as to the facts, 
and acquit or condemn, according to their own belief of them. And Lord 
Hale says, ``the peers are judges of law as well as of fact;'' 2 Hale, 
P. C., 275; Consequently of fact as well as of law.



Sec. 615. Relation of jury trial to 
impeachment.

  Jury. In the  case of Alice Pierce, 1 R., 2, a jury was impaneled for 
her trial before a committee. Seld. Jud., 123. But this was on a 
complaint, not on impeachment by the Commons. Seld. Jud., 163. It must 
also have been for a misdemeanor only, as the Lords spiritual sat in the 
case, which they do on misdemeanors, but not in capital cases. Id., 148. 
The judgment was a forfeiture of all her lands 



  No jury is possible as part of an impeachment trial under the 
Constitution (III, 2313).


[[Page 309]]
they are to attend throughout, either as a committee of the whole 
House, or otherwise, at discretion, appoint managers to conduct the 
proofs. Rushw. Tr. of Straff., 37; Com. Journ., 4 Feb., 1709-10; 2 
Wood., 614. And judgment is not to be given till they demand it. Seld. 
Jud., 124. But they are not to be present on impeachment when the Lords 
consider of the answer or proofs and determine of their judgment. Their 
presence, however, is necessary at the answer and judgment in case 
capital Id., 58, 158, as well as not capital; 162. * * *.



Sec. 616. Attendance of the Commons.

  Presence of  Commons. 
The Commons are to be present at the examination of witnesses. Seld. 
Jud., 124. Indeed, 





Sec. 617. Attendance of the House of 
Representatives.

  The  House of Representatives has consulted its own 
inclination and convenience about attending its managers at an 
impeachment. It did not attend at all in the trials of Blount, Swayne, 
Archbald. Louderback and Ritter (III, 2318, 2483; VI, 504, 516); and 
after attending at the answer of Belknap, decided that it would be 
represented for the remainder of the trial by its managers alone (III, 
2453). At the trial of the President the House, in Committee of the 
Whole, attended throughout the trial (III, 2427), but this is 
exceptional. In the Peck trial the House discussed the subject (III, 
2377) and reconsidered its decision to attend the trial daily (III, 
2028). While the Senate is deliberating the House does not attend (III, 
2435); but when the Senate votes on the charges, as at the other open 
proceedings of the trial, it may attend (III, 2388, 2383, 2440). While 
it has frequently attended in Committee of the Whole, it may attend as a 
House (III, 2338).





Sec. 618. Voting on the articles in an impeachment 
trial.

  * * * The  Lords debate the judgment among themselves. Then the vote is 
first taken on the question of guilty or not guilty; and if they 
convict, the question, or particular sentence, is out of that which 
seemeth to be most generally agreed on. Seld. Jud., 167; 2 Wood., 612.



[[Page 310]]
trial there was much deliberation over this subject (III, 2466). In the 
Chase trial the Senate modified its former rule as to form of final 
question (III, 2363). The yeas and nays are taken on each article 
separately (III, 2098, 2339) in the form ``Senators, how say you? is the 
respondent guilty or not guilty?'' (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29871). But in the 
trial of the President the Senate, by order, voted on the articles in an 
order differing from the numerical order (III, 2440), adjourned after 
voting on one article (III, 2441), and adjourned without day after 
voting on three of the eleven articles (III, 2443). In other 
impeachments, the Senate has adopted an order to provide the method of 
voting and putting the question separately and successively on each 
article (VI, 524; Apr. 16, 1936, p. 5558).

  The question in judgment in an impeachment trial has occasioned 
contention in the Senate (III, 2339, 2340), and in the trial of the 
President the form was left to the Chief Justice (III, 2438, 2439). In 
the Belknap 


[[Page 311]]
ments (but 2 Wood., 614, contra), but not in misdemeanors, Seld. Jud., 
136.



Sec. 619. Judgment in 
impeachments.

  Judgment. Judgments in  Parliament, for death have been strictly guided per 
legem terrae, which they can not alter; and not at all according to 
their discretion. They can neither omit any part of the legal judgment 
nor add to it. Their sentence must be secundum non ultra legem. Seld. 
Jud., 168, 171. This trial, though it varies in external ceremony, yet 
differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior 
courts. The same rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and 
punishments, prevailed; for impeachments are not framed to alter the 
law, but to carry it into more effectual execution against too powerful 
delinquents. The judgment, therefore, is to be such as is warranted by 
legal principles or precedents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The 
Chancellor gives judgment in misdemeanors; the Lord High Steward 
formerly in cases of life and death. Seld. Jud., 180. But now the 
Steward is deemed not necessary. Fost., 144; 2 Wood., 613. In 
misdemeanors the greatest corporal punishment hath been imprisonment. 
Seld. Jud., 184. The King's assent is necessary to capital judg


  The Constitution of the United States (art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7) limits 
the judgment to removal and disqualification.


  The order of judgment following conviction in an impeachment trial is 
divisible for a separate vote if it contains both removal and 
disqualification (III, 2397; VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606), and an 
order of judgment requires a majority vote (VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 
5607). Under earlier practice, after a conviction the Senate voted 
separately on the question of punishment (III, 2339, 2397), but under a 
recent ruling, no vote is required by the Senate on judgment of removal 
from office following conviction, since removal follows automatically 
from conviction under article II, section 4 of the Constitution (Apr. 
17, 1936, p. 5607). Thus, the Presiding Officer directs judgment of 
removal from office to be entered and the respondent removed from office 
without separate action by the Senate on the question of punishment 
where disqualification is not contemplated (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29873).




Sec. 620. Impeachment not interrupted by 
adjournments.

  Continuance. An  impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of 
Parliament, but may be resumed by the new Parliament. T. Ray 383; 4 Com.
Journ., 23 Dec., 1790; Lord's Jour., May 15, 1791; 2 Wood., 618.







  In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by a recess 
(III, 2299, 2304, 2344, 2375, 2407, 2505); and the Pickering impeachment 
was presented in the Senate on the last day of the Seventh Congress 
(III, 2320); and at the beginning of the Eighth Congress the proceedings 
went on from that point (III, 2321). The resolution and articles of 
impeachment against Judge Louderback were presented in the Senate on the 
last day of the 72d Congress (VI, 515) and the Senate organized for and 
conducted the trial in the 73d Congress (VI, 516). The resolution and 
articles of impeachment against Judge Hastings were presented in the 
Senate during the second session of the 100th Congress (Aug. 3, 1988, p. 
20223) but were still pending trial by the Senate in the 101st Congress, 
for which the House reappointed managers (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84). But an 
impeachment may proceed only when Congress is in session (III, 2006, 
2462).