§4. Limitations on the Speaker’s Powers · PDF fileLimitations on the...

471

OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES Ch. 6 § 4

16. House Rules and Manual § 285(1973).

17. See § 4.2, infra.18. See § 4.3, infra. See Ch. 16, infra, for

treatment of reference of bills tocommittees.

19. See § 4.4, infra. See Ch. 5, supra, fortreatment of the House rules.

1. See § 4.5, infra. See Ch. 31, infra, forfuller treatment of the Speaker’s rul-ings on points of order.

2. See § 4.8, infra.

Chair did not use the word ‘‘violate.’’The Chair did not go that far. TheChair simply says reference to a Mem-ber of the other body is not proper, andis not consistent with the rules of theHouse. The gentleman was recognizedto proceed in order.

MR. WYMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will, ofcourse, accord with the rule and I willtherefore refer only to prominentlypublicized remarks appearing on thefront pages of the Nation’s newspapersof last night and this morning

§ 4. Limitations on theSpeaker’s Powers

As previously noted, the Speak-er is not unlimited in the exerciseof his various powers. The Houserules and precedents serve notonly as a guide for his actions butalso as a constraint on them. InJefferson’s Manual, the authornoted the importance of such con-straints:

And whether these forms be in allcases the most rational or not is reallynot of so great importance. It is muchmore material that there should be arule to go by than what that rule is;that there may be a uniformity of pro-ceeding in business not subject to thecaprice of the Speaker. . . .(16)

Thus, the Speaker is con-strained to follow formal proce-dures when they exist. For exam-

ple, the Speaker normally doesnot refer matters to the variousHouse committees without firstexamining the measures (17) andconferring with the House Parlia-mentarian.(18)

The Speaker is, of course, guid-ed in his duties by the Houserules and precedents. Thus, henormally does not comment on theadvisability of one rule over an-other in a case where a previousrule is in conflict with a currentrule,(19) nor does he normally ruleon a point of order in such a wayas to overturn previous rulings,though he has the power to doso.(1)

Though in certain cir-cumstances it might seem helpfulfor the Speaker to interpret theSenate rules of procedure, he doesnot normally even attempt to doso.

Similarly, the Speaker does notrule on the effect of a resolutionbeing considered by the Housewhich deals with the Houserules.(2)

472

DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTSCh. 6 § 4

3. See § 4.10, infra. See Ch. 29, infra,for fuller treatment of the Speaker’srole in consideration and debate oflegislative measures, and as to theuse of exhibits.

4. See Ch. 31, infra, for fuller treat-ment of the Speaker’s role vis-a-vispoints of order.

5. See § 4.18, infra.6. See § 4.19, infra.7. See § 4.20, infra.8. See § 4.21, infra.9. See § 4.22, infra.

10. See § 4.23, infra.11. See § 4.24, infra.12. See § 4.25, infra. See Ch. 28, infra,

for treatment of the germanenessrule generally.

13. See § 4.26, infra.14. See § § 4.27, 4.28, infra.15. See § 4.34, infra. See also § 3.44,

supra, for Speaker’s power to declarerecesses in an emergency. See Ch.39, infra, for fuller treatment of theSpeaker’s role in recessing theHouse.

16. See § 4.35, infra.17. See § § 4.37, 4.38, infra. See Ch. 24,

infra, for fuller treatment of the for-mal passage of bills.

