§ 4. Limitations on the Speaker's Powers

Home , Committee, Committee of the Whole, Edith Nourse Rogers, Floor (legislative), Quorum, Recess (break)

OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4

Chair did not use the word ‘‘violate.’’ ple, the Speaker normally does The Chair did not go that far. The not refer matters to the various Chair simply says reference to a Mem- House committees without first ber of the other body is not proper, and (17) is not consistent with the rules of the examining the measures and House. The gentleman was recognized conferring with the House Parlia- ( ) to proceed in order. mentarian. 18 MR. WYMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will, of The Speaker is, of course, guid- course, accord with the rule and I will ed in his duties by the House therefore refer only to prominently rules and precedents. Thus, he publicized remarks appearing on the normally does not comment on the front pages of the Nation’s newspapers of last night and this morning advisability of one rule over another in a case where a previous rule is in conflict with a current ( ) § 4. Limitations on the rule, 19 nor does he normally rule on a point of order in such a way Speaker’s Powers as to overturn previous rulings, though he has the power to do As previously noted, the Speak- so.(1) er is not unlimited in the exercise Though in certain cir- of his various powers. The House cumstances it might seem helpful rules and precedents serve not for the Speaker to interpret the only as a guide for his actions but Senate rules of procedure, he does also as a constraint on them. In not normally even attempt to do Jefferson’s Manual, the author so. noted the importance of such con- Similarly, the Speaker does not straints: rule on the effect of a resolution And whether these forms be in all being considered by the House cases the most rational or not is really which deals with the House not of so great importance. It is much rules.(2) more material that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; 17. See § 4.2, infra. that there may be a uniformity of pro- 18. See § 4.3, infra. See Ch. 16, infra, for ceeding in business not subject to the treatment of reference of bills to caprice of the Speaker....(16) committees. Thus, the Speaker is con- 19. See § 4.4, infra. See Ch. 5, supra, for strained to follow formal proce- treatment of the House rules. dures when they exist. For exam- 1. See § 4.5, infra. See Ch. 31, infra, for fuller treatment of the Speaker’s rul- 16. House Rules and Manual § 285 ings on points of order. (1973). 2. See § 4.8, infra.

471 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

Whether a Member may display priety of an announced speech exhibits during his remarks is a topic in advance of its delivery; (13) matter for the House and not the or on how the results of a vote ( ) Speaker to decide. 3 should be construed.(14) Tke Speaker’s duty to rule on In many situations, the Speaker various points of order is limited is entitled to perform certain ac- (4) in certain ways. It is considered tions only after the House has improper for the Speaker to rule, for example: on the constitu- given him its formal authoriza- tionality of measures; (5) on the ef- tion. Thus, for example, under fect of an amendment; (6) on the normal circumstances, the Speak- merits of a measure; (7) on the er must be authorized by the purpose of an amendment; (8) on House prior to declaring a re- the sufficiency, insufficiency, or cess. (15) This authorization may binding effect of a committee re- later be vacated by the House.(16) port; (9) on the substantive effect of The Speaker must also be au- extraneous material in a com- thorized to sign enrolled bills and ( ) mittee report; 10 on the possible joint resolutions during House ad- ambiguity of language in a meas- journments.(17) The Speaker’s sig- ure; (11) on the propriety of in- nature may later be rescinded by structions that might subse- (18) quently accompany a motion to re- House action. ( ) commit a measure; 12 on the pro-

3. See § 4.10, infra. See Ch. 29, infra, Congressional Record Policy for fuller treatment of the Speaker’s role in consideration and debate of § 4.1 Although the Speaker legislative measures, and as to the may have set policy regard- use of exhibits. 4. See Ch. 31, infra, for fuller treat- 13. See § 4.26, infra. ment of the Speaker’s role vis-a-vis 14. See § § 4.27, 4.28, infra. points of order. 15. See § 4.34, infra. See also § 3.44, 5. See § 4.18, infra. supra, for Speaker’s power to declare 6. See § 4.19, infra. recesses in an emergency. See Ch. 7. See § 4.20, infra. 39, infra, for fuller treatment of the 8. See § 4.21, infra. Speaker’s role in recessing the 9. See § 4.22, infra. House. 10. See § 4.23, infra. 16. See § 4.35, infra. 11. See § 4.24, infra. 17. See § § 4.37, 4.38, infra. See Ch. 24, 12. See § 4.25, infra. See Ch. 28, infra, infra, for fuller treatment of the for- for treatment of the germaneness mal passage of bills. rule generally. 18. See § § 4.39, 4.40, infra

472 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4

ing matter to be included in it had a heading on it, and . . . one of the Congressional Record, it the Official Reporters in the well of the is a matter for the House to House here called down there at mid- night and had that heading changed. decide whether such a pol- It seems to me that we have come to icy, not being a House rule, the time, if Congress is going to control shall be followed. the Congressional Record, that we On Mar. 6, 1945,(19) Speaker might as well find it out. I understand Sam Rayburn, of Texas, discussed it has been the ruling of the Chair that where a Member makes a 1-minute extension of remarks in the Con- speech, if he asks to insert extraneous gressional Record in response to a matter that contains more than 300 parliamentary inquiry: words, the speech must be inserted in the Appendix of the Record. But where MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mis- a Member makes his own speech and sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. extends his own remarks, he has the right to have that speech appear in the THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will Record at that point.... state it. THE SPEAKER: The Chair can reit- MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, on yester- erate what he has said many times. day several Members made 1 minute speeches. Among them was the gen- When I became majority leader, I tleman from Arkansas . . . the gentle made the statement to the House, after man from Nevada . . . the gentleman consulting with the minority leader, from New York . . . and your humble who I think at that time was Mr. servant. Snell, of New York, that if anyone Without consulting the gentleman asked to proceed for more than 1 from Nevada . . . or the gentleman minute before the legislative program from Arkansas . . . or me, somebody of the day was completed we would ob- down the line inserted our speeches in ject. Since then Members have not the Appendix of the Record and left asked to proceed for more than a the speech made by the gentleman minute before the legislative program. from New York . . . in the body of the Then Members began speaking for a Record where it should be. minute and putting into the Record a As I understand the rules of the long speech, so that 10 or a dozen House, nobody in the Printing Office pages of the Record was taken up be- has any right to change this Record. fore the people who read the Record One reason I am raising this question would get to the legislative program of is this: The Speaker is familiar with the day, in which I would think they the fact that a short time ago, I made would be the most interested. So we a short address on the floor and when adopted the policy—there is no rule it was sent down to the Printing Office about it—of asking that when Mem- bers speak for a minute, if their re- 19. 91 CONG. REC. 1788, 1789, 79th marks are more than 300 words, which Cong. 1st Sess. many times can be said in a minute,