18. See § § 4.39, 4.40, infra

Whether a Member may displayexhibits during his remarks is amatter for the House and not theSpeaker to decide.(3)

Tke Speaker’s duty to rule onvarious points of order is limitedin certain ways.(4) It is consideredimproper for the Speaker to rule,for example: on the constitu-tionality of measures; (5) on the ef-fect of an amendment; (6) on themerits of a measure; (7) on thepurpose of an amendment; (8) onthe sufficiency, insufficiency, orbinding effect of a committee re-port; (9) on the substantive effect ofextraneous material in a com-mittee report; (10) on the possibleambiguity of language in a meas-ure; (11) on the propriety of in-structions that might subse-quently accompany a motion to re-commit a measure; (12) on the pro-

priety of an announced speechtopic in advance of its delivery; (13)

or on how the results of a voteshould be construed.(14)

In many situations, the Speakeris entitled to perform certain ac-tions only after the House hasgiven him its formal authoriza-tion. Thus, for example, undernormal circumstances, the Speak-er must be authorized by theHouse prior to declaring a re-cess. (15) This authorization maylater be vacated by the House.(16)

The Speaker must also be au-thorized to sign enrolled bills andjoint resolutions during House ad-journments.(17) The Speaker’s sig-nature may later be rescinded byHouse action.(18)

�

Congressional Record Policy

§ 4.1 Although the Speakermay have set policy regard-

473


19. 91 CONG. REC. 1788, 1789, 79thCong. 1st Sess.

ing matter to be included inthe Congressional Record, itis a matter for the House todecide whether such a pol-icy, not being a House rule,shall be followed.On Mar. 6, 1945,(19) Speaker

Sam Rayburn, of Texas, discussedextension of remarks in the Con-gressional Record in response to aparliamentary inquiry:

MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mis-sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentaryinquiry.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman willstate it.

MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, on yester-day several Members made 1 minutespeeches. Among them was the gen-tleman from Arkansas . . . the gentleman from Nevada . . . the gentlemanfrom New York . . . and your humbleservant.

Without consulting the gentlemanfrom Nevada . . . or the gentlemanfrom Arkansas . . . or me, somebodydown the line inserted our speeches inthe Appendix of the Record and leftthe speech made by the gentlemanfrom New York . . . in the body of theRecord where it should be.

As I understand the rules of theHouse, nobody in the Printing Officehas any right to change this Record.One reason I am raising this questionis this: The Speaker is familiar withthe fact that a short time ago, I madea short address on the floor and whenit was sent down to the Printing Office

it had a heading on it, and . . . one ofthe Official Reporters in the well of theHouse here called down there at mid-night and had that heading changed.

It seems to me that we have come tothe time, if Congress is going to controlthe Congressional Record, that wemight as well find it out. I understandit has been the ruling of the Chair thatwhere a Member makes a 1-minutespeech, if he asks to insert extraneousmatter that contains more than 300words, the speech must be inserted inthe Appendix of the Record. But wherea Member makes his own speech andextends his own remarks, he has theright to have that speech appear in theRecord at that point. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The Chair can reit-erate what he has said many times.

When I became majority leader, Imade the statement to the House, afterconsulting with the minority leader,who I think at that time was Mr.Snell, of New York, that if anyoneasked to proceed for more than 1minute before the legislative programof the day was completed we would ob-ject. Since then Members have notasked to proceed for more than aminute before the legislative program.

Then Members began speaking for aminute and putting into the Record along speech, so that 10 or a dozenpages of the Record was taken up be-fore the people who read the Recordwould get to the legislative program ofthe day, in which I would think theywould be the most interested. So weadopted the policy—there is no ruleabout it—of asking that when Mem-bers speak for a minute, if their re-marks are more than 300 words, whichmany times can be said in a minute,

474


1. 112 CONG. REC. 1716, 89th Cong. 2dSess.

their remarks or any extension of theirremarks go in the Appendix of theRecord. The Chair has on numerousoccasions spoken to those who controlthe Record and asked them to followthat policy.

MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I takeissue of course with that policy, be-cause these 1-minute speakers do notabuse the Record, as a rule. The onlyquestion that has been raised aboutany abuse of the Record in regard tothese 1-minute speeches was with ref-erence to a speech made on the 5th ofFebruary, I believe, wherein the 1-minute speaker used several pages.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair might statealso that when there is no legislativeprogram in the House for the day, suchspeeches may go in, and they will go inas 1-minute speeches.