473 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

their remarks or any extension of their If we are going to adopt the policy remarks go in the Appendix of the that everybody who speaks in the well Record. The Chair has on numerous of the House and uses over 300 words occasions spoken to those who control must have his speech printed in the the Record and asked them to follow Appendix, it should apply to all of us. that policy. . . . I think this should be a matter MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I take to be settled by the membership of the issue of course with that policy, be- House. . . . cause these 1-minute speakers do not THE SPEAKER: The House has that abuse the Record, as a rule. The only within its entire control at any time it question that has been raised about desires to act upon the question.... any abuse of the Record in regard to Mr. Rankin: Let me ask the Speaker these 1-minute speeches was with ref- now, I want to know, because the erence to a speech made on the 5th of Members of the House are all inter- February, I believe, wherein the 1- ested, if Members, when they make a minute speaker used several pages. 1-minute speech, use more than 300 THE SPEAKER: The Chair might state words, it is to be printed in the Appen- also that when there is no legislative dix of the Record and not in the body? program in the House for the day, such THE SPEAKER: That is correct. speeches may go in, and they will go in MR. RANKIN: So the rule will be ap- as 1-minute speeches. plied to all alike? MR. [DANIEL A.] REED of New York: THE SPEAKER: The Chair tries to Mr. Speaker, verifying the statement, apply that rule. which, of course, needs no verification, I remember going to the Speaker and Announcing Reference of Bill asking if it would be proper to put the speech in the body of the Record, and § 4.2 The Speaker may refuse the Speaker said that there was no leg- to say, in advance of exam- islative program for the day and there ination of a bill, to which was no reason why a Member could committee the bill will be re- not do it. I assume that was on the 5th of February. ferred. THE SPEAKER: That is correct. On Feb. 1, 1966,(1) parliamen- Mr. Rankin: Let me say to the gen- tary inquiries were addressed to tleman from New York that on yester- Speaker John W. McCormack, of day one of the Members made a speech Massachusetts: that you will find in the Record almost or quite as long as the speech of the MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Mis- gentleman from Nevada . . . or the one souri]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary of the gentleman from Arkansas . . . or inquiry. the one that I made. It was placed in THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will the body of the Record, and it was in state his parliamentary inquiry. excess of 300 words. I can go back through the Record here and find nu- 1. 112 CONG. REC. 1716, 89th Cong. 2d merous occasions. Sess.

474 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4

MR. HALL: . . . [M]y parliamentary MR. HALL: I thank the Speaker. inquiry would involve two questions: THE SPEAKER: Therefore, the Chair First, would reference of the Presi- does not feel able to pass upon the sec- dent’s message to the Committee on ond inquiry until the Chair has had an Foreign Affairs of this House automati- opportunity to observe the provisions cally involve reference of bills referred of the bill. to therein to the same committee of this House? Bill Reference After Consulta- THE SPEAKER: It would depend upon tion the nature of the bill. The answer as to one does not necessarily follow as to § 4.3 The Speaker may with- the other. On the other hand, the pro- hold referral of a Senate bill visions of the bill and the Rules of the on the Speaker’s Table until House would govern. he has studied the question, MR. HALL: I thank the Speaker. consulted with the Parlia- The second portion of my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, if I may mentarian, and decided on continue, is this: In view of the fact the proper jurisdiction. that the military and economic author- On June 6, 1949,(2) Speaker ization requests are to be contained, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated according to the President’s message, the nature of his duty to refer in two separate bills—again, for the bills to committees. first time in some years—would the military authorization part thereof, MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]: when submitted, apparently by the ad- Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. ministration, per this message, be re- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will ferred to the Legislative Committee on state it. Armed Services of this House, or would MR. PATMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I it go to the Committee on Foreign Af- ask the status of the bill S. 1008, fairs? which, I understand, was messaged over from the Senate on Friday last? THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not pre- THE SPEAKER: The Chair under- pared to answer that inquiry at the stands it is on the Speaker’s table. present time, because the answer to MR. PATMAN: Will it be referred to the second inquiry would relate back to the Committee on the Judiciary? the first inquiry made by the gen- THE SPEAKER: The Chair does not tleman from Missouri, and the re- know about that. sponse of the Chair to that inquiry. MR. PATMAN: What action will be In the opinion of the Chair, the sec- necessary in order to get it referred to ond question is related to the first the committee? question, that question being answered THE SPEAKER: It is the duty and the that it does not necessarily follow that privilege of the Chair to refer bills to specific legislation would be referred to the committee to which the message 2. 95 CONG. REC. 7255, 81st Cong. 1st would be referred. Sess.

475 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

whatever committee he desires, after there is a conflict, the Chair will state consultation with the Parliamentarian, that if there is a conflict the rule last of course. The Chair will not recognize adopted would control. The Chair as- any motion in that regard at this time. sumes that if this rule should be found to conflict with previous rules, that the Speaker Guided by Rules and House intended, at least by implica- Precedents tion, to repeal that portion of the previous rule with which it is in conflict. § 4.4 It has been considered The Chair may state that in passing upon this point of order it is not the not within the province of province of the Chair, nor has the the Speaker to pass on the Chair any such intention, to pass upon advisability of a more recent the question of whether or not this House rule which appears to rule is advisable or whether a better conflict with previous ones. one could have been adopted. On July 16, 1935,(3) Speaker Jo- § 4.5 Although it is within the seph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, re- authority of the Speaker to sponded to a point of order. rule on a point of order in THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to such a way as to overturn rule. previous precedents of the Last Friday the gentleman from House, the Speaker in most Texas [Mr. Blanton] kindly indicated instances follows the prece- that it was his purpose to make the dents of the House when point of order he has raised today when the House began consideration of they are very clearly applica- the so-called ‘‘omnibus private claims ble to a given situation. bill.’’ The gentleman from Texas has On June 24, 1958,(4) a point of served in the House for many years order was raised against the fol- with distinction and is familiar with the rules of the House, and the Chair lowing remarks of a Member: has given considerable thought to the MR. [THOMAS B.] CURTIS of Missouri: point of order since the gentleman in- . . . If this committee [the Sub- dicated on last Friday that it was his committee of the Interstate and For- purpose again to raise it on this occa- eign Commerce Committee on Legisla- sion. tive Oversight] does not intend to do The gentleman from Texas, in his ar- its job, but rather intends to continue gument today, has contended that this this campaign on these collateral rule conflicts with a number of rules to issues which I have alleged, in my which he has referred. Without passing judgment, amount to defamation, I upon the question of whether or not think it should be called sharply to

3. 79 CONG. REC. 11264, 74th Cong. 1st 4. 104 CONG. REC. 12121, 12122, 85th Sess. Cong. 2d Sess.

476 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4 task first by the full Committee on THE SPEAKER: That is not a question Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and for the Chair to determine. That is a if the full committee fails in this re- question for the House to change the sponsibility then the House should rule. take action.... Not only is this sub- MR. CURTIS of Missouri: Mr. Speak- committee, in my judgment, not doing er, is it a rule or is it a ruling? If it is the job that needs to be done, it has a ruling of the Chair, then it is appro- brought the institution again, in my priate for the Chair to consider it. judgment, into disrepute by dis- THE SPEAKER: The precedents of the regarding the rules of the House and House are what the Chair goes by in permitting a committee of the House to most instances. There are many prece- be used as a forum in this fashion. dents and this Chair finds that the MR. [OREN] HARRIS [of Arkansas]: precedents of the House usually make Mr. Speaker, I must object again and mighty good sense. ask that those words be deleted. MR. CURTIS of Missouri: But the MR. CURTIS of Missouri: I would like Chair can change a precedent. That is to ask the gentleman before he does, why I am trying to present this mat- just what language is he objecting to? ter. MR. HARRIS: To the charge that this THE SPEAKER: If the Chair did not committee is violating the rules of the believe in the precedents of the House, House. then the Chair might be ready to do that, but this Chair is not disposed to MR. CURTIS of Missouri: Well, I certainly do charge that and I think it is overturn the precedents of the House proper to charge such a thing if I have which the Chair thinks are very clear. presented the evidence. How else are we going to present the case to the Interpreting Senate Rules House? THE SPEAKER [Sam Rayburn, of § 4.6 The Chairman of the Texas]: There is a long line of decisions Committee of the Whole may holding that attention cannot be called decline to interpret the rules on the floor of the House to pro- or procedures of the Senate. ceedings in committees without action (5) by the committee. The Chair has just On June 6, 1961, a Member been reading a decision by Mr. Speak- raised the following question: er Gillett and the decision is very posi- MR. [WILLIAM H.] AVERY [of Kansas]: tive on that point. Mr. Chairman, the language of the MR. CURTIS of Missouri: Mr. Speak- amendment now pending at the desk is er, in addressing myself to that, may I the identical language that came into say I am unaware of such a rule and conference from the other body fol- I would argue, if I may, in all pro- lowing action of the House, and my priety, that that rule, if it does exist, amendment in 1959 became incor- should be changed because how else will the House ever go into the func- 5. 107 CONG. REC. 9627, 87th Cong. 1st tioning and actions of its committees? Sess.

477 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

porated, I believe, in the conference re- gentleman yield at this time for a par- port. Does that in any way change the liamentary inquiry of the Chair, inas- legislative history of the amendment? much as it is important that we try to envisage, in passing this legislation THE CHAIRMAN [Paul J. Kilday, today, what effect it will have on the of Texas]: The Chair may advise future rules of procedure in the House, the gentleman that nothing is and their application. pending before the Chair, but by MR. [WILLIAM M.] COLMER [of Mis- way of observation, the language sissippi]: I yield to the gentleman from the gentleman speaks of was ap- Missouri. parently added by the other body. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The The present occupant of the Chair Chair must advise the distinguished gentleman from Missouri that this is a would not attempt to state or to matter for debate on a resolution pend- interpret the rules or procedure of ing and not a matter properly within the other body. the jurisdiction of the Chair on a parliamentary inquiry. It is up to the Passing on Resolutions and sponsor of the resolution to explain the Special Orders terms of the resolution. § 4.7 The Speaker may decline Quorum Request Not Dilatory to answer hypothetical ques- § 4.9 Since the Constitution de- tions regarding special or- fines a quorum of the House (6) ders. and states that it shall be re- § 4.8 The Chair does not pass quired for the conduct of on the effect of a pending business, a point of order resolution amending the that a quorum is not present House rules. is in order in the absence of a quorum, and the Chair On Apr. 25, 1967,(7) a parliamentary inquiry concerning the does not hold such a point to effect of a resolution [H. Res. 42] be dilatory. amending the rules of the House On Oct. 8, 1968,(8) Speaker pro was addressed to Speaker pro tempore Wilbur D. Mills, of Ar- tempore Carl Albert, of Okla- kansas, heard a parliamentary in- homa: quiry concerning an alleged dila-

MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Mis- tory tactic. souri]: . . . [W]ill the distinguished THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 6. Special orders generally, see Ch. 21, inquiry. infra. 7. 113 CONG. REC. 10710, 90th Cong. 8. 114 CONG. REC. 30097, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 2d Sess.

478 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4

MR. [JAMES C.] WRIGHT [Jr., of Permitting Exhibits Texas]: I thank the Speaker for permitting me this additional parliamentary § 4.10 It is for the House and inquiry.... not the Speaker to decide On occasion the Chair has held that whether a Member may be certain motions and points of order amounted to dilatory tactics, and that allowed to display an exhibit that was their obvious motivation, and in debate. on those occasions the Chair has sum- On June 2, 1937,(10) a point of marily refused to recognize such obvi- order was made concerning the ously dilatory points of order and mo- display of an exhibit during de- tions. bate in the House. Mr. Speaker, my point of parliamentary inquiry is: would the Chair not MR. [MAURY] MAVERICK [of Texas]: feel that under the present situation, Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order with repeated points of order being that the gentleman has no right to dis- made that a quorum is not present, play a liquor bottle in the House of immediately followed by the absenting Representatives. of themselves by certain Members who MR. [ROBERT F.] RICH [of Pennsyl- have come in to answer the quorum, to vania]: Mr. Speaker, this is Govern- ment rum, presented to me by Sec- be a rather obvious dilatory tactic, and retary Ickes. one which might obviously lend itself THE SPEAKER: [William B. to the assumption on the part of the Bankhead, of Alabama]: The gen- Chair that a quorum having been es- tleman will suspend. The gentleman tablished and proven so frequently and from Texas makes the point of order repeatedly during the day, would be that the gentleman from Pennsylvania presumed to be present for the comple- has no right to exhibit the bottle with- tion of business? out permission of the House. The point THE SPEAKER: PRO TEMPORE: (Mr. of order is well taken. Mills): The Chair is ready to respond MR. [CHARLES W.] TOBEY [of New to the parliamentary inquiry posed by Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, a par- the gentleman from Texas. liamentary inquiry. It is the understanding of the Chair that no occupant of the Chair has ever that the Chair has held a point of no in the history of the Congress held quorum to be dilatory when it imme- that a point of order that a quorum is diately follows a call of the House not present is a dilatory tactic. The which discloses the presence of a reasoning, obviously, is that the Con- quorum are not applicable to the sit- stitution itself requires the presence on uation where there is ‘‘intervening the floor of the House of a quorum at business’’ between the establishment all times in the transaction of the busi- of the quorum and the making of the ness of the House of Representatives.(9) point of no quorum. Generally, see Ch. 20, infra. 9. Parliamentarian’s Note: The prece- 10. 81 CONG. REC. 6104, 6105, 75th dents of the House which indicate Cong. 1st Sess.