MR. [DANIEL A.] REED of New York:Mr. Speaker, verifying the statement,which, of course, needs no verification,I remember going to the Speaker andasking if it would be proper to put thespeech in the body of the Record, andthe Speaker said that there was no leg-islative program for the day and therewas no reason why a Member couldnot do it. I assume that was on the 5thof February.

THE SPEAKER: That is correct.Mr. Rankin: Let me say to the gen-

tleman from New York that on yester-day one of the Members made a speechthat you will find in the Record almostor quite as long as the speech of thegentleman from Nevada . . . or the oneof the gentleman from Arkansas . . . orthe one that I made. It was placed inthe body of the Record, and it was inexcess of 300 words. I can go backthrough the Record here and find nu-merous occasions.

If we are going to adopt the policythat everybody who speaks in the wellof the House and uses over 300 wordsmust have his speech printed in theAppendix, it should apply to all of us.

. . . I think this should be a matterto be settled by the membership of theHouse. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The House has thatwithin its entire control at any time itdesires to act upon the question. . . .

Mr. Rankin: Let me ask the Speakernow, I want to know, because theMembers of the House are all inter-ested, if Members, when they make a1-minute speech, use more than 300words, it is to be printed in the Appen-dix of the Record and not in the body?

THE SPEAKER: That is correct.MR. RANKIN: So the rule will be ap-

plied to all alike?THE SPEAKER: The Chair tries to

apply that rule.

Announcing Reference of Bill

§ 4.2 The Speaker may refuseto say, in advance of exam-ination of a bill, to whichcommittee the bill will be re-ferred.On Feb. 1, 1966,(1) parliamen-

tary inquiries were addressed toSpeaker John W. McCormack, ofMassachusetts:

MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentaryinquiry.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman willstate his parliamentary inquiry.

475


2. 95 CONG. REC. 7255, 81st Cong. 1stSess.

MR. HALL: . . . [M]y parliamentaryinquiry would involve two questions:First, would reference of the Presi-dent’s message to the Committee onForeign Affairs of this House automati-cally involve reference of bills referredto therein to the same committee ofthis House?

THE SPEAKER: It would depend uponthe nature of the bill. The answer as toone does not necessarily follow as tothe other. On the other hand, the pro-visions of the bill and the Rules of theHouse would govern.

MR. HALL: I thank the Speaker.The second portion of my parliamen-

tary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, if I maycontinue, is this: In view of the factthat the military and economic author-ization requests are to be contained,according to the President’s message,in two separate bills—again, for thefirst time in some years—would themilitary authorization part thereof,when submitted, apparently by the ad-ministration, per this message, be re-ferred to the Legislative Committee onArmed Services of this House, or wouldit go to the Committee on Foreign Af-fairs?

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not pre-pared to answer that inquiry at thepresent time, because the answer tothe second inquiry would relate back tothe first inquiry made by the gen-tleman from Missouri, and the re-sponse of the Chair to that inquiry.

In the opinion of the Chair, the sec-ond question is related to the firstquestion, that question being answeredthat it does not necessarily follow thatspecific legislation would be referred tothe committee to which the messagewould be referred.

MR. HALL: I thank the Speaker.THE SPEAKER: Therefore, the Chair

does not feel able to pass upon the sec-ond inquiry until the Chair has had anopportunity to observe the provisionsof the bill.

Bill Reference After Consulta-tion

§ 4.3 The Speaker may with-hold referral of a Senate billon the Speaker’s Table untilhe has studied the question,consulted with the Parlia-mentarian, and decided onthe proper jurisdiction.On June 6, 1949,(2) Speaker

Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicatedthe nature of his duty to referbills to committees.

MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.


MR. PATMAN: Mr. Speaker, may Iask the status of the bill S. 1008,which, I understand, was messagedover from the Senate on Friday last?