479 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will THE SPEAKER: For what purpose state it. does the gentleman from Montana MR. TOBEY: The Speaker called the rise? attention of the gentleman from Texas MR. MONAGHAN: For the purpose of to the fact that the gentleman had a submitting a parliamentary inquiry. bottle of liquor. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it. How does the Speaker know it is liq- MR. MONAGHAN: Is not the state- uor, sir? ment that was made by the gentleman THE SPEAKER: That is a question of from Oregon [Mr. Mott] correct, that if which the House cannot take judicial this rule passes, then only one par- notice. The point of order is well taken. ticular plan, the plan that we now The Chair will submit it to the have under discussion, may be passed House, if the gentleman insists on dis- upon by the Congress, playing the exhibit. THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not in position to answer that parliamentary MR. MAVERICK: I insist on the point inquiry. That is a matter which will of order, Mr. Speaker. come up subsequently under the rules THE SPEAKER: As many as are in of the House. The Chair would not favor of granting the gentleman from seek to anticipate what the Chairman Pennsylvania the right to exhibit the of the Committee of the Whole may bottle which he now holds in his hand rule or what the Committee itself may will say ‘‘aye’’ and those opposed will do. The Chair feels very certain that say ‘‘no.’’ the Chairman of the Committee will he governed, as all chairmen of commit- The vote was taken and the Speaker tees are, by the rules and precedents of announced that the ayes have it, and the House. Certainly the Chair would the permission is granted. not anticipate his ruling; and in addi- tion to this, the Chair cannot pass Answering Parliamentary In- upon any particular amendment until quiries it has been presented in all its phases. § 4.12 The Chair has declined § 4.11 The Speaker normally to answer a parliamentary declines to answer par- inquiry in the midst of a de- liamentary inquiries that are mand that certain words be improperly addressed to him. taken down. On Apr. 11, 1935,(11) a par- On Oct. 31, 1963,(12) a Member liamentary inquiry was addressed made some remarks which be- to Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of came the subject of a request that Tennessee: they may be taken down.

MR. [JOSEPH P.] MONAGHAN [of Mon- THE SPEAKER: [John W. McCormack, tana]: Mr. Speaker of Massachusetts]: Under previous

11. 79 CONG. REC. 5457, 5458, 74th 12. 109 CONG. REC. 20742, 88th Cong. Cong. 1st Sess. 1st Sess.

480 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4 order of the House, the gentleman THE SPEAKER: The Chair cannot en- from Texas [Mr. Foreman] is recog- tertain that at this time. nized for 60 minutes. MR. [EDGAR FRANKLIN] FOREMAN: § 4.13 The Speaker does not Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bernard Baruch once entertain hypothetical ques- said: tions. Every man has a right to his opin- (13) ion but no man has a right to be On Sept. 14, 1944, a par- wrong in his facts. liamentary inquiry was addressed My purpose today is to set the facts to Speaker pro tempore Orville straight to clarify and briefly discuss a Zimmerman, of Missouri: seemingly very interesting and dis- MR. [CLARK E.] HOFFMAN [of Michi- turbing subject for some colleagues at gan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in- least of a recent news article by a quiry. Washington news correspondent em- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:: The ployed by the Scripps-Howard news- gentleman will state it. papers.... I was surprised to see the MR. HOFFMAN: I gathered from story written by their dedicated Wash- statements which were made on the ington correspondent, Mr. Seth Kantor, floor today that a statement going back last week, because I was quoted as as far as 1920 and containing informa- calling 20 of my colleagues in this body tion as to the amounts of money re- ‘‘pinkos.’’ Apparently in his zeal to quested by the military establishments write a colorful and controversial front of the Government, as to the amounts page story, at the time when congres- that had been recommended by the ex- sional news was very meager, this en- ecutive department, and as to the terprising correspondent decided to do amounts finally appropriated by Con- some name calling for me. gress, had been sent to the Committee ‘‘Pinkos’’ seems to be a very popular on Appropriations, but for some 2 and controversial name, so he wrote a years it had been in the safe over story, ‘‘Foreman Labels 20 Colleagues there, inaccessible to Members of the Pinkos.’’ The fact of the matter is, to House. By what authority or what rule set the record straight, I have only re- of Congress or what rule governing ferred to one Member of this body as a committees was that suppressed? ‘‘pinko.’’ On Friday, October 18, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE (Mr. 1963—— Zimmerman): The present occupant of MR [JOHN J.] ROONEY [of New York]: the chair has no knowledge of any such Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentle- facts, and therefore is not in a position man’s words be taken down. to answer the gentleman’s inquiry. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will MR. HOFFMAN: Does the Chair mean suspend. The demand has been made he does not have any knowledge that that the gentleman’s words be taken that is true? down. MR. [BRUCE R.] ALGER [of Texas]: 13. 90 CONG. REC. 7772, 78th Cong. 2d Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Sess.

481 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The substitutes can be offered; that at the Chair has no knowledge of that, except conclusion of this two hours of debate that somebody has said it is true, ac- on House Resolution 278 he will move cording to the gentleman’s statement. the previous question, which, if voted MR. HOFFMAN: Submitting that then down, will make amendments or sub- as a hypothetical question. stitutes to House Resolution 278 in THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The order; at that time will the Speaker Chair does not entertain a hypothetical give preference, if the previous ques- question.... tion is voted down, to the minority who oppose the resolution to control the en- § 4.14 The Speaker normally suing hour, or will the Chair give pref- avoids answering parliamen- erence to committee members who oppose the resolution regardless of which tary inquiries based upon hy- side of the aisle they sit on to offer pothetical facts or future amendments or substitutes to House events which are not certain Resolution 278; and if amendments or of happening. substitutes are offered then will there occur another vote on the previous (14) On Mar. 1, 1967, a par- question, if the preceding previous liamentary inquiry was addressed question is voted down, and what will to Speaker John W. McCormack, be the order of priority in recognizing of Massachusetts: some Member of the House on either side of the aisle, either alternatively MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of Democratic and Republican or alter- Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, in view of the natively Republican and Democratic in fact that I am limited to one inquiry, determining who will control each en- that one inquiry will of necessity be suing hour; and will we have the op- rather long. portunity to vote on all previous ques- Am I correct in assuming that under tions no matter how many amend- the rules in debating House Resolution ments are offered as long as preceding 278 that now, since the time has been previous questions are voted down? extended an additional hour by unani- THE SPEAKER: In answering the sev- mous consent over and beyond what eral questions involved in the state- the rules of the House provide for, that ment made or in the parliamentary in- the gentleman from New York [Mr. quiry made by the gentleman from Celler] will control the time for the 2 Louisiana, the Chair will state that the hours less that yielded to the gen- Chair will follow the rules of the House tleman from West Virginia and that of Representatives as it is the duty of this time will be used for no purpose the Chair to do, and the precedents. except debate of House Resolution 278; The question of the allocation of time that he will have the option of deter- is a matter for the chairman of the mining whether or not amendments or committee, one-half of the time being yielded to the gentleman from West 14. 113 CONG. REC. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Virginia [Mr. Moore]. Both the chair- Sess. man and the ranking minority member

482 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4

of the select committee control the allo- (1) receive such evidence or testi- cation of time. The question of recogni- mony in executive session; tion is one that the Chair will pass Mr. Speaker, my question is this: If upon if that time should arise. the committee determines that the evi- On the other questions of the gen- dence it is about to receive may tend to tleman from Louisiana the Chair will defame, degrade or incriminate a wit- determine them as they arise in ac- cordance with the rules of the House ness, is it not compulsory under the and the precedents. Rules of the House for the committee to hold such hearings in executive ses- § 4.15 Although it is generally sion? within the discretion of the THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state Speaker to construe the ap- that that is a matter which would be in the control of the committee for plicability of a House rule to committee action. a given situation, where a MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, a further rule explicitly calls for a de- parliamentary inquiry. cision by a House committee THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will the Speaker does not nor- state it. mally answer a general par- MR. YATES: I must say that I do not liamentary inquiry regarding understand the ruling. Is the Chair ruling that a committee can waive this a committee’s actions or fu- rule? That it can refuse to recognize ture actions respecting such this rule? a decision. THE SPEAKER: The Chair would not On Apr. 5, 1967,(15) a par- want to pass upon a general parliamentary inquiry was addressed liamentary inquiry, as distinguished to Speaker John W. McCormack, from a particular one with facts, but the Chair is of the opinion that if the of Massachusetts: committee voted to make public the MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]. testimony taken in executive session, it Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry: is not in violation of the rule, and cer- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will tainly that would be a committee mat- state it. ter. MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, rule XI, 26(m) of the Rules of the House of Rep- § 4.16 Although it is consid- resentatives states as follows: ered within the discretion of If the committee determines that the Chair to respond to a evidence or testimony at an inves- tigative hearing may tend to defame, parliamentary inquiry con- degrade, or incriminate any person, cerning an amendment, it is it shall— not considered proper for him to do so before the 15. 113 CONG. REC. 8420, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. amendment is offered.

483 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

On June 28, 1967,(16) a par- MR. GROSS: Is is not necessary to liamentary inquiry was addressed ask unanimous consent to withdraw to the Chairman of the Committee the resolution? of the Whole, John J. Flynt, Jr., of THE SPEAKER: It is, but the Chair did not think anyone would object to Georgia: that unanimous consent request. MR. [JOSEPH E.] KARTH [of Min- MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, a further nesota]: Mr. Chairman, if that figure parliamentary inquiry. cannot be further amended, and the THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will gentleman chooses to pursue his state it. amendment, and change the figure on MR. GROSS: Will this resolution be page 2, would it then be a proper subject to a rollcall vote when it is amendment? called up again? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not pass on that until an amendment de- THE SPEAKER: That would be up to scribed by the gentleman from Min- the House to decide. nesota is offered. The gentleman’s parliamentary in- When Rulings Would Be Im- quiry is premature. It cannot be made proper until such an amendment is offered. § 4.18 The Chair does not rule § 4.17 Whether a proposition on the constitutionality of will be subject to a roll call measures. vote at a future time is a On Oct. 7, 1966,(18) the Chair- matter for the House, and man of the Committee of the not the Speaker, to decide. Whole ruled on a point of order as ( ) On June 29, 1961, 17 a Member follows: introduced a resolution which became the subject of two par- THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. [Charles Mel- vin] Price [of Illinois]): The Chair is liamentary inquiries when he ready to rule. withdrew it. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MR. [SAMUEL W.] FRIEDEL [of Mary- Smith] raises a point of order against land]: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the res- the amendment as to the constitu- olution. tionality and the germaneness of the MR. [HAROLD R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: amendment. The Chair holds that the Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. amendment is germane because it pro- THE SPEAKER: [Sam Rayburn, of vides a different condition in the mat- Texas]: The gentleman will state it. ter of agreement to the compact. As to the question of constitu- 16. 113 CONG. REC. 17754, 17755 90th tionality, the Chair holds that the Cong. 1st Sess. 17. 107 CONG. REC. 11799, 87th Cong. 18. 112 CONG. REC. 25677, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. 2d Sess.

484 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4

Chair does not pass upon a constitu- an amendment to a bill, he tional question and this is in keeping does not rule on the merits with the ruling made by the gentleman of the amendment or bill. from Virginia [Mr. Smith] on March 11, 1958. On May 19, 1948,(1) a point of Therefore, the point of order is over- order was raised against an ruled. amendment being considered by the Committee of the Whole: § 4.19 The Chair does not pass on the effect of an amend- MR. [KARL E.] MUNDT [of South Da- kota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point ment. . . . of order against the amendment that it On June 23, 1960,(19) Mr. Her- is not germane to the pending man C. Anderson, of Minnesota, bill.... sought a determination from the THE CHAIRMAN [James W. Wads- worth, Jr., of New York]: . . . The Chair as to whether an amend- Chair is ready to rule. ment, if adopted, would ‘‘undo’’ The Chair would remind the gen- the work of the previous day. tleman . . . that [the Chair’s] function Chairman Frank N. Ikard, of is not to pass upon the merits of an Texas, in the exchange below, de- amendment nor to pass upon the merits of the bill which the gentleman says clined to rule on the effect of the has already passed the House. The amendment: Chair may personally find himself in MR. ANDERSON of Minnesota: Mr. complete agreement with the objective Chairman, a point of order. sought by the legislation.... but the legislation to which he refers, as the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will Chair understands, has to do with the state it. immigration and naturalization laws of MR. ANDERSON of Minnesota: Is the the United States. This bill pending gentleman’s amendment in order at before the Committee of the Whole this point after the substitute for the does not approach that subject.... It Quie amendment has been adopted? comes from the Committee on Un- THE CHAIRMAN: It is. American Activities. That committee MR. ANNDERSON of Minnesota: And has no jurisdiction over legislation hav- its effect would be to undo everything ing to do with immigration and natu- that we did yesterday? ralization laws. Therefore, the Chair THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not holds that the amendment is not ger- pass on the effect of amendments.... mane.

§ 4.20 Although the Chair may § 4.21 The Speaker does not rule on the germaneness of rule on the purpose of a

19. 106 CONG. REC. 14062, 86th Cong. 1. 94 CONG. REC. 6140, 80th Cong. 2d 2d Sess. Sess.

485 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

recommended committee On Apr. 14, 1955,(3) a question amendment to a bill. regarding a committee report was On Apr. 1, 1935,(2) a point of raised during debate in the Com- order was raised against an mittee of the Whole: amendment being considered by MR. [ROBERT C.] WILSON of Cali- the House: fornia: I have a question relative to the United States Information Agency as it MR. [MALCOLM C.] TARVER [of Geor- affects the report of the com- gia] (interrupting the reading of the mittee.... committee amendment): Mr. Speaker, I I am wondering if the fact that these desire to make a point of order against limitations appear in the report make the first committee amendment, which them actual limitations in law. [ notice is to strike out all of section 1 after the they are not mentioned in the bill enacting clause and insert certain lan- itself, and I wonder if the committee guage. The language which is proposed regards them as binding on the agency, be inserted is identical with the lan- because there are many serious limita- guage of section 1 now in the bill. The tions, particularly in regard to exhib- proposal of the committee amendment its, for example. I would just like to is simply to strike out existing lan- hear the opinion of the chairman. guage and then reinsert identical lan- MR. [JOHN J.] RODNEY [of New guage. York]: I may say to the gentleman THE PEAKER S : [Joseph W. Byrns, of from California that it is expected that Tennessee]: The Chair cannot pass on they will be the law; and that they are that. The Chair will say to the gen- binding. The fact that they have not tleman from Georgia that is a matter been inserted in the bill is not impor- for the House to determine. The Chair tant. They represent the considered cannot enter into the purpose of the judgment of the committee and we ex- committee in proposing the amend- pect the language of the report to be ment, since that is not within the prov- followed. ince of the Chair. The Chair will sug- MR. WILSON of California: Mr. Chair- gest to the gentleman from Georgia man, a parliamentary inquiry. that the remedy that occurs to the Chair is for the House to vote down THE CHAIRMAN [Jere Cooper, of Ten- the committee amendment and pass nessee]: The gentleman will state it. the bill as originally introduced. MR. WILSON of California: Are limitations written in a committee report § 4.22 The Chair does not rule such as this, but not written into the on the sufficiency, insuffi- wording of the legislation, binding? THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a par- ciency, legal effect, or bind- liamentary inquiry. That is a matter to ing nature of a committee re- be settled by the members of the Com- port. mittee of the Whole.