THE SPEAKER: The Chair under-stands it is on the Speaker’s table.

MR. PATMAN: Will it be referred tothe Committee on the Judiciary?

THE SPEAKER: The Chair does notknow about that.

MR. PATMAN: What action will benecessary in order to get it referred tothe committee?

THE SPEAKER: It is the duty and theprivilege of the Chair to refer bills to

476


3. 79 CONG. REC. 11264, 74th Cong. 1stSess.

4. 104 CONG. REC. 12121, 12122, 85thCong. 2d Sess.

whatever committee he desires, afterconsultation with the Parliamentarian,of course. The Chair will not recognizeany motion in that regard at this time.

Speaker Guided by Rules andPrecedents

§ 4.4 It has been considerednot within the province ofthe Speaker to pass on theadvisability of a more recentHouse rule which appears toconflict with previous ones.On July 16, 1935,(3) Speaker Jo-

seph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, re-sponded to a point of order.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready torule.

Last Friday the gentleman fromTexas [Mr. Blanton] kindly indicatedthat it was his purpose to make thepoint of order he has raised todaywhen the House began consideration ofthe so-called ‘‘omnibus private claimsbill.’’ The gentleman from Texas hasserved in the House for many yearswith distinction and is familiar withthe rules of the House, and the Chairhas given considerable thought to thepoint of order since the gentleman in-dicated on last Friday that it was hispurpose again to raise it on this occa-sion.

The gentleman from Texas, in his ar-gument today, has contended that thisrule conflicts with a number of rules towhich he has referred. Without passingupon the question of whether or not

there is a conflict, the Chair will statethat if there is a conflict the rule lastadopted would control. The Chair as-sumes that if this rule should be foundto conflict with previous rules, that theHouse intended, at least by implica-tion, to repeal that portion of the pre-vious rule with which it is in conflict.

The Chair may state that in passingupon this point of order it is not theprovince of the Chair, nor has theChair any such intention, to pass uponthe question of whether or not thisrule is advisable or whether a betterone could have been adopted.

§ 4.5 Although it is within theauthority of the Speaker torule on a point of order insuch a way as to overturnprevious precedents of theHouse, the Speaker in mostinstances follows the prece-dents of the House whenthey are very clearly applica-ble to a given situation.On June 24, 1958,(4) a point of

order was raised against the fol-lowing remarks of a Member:

MR. [THOMAS B.] CURTIS of Missouri:. . . If this committee [the Sub-committee of the Interstate and For-eign Commerce Committee on Legisla-tive Oversight] does not intend to doits job, but rather intends to continuethis campaign on these collateralissues which I have alleged, in myjudgment, amount to defamation, Ithink it should be called sharply to

477



task first by the full Committee onInterstate and Foreign Commerce, andif the full committee fails in this re-sponsibility then the House shouldtake action. . . . Not only is this sub-committee, in my judgment, not doingthe job that needs to be done, it hasbrought the institution again, in myjudgment, into disrepute by dis-regarding the rules of the House andpermitting a committee of the House tobe used as a forum in this fashion.

MR. [OREN] HARRIS [of Arkansas]:Mr. Speaker, I must object again andask that those words be deleted.

MR. CURTIS of Missouri: I would liketo ask the gentleman before he does,just what language is he objecting to?

MR. HARRIS: To the charge that thiscommittee is violating the rules of theHouse.

MR. CURTIS of Missouri: Well, I cer-tainly do charge that and I think it isproper to charge such a thing if I havepresented the evidence. How else arewe going to present the case to theHouse?

THE SPEAKER [Sam Rayburn, ofTexas]: There is a long line of decisionsholding that attention cannot be calledon the floor of the House to pro-ceedings in committees without actionby the committee. The Chair has justbeen reading a decision by Mr. Speak-er Gillett and the decision is very posi-tive on that point.