2. 79 CONG. REC. 4781, 4782 74th 3. 101 CONG. REC. 4463, 4464, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Cong. 1st Sess.

486 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4

MR. WILSON of California: I merely THE SPEAKER: For what purpose wanted it for my own understanding does the gentleman from Illinois rise? and information, for I am fairly new MR. FINDLEY: To propound a par- here. It seems to me rather unusual to liamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. consider matter written into a report of THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will the same binding effect on an adminis- state the parliamentary inquiry. trator as though written into the law MR. FINDLEY: I am not clear about itself. the substantive effect of the ruling of THE CHAIRMAN: It is not the preroga- the Chair at this time. Does it mean tive of the Chair to pass upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of a committee that section 105 of the 1949 act and report. section 330 of the 1938 act are re- pealed by this bill? § 4.23 The Speaker does not THE SPEAKER: The Chair did not rule on the substantive effect pass on that. The Chair simply said that they were included in the report. of extraneous material in a committee report on a bill. § 4.24 The Chair does not rule On Dec. 3, 1963,(4) a parliamen- on whether language con- tary inquiry was addressed to tained in a measure is ambig- Speaker John W. McCormack, of uous. Massachusetts, during the col- On July 5, 1956,(5) certain loquy set out below after his rul- points of order were raised con- ing on a committee report: cerning a pending amendment: THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared MR. [ROSS] BASS of Tennessee: I to rule.... make the point of order that the It is the opinion of the Chair that amendment is not germane to the bill. the report of the committee complies with the Ramseyer rule, the purpose of THE CHAIRMAN [Francis E. Walter, which is to give Members information of Pennsylvania]: It is certainly ger- in relation to any change in existing mane to the amendment offered by the law. gentleman from New York to sub- If a report includes some other ref- stitute the word ‘‘decisions’’ for the erences to other laws which in a sense word ‘‘provisions.’’ The Chair so rules. would be surplusage or unnecessary, it MR. BASS of Tennessee: Mr. Chair- is the Chair’s opinion that the com- man, a further point of order. mittee was attempting to give to the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will Members of the House as full informa- state it. tion as was possible.... MR. BASS of Tennessee: I make the MR. [PAUL] FINDLEY [of Illinois]: Mr. point of order that the word ‘‘provi- Speaker—— sions’’ is ambiguous and has no mean-

4. 109 CONG. REC. 23038, 88th Cong. 5. 102 CONG. REC. 11875, 84TH CONG. 2D 1st Sess. SESS.

487 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

ing whatever and would make the MR. HALLECK: I thank the Chair. amendment not germane. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not § 4.26 The Chair does not rule rule on the question of ambiguity. It is in advance whether an an- a question of germaneness solely, and nounced topic of speech is in the Chair has ruled that the amendment is germane. order. On Sept. 26 (legislative day, § 4.25 The Speaker does not Sept. 25), 1961,(7) a Member re- rule in advance as to wheth- quested unanimous consent to ad- er a particular motion to re- dress the House on a particular commit a measure with in- topic: structions might be in order. MR. [CLARK E.] HOFFMAN of Michi- (6) On Dec. 19, 1963, a par- gan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous liamentary inquiry was addressed consent that at the conclusion of the to Speaker John W. McCormack, regularly scheduled business of the of Massachusetts, relative to a House and all other special orders for motion to recommit with instruc- today that I may be permitted to pro- tions a conference report. ceed for 5 minutes on the topic: ‘‘Is the Congress Mentally Ill?’’ MR. [CHARLES A.] HALLECK [of Indi- MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr. ana]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in- Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. quiry. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: [John THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will W. McCormack, of Massachusetts]: The state it. gentleman will state it. MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, in the MR. BOW: Is that a proper subject for event that the conference report is debate on the floor of the House? acted on first in the House, as we now understand it will be, would a motion MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr. to recommit with instructions be in Speaker, I submit neither the Chair order? nor the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. THE SPEAKER: A proper motion Bow], can tell until they hear it. would be. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. HALLECK: Of course, it would gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoff- have to be germane. If so, a motion to man] asked unanimous consent that recommit to insist on the wheat after all other special orders he be per- amendment, I take it, would be in mitted to address the House for 5 min- order. utes. That is the gentleman’s unani- THE SPEAKER: The Chair, of course, mous consent request? would pass upon any question at the MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Yes, Mr. appropriate time. Speaker.

6. 109 CONG. REC. 25249, 88th Cong. 7. 107 CONG. REC. 21466, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. 1st Sess.

488 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: What the gentleman from South Carolina to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. table the motion of the gentleman from Hoffman] talks about is a matter for Missouri will when their names are him to determine, and then a matter called vote ‘‘aye’’ and those who are op- for the Members. posed will vote ‘‘no.’’ Is there objection to the request of MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, a further the gentleman from Michigan? parliamentary inquiry. There was no objection. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it. § 4.27 The Chair does not con- MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, would a ‘‘no’’ vote as just stated by the Chair be strue the consequences of a tantamount to overriding the Presi- ‘‘no’’ vote by the House on a dential veto of the military construc- proposed motion. tion bill? On Sept. 7, 1965,(8) various par- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair cannot make such construction liamentary inquiries concerning on a motion. certain motions were addressed to Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, § 4.28 The Chair does not con- of Oklahoma, as follows: strue the result of a vote. (9) MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Mis- On Sept. 13, 1961, questions souri]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary regarding a future vote were ad- inquiry. dressed to Speaker pro tempore THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The John W. McCormack, of Massa- gentleman will state it. chusetts. MR. HALL: Is a highly privileged motion according to the Constitution sub- MR. [WILLIAM C.] CRAMER [of Flor- ject to a motion to table? ida]: Is it true, Mr. Speaker, that if this motion is voted upon favorably, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It is. there will be no opportunity on the MR. [L. MENDEL] RIVERS of South part of the House whatsoever to con- Carolina: Mr. Speaker, a parliamen- sider the vote fraud amendment ap- tary inquiry. proved in a bill—— HE PEAKER RO EMPORE T S P T : The MR. [JOHN J.] ROONEY [of New gentleman will state it. York]: Mr. Speaker, I submit that is MR. RIVERS of South Carolina: Those not a parliamentary inquiry. desiring to table the motion of the gen- MR. CRAMER: Which is now pending tleman from Missouri will vote ‘‘aye’’ before the Committee on Rules? when their names are called. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair has stated before that he has his Chair is about to state the question. So own personal opinion. The Chair can- many as are in favor of the motion by not construe the result of the vote.

8. 111 CONG. REC. 22958, 22959, 89th 9. 107 CONG. REC. 19206, 87th Cong. Cong. 1st Sess. 1st Sess.

489 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

Challenge of Conference Re- The Chair has examined the report port and the papers and finds that it is signed by five of the managers on the § 4.29 The Speaker may not im- part of the Senate and six of the seven peach the names of conferees managers on the part of the House. who have signed a con- The Chair has no knowledge, of course, how this report was reached, ference report on a bill when but the Chair cannot impeach the the report has been chal- names of the managers on the part of lenged as being invalid for the two Houses. Furthermore, the Sen- an alleged failure of the con- ate having already received the report, ferees to meet. and according to a message heretofore received by the House has officially ( ) On June 19, 1948, 10 a point of adopted it, the Chair feels that under order was raised regarding a con- the circumstances the report is prop- ference report. erly before the House for such action as the House may see fit to take. The MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of Chair overrules the point of order. order, and I ask the indulgence of the Speaker so that I may argue the point. When Recognition Required THE SPEAKER: [Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts]: The Chair will § 4.30 The Speaker is con- hear the gentleman. strained to recognize on Cal- MR. MARCANTONIO: Mr. Speaker, I endar Wednesdays any Mem- make the point of order that the docu- ment which has just been presented is ber properly proposing a mo- not the report of any conference. It is tion to dispense with Cal- not the product of a full and free con- endar Wednesday business. ference as required in Jefferson’s Man- ( ) ual. I make my point of order based on On June 5, 1946, 11 a motion the proposition that there has never was made to dispense with Cal- been a valid conference—specifically, endar Wednesday business. that there has never been a valid meeting on the part of the managers MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of New on the part of the House. . . . York]: Mr. Speaker, that motion is not THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to in order. To dispense with Calendar rule. Wednesday requires the unanimous On page 770, volume 5, of Hinds’ consent of the House. . . . Precedents, section 6497 states: THE SPEAKER: [Sam Rayburn, of A conference report is received if Texas]: The Chair will state that the signed by a majority of the managers following was held by Speaker Gillette, of each House. who has been quoted today, as follows:

10. 94 CONG. REC. 9268, 9269, 80th 11. 92 CONG. REC. 6357, 79th Cong. 2d Cong. 2d Sess. Sess.

490 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4

The Speaker is constrained to rec- MR. HOFFMAN: What is the regular ognize on Wednesdays any Member order now? proposing a motion to dispense with THE SPEAKER: The regular order is further proceedings in order on that to see if a quorum develops. day. MR. HOFFMAN: Is it in order to ad- The motion is in order, but it takes journ? a two-thirds vote to pass it. THE SPEAKER: That motion is always in order in the House. § 4.31 Although the Speaker MR. HOFFMAN: If there is not a has the discretion to choose quorum, Mr. Speaker, I move we adjourn. between Members seeking THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman ( ) recognition, 12 he is obliged withhold that for a moment? to recognize for a privileged THE HOFFMAN: If the Chair is refus- motion when the proponent ing recognition, I will. has the floor and no other THE SPEAKER: The Chair cannot do that. motion of higher privilege is pending or offered.(13) The House then agreed to a motion, offered by Mr. John W. § 4.32 Although the Speaker McCormack, of Massachusetts, to has discretion to recognize, adjourn. or not, a Member under most § 4.33. Inasmuch as Members circumstances, he may not of the Senate may not ad- refuse to recognize a Mem- dress the House unless the ber having the floor for a mo- House rules are changed by tion to adjourn. proper procedure, the Speak- On Mar. 16, 1945,(14) a motion er has declined to recognize to recommit a bill was made. a Member for the purpose of Votes were taken and a quorum asking unanimous consent found not to be present. This led for the consideration of a to a call for adjournment. resolution to allow Senators MR. [CLARE E.] HOFFMAN [of Michi- to address the House. gan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in- (15) quiry. On Oct. 11, 1943, Members discussed the desirability of invit- THE SPEAKER: [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The gentleman will state it. ing certain Senators to address the House. 12. Recognizing for debate, see Ch. 29, MRS. [EDITH NOURSE] ROGERS of infra. Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, on Thurs- 13. Motions generally, see Ch. 23, infra. 14. 91 CONG. REC. 2379, 2380, 79th 15. 89 CONG. REC. 8197, 78th Cong. 1st Cong. 1st Sess. Sess.

491 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

day last I, with several others, called sent for the present consideration of a attention to the importance of having resolution inviting Senators to address the five Senators who have just re- the House in open or executive session, turned from the far-flung battle fronts because the Chair thinks that is tanta- give the Members of the House their mount to an amendment to the rules of findings regarding conditions on the the House and, therefore, is a matter battle fronts. I understand there is for the House to determine. If resolu- some objection to having them appear tions like that are introduced, they will in the House Chamber. I hope the gen- be sent to the proper committee. tleman from Mississippi and some of the other Members will join in asking Authority to Declare Recess them to appear in the Caucus Room. Then we can all have the benefit of § 4.34 The Speaker, under nor- their valuable information. It does not mal circumstances, must be matter where we hear their testimony so long as we hear it. authorized by the House to (16) MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mis- declare recesses. sissippi]: If the gentlewoman will yield, On Oct. 3, 1964,(17) for example, let me say that these are Members of unanimous consent was requested the United States Senate. They have the privilege of the floor. We have a and received to authorize Speaker perfect right to invite them here to ad- John W. McCormack, of Massa- dress the Members of the House in se- chusetts, to declare recesses, sub- cret session. We want them to come ject to the call of the Chair, dur- here and give us the benefit of the in- ing the remainder of the day. formation they have garnered in their trip to the various battle fronts of the § 4.35 Authority conferred world. upon the Speaker to declare MRS. ROGERS of Massachusetts: Has the gentleman consulted the Speaker recesses of the House may be and leaders about it? vacated by unanimous con- MR. RANKIN: I have, and I think that sent. when the resolution is offered they will On Sept. 8, 1969,(l8) unanimous agree that this is the place to have them. consent was requested to vacate THE SPEAKER: [Sam Rayburn, of previous authorization for Speak- Texas]: The Chair thinks it is time for er John W. McCormack, of Massa- the Chair to make a statement, because this matter was discussed with 16. Compare § 3.44, supra, as to the the Chair by the gentlewoman from Speaker’s inherent power to declare Massachusetts [Mrs. Rogers], last a recess in an emergency. week, and the gentleman from Mis- 17. 110 CONG. REC. 23955, 88th Cong. sissippi [Mr. Rankin], over the phone. 2d Sess. The Chair does not intend to recog- 18. 115 CONG. REC. 24653, 91st Cong 1st nize a Member to ask unanimous con- Sess.

492 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4 chusetts, to declare recess on a the present consideration of Senate certain day. Concurrent Resolution No. 37. The Clerk read the concurrent reso- Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. lution, as follows: Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the authority for the Speaker to de- SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 37 clare a recess on September 10 be va- Resolved by the Senate (the House cated. of Representatives concurring), That THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the Speaker of the House of Rep- the request of the gentleman from resentatives and the President of the Oklahoma? Senate be, and they are hereby, authorized to sign a duplicate copy of There was no objection. the enrolled bill (S. 3532) entitled MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I also ask ‘‘An act to extend the times for com- unanimous consent that it may be in mencing and completing the con- order for the Speaker to declare a re- struction of a bridge across the Mis- souri River at or near Randolph, cess at any time on September 16 for Mo.,’’ and that the Secretary of the the purpose of receiving in joint meet- Senate be, and he is hereby, directed ing the Apollo 11 astronauts. to transmit the same to the Presi- THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to dent of the United States. the request of the gentleman from THE SPEAKER [William B. Bankhead, Oklahoma? of Alabama]: Is there objection to the ( ) There was no objection. 19 request of the gentleman from Texas? MR. [CARL E.] MAPES [of Michigan]: Authority to Sign Bills and Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to ob- Resolutions ject, will the gentleman from Texas explain the purpose of this resolution? § 4.36 The Speaker must be MR. RAYBURN: Mr. Speaker, the situ- formally authorized to sign a ation is that before this bill got to the duplicate copy of an enrolled President for his signature it was mis- bill. placed or lost. This is a resolution to allow the President to sign a duplicate. On May 27, 1938,(20) a unani- THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to mous-consent request was made the request of the gentleman from as follows: Texas?

MR. [SAM] RAYBURN [of Texas]: Mr. There was no objection. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for § 4.37 The Speaker must be 19. Parliamentarian’s Note: The author- formally authorized by the ization to declare the recess was va- House to sign enrolled bills cated due to the death of Senator and joint resolutions during Everett Dirksen. a sine die adjournment of the 20. 83 CONG. REC. 7637, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. Congress.

493 Ch. 6 § 4 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS

On Oct. 14, 1968,(11) a resolu- the present session of the 87th Con- tion was offered by Mr. Carl Al- gress, the Clerk be authorized to re- bert, of Oklahoma, as follows: ceive messages from the Senate and that the Speaker be authorized to sign MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I call up any enrolled bills and joint resolutions Senate Concurrent Resolution 82 and duly passed by the two Houses and ask for its present consideration. found truly enrolled. The Clerk read the Senate concur- MR. [HAROLD R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: rent resolution, as follows: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, are we going to enter into some S. CON. RES. 82 recesses or adjournments of the House? Resolved by the Senate (the House MR. MCCORMACK: For example, such of Representatives concurring), That, as adjourning from Friday to Monday. notwithstanding the sine die adjournment of the two Houses, the MR. GROSS: That is all the gen- Speaker of the House of Representa- tleman has in mind? tives and the President of the Sen- MR. MCCORMACK: That is all. . . . ate, the President pro tempore, or the Acting President pro tempore be, THE SPEAKER: [Sam Rayburn, of and they are hereby, authorized to Texas]: Is there objection to the re- sign enrolled bills and joint resolu- quest of the gentleman from Massa- tions duly passed by the two Houses chusetts? and found truly enrolled. There was no objection. The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in. § 4.39 Although it is within the authority of the Speaker to § 4.38 The Speaker is normally sign enrolled bills, by con- authorized by unanimous current resolution the Con- consent to sign enrolled bills gress may rescind the Speak- and joint resolutions during er’s signature. any adjournment of the On July 1, 1947,(3) a resolution House. was introduced as follows: On Aug. 10, 1961,(2) a unani- MR. [EVERETT M.] DIRKSEN [of Illi- mous consent request was made nois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous as follows: consent to take from the Speaker’s MR. [JOHN W.] MCCORMACK [of Mas- table Senate Concurrent Resolution 22. sachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- ... mous consent that notwithstanding The Clerk read the concurrent reso- any adjournment of the House during lution, as follows: Resolved by the Senate (the House 1. 114 CONG. REC. 31313, 90th Cong. of Representatives concurring), That 2d Sess. 2. 107 CONG. REC. 15320, 87th Cong. 3. 93 CONG. REC. 8012, 80th Cong. 1st 1st Sess. Sess.

494 OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 5

the President of the United States bill (H.R. 7297) entitled ‘‘An act au- be, and he is hereby, requested to re- thorizing the assignment of per- turn to the House of Representatives sonnel from departments or agencies the enrolled bill (H.R. 493) to amend in the executive branch of the Gov- section 4 of the act entitled ‘‘An act ernment to certain investigating to control the possession, sale, trans- committees of the Senate and House fer, and use of pistols and other dan- of Representatives, and for other gerous weapons in the District of Co- purposes,’’ and that the House of lumbia,’’ approved July 8, 1932 (sec. Representatives be further requested 22, 3204 D.C. Code, 1940 ed.): that if to return the above-numbered en- and when the said bill is returned by grossed bill to the Senate. the President, the action of the Pre- siding Officer of the two Houses in THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: With- signing the said bill be deemed to be out objection, it is so ordered. rescinded; and that the House en- There was no objection. grossed bill be returned to the Sen- ate. THE SPEAKER [Joseph W. Martin, § 5. Participation in De- Jr., of Massachusetts]: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman bate and Voting from Illinois? There was no objection. The Speaker is entitled as a The concurrent resolution was Member of the House to partici- agreed to. pate in debate.(5) Accordingly, A motion to reconsider was laid on when the Speaker desires to be the table. heard in debate on a matter he may speak from the floor, whether § 4.40 Although it is within the debate is in the House (6) or in the authority of the Speaker to Committee of the Whole.(7) Occa- sign enrolled bills of the sionally the Speaker will speak in House, the House may agree debate from the Chair.(8) to a Senate resolution re- Under the House rules (9) the questing that the Speaker’s Speaker may, but is not required, signature be rescinded. to vote on matters except where On July 30, 1942,(4) Speaker pro (1) his vote would be decisive, or tempore Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, laid before the 5. House Rules and Manual § 751 (1973). House a Senate resolution: 6. See §§ 5.1, 5.2, infra. Resolved, That the Secretary be di- 7. See § 5.3, infra. rected to request the House of Rep- resentatives to rescind the action of 8. See Ch. 29, infra, for fuller treat- the Speaker in signing the enrolled ment of the Speaker’s participation in debate. 4. 88 CONG. REC. 6713, 77th Cong. 2d 9. Rule I clause 6, House Rules and Sess. Manual § 632 (1973).

495