MR. CURTIS of Missouri: Mr. Speak-er, in addressing myself to that, may Isay I am unaware of such a rule andI would argue, if I may, in all pro-priety, that that rule, if it does exist,should be changed because how elsewill the House ever go into the func-tioning and actions of its committees?

THE SPEAKER: That is not a questionfor the Chair to determine. That is aquestion for the House to change therule.

MR. CURTIS of Missouri: Mr. Speak-er, is it a rule or is it a ruling? If it isa ruling of the Chair, then it is appro-priate for the Chair to consider it.

THE SPEAKER: The precedents of theHouse are what the Chair goes by inmost instances. There are many prece-dents and this Chair finds that theprecedents of the House usually makemighty good sense.

MR. CURTIS of Missouri: But theChair can change a precedent. That iswhy I am trying to present this mat-ter.

THE SPEAKER: If the Chair did notbelieve in the precedents of the House,then the Chair might be ready to dothat, but this Chair is not disposed tooverturn the precedents of the Housewhich the Chair thinks are very clear.

Interpreting Senate Rules

§ 4.6 The Chairman of theCommittee of the Whole maydecline to interpret the rulesor procedures of the Senate.On June 6, 1961,(5) a Member

raised the following question:MR. [WILLIAM H.] AVERY [of Kansas]:

Mr. Chairman, the language of theamendment now pending at the desk isthe identical language that came intoconference from the other body fol-lowing action of the House, and myamendment in 1959 became incor-

478


6. Special orders generally, see Ch. 21,infra.

7. 113 CONG. REC. 10710, 90th Cong.1st Sess.

8. 114 CONG. REC. 30097, 90th Cong.2d Sess.

porated, I believe, in the conference re-port. Does that in any way change thelegislative history of the amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN [Paul J. Kilday,of Texas]: The Chair may advisethe gentleman that nothing ispending before the Chair, but byway of observation, the languagethe gentleman speaks of was ap-parently added by the other body.The present occupant of the Chairwould not attempt to state or tointerpret the rules or procedure ofthe other body.

Passing on Resolutions andSpecial Orders

§ 4.7 The Speaker may declineto answer hypothetical ques-tions regarding special or-ders.(6)

§ 4.8 The Chair does not passon the effect of a pendingresolution amending theHouse rules.On Apr. 25, 1967,(7) a par-

liamentary inquiry concerning theeffect of a resolution [H. Res. 42]amending the rules of the Housewas addressed to Speaker protempore Carl Albert, of Okla-homa:

MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Mis-souri]: . . . [W]ill the distinguished

gentleman yield at this time for a par-liamentary inquiry of the Chair, inas-much as it is important that we try toenvisage, in passing this legislationtoday, what effect it will have on thefuture rules of procedure in the House,and their application.

MR. [WILLIAM M.] COLMER [of Mis-sissippi]: I yield to the gentleman fromMissouri.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: TheChair must advise the distinguishedgentleman from Missouri that this is amatter for debate on a resolution pend-ing and not a matter properly withinthe jurisdiction of the Chair on a par-liamentary inquiry. It is up to thesponsor of the resolution to explain theterms of the resolution.

Quorum Request Not Dilatory

§ 4.9 Since the Constitution de-fines a quorum of the Houseand states that it shall be re-quired for the conduct ofbusiness, a point of orderthat a quorum is not presentis in order in the absence ofa quorum, and the Chairdoes not hold such a point tobe dilatory.On Oct. 8, 1968,(8) Speaker pro

tempore Wilbur D. Mills, of Ar-kansas, heard a parliamentary in-quiry concerning an alleged dila-tory tactic.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Thegentleman will state his parliamentaryinquiry.

479


9. Parliamentarian’s Note: The prece-dents of the House which indicate

that the Chair has held a point of noquorum to be dilatory when it imme-diately follows a call of the Housewhich discloses the presence of aquorum are not applicable to the sit-uation where there is ‘‘interveningbusiness’’ between the establishmentof the quorum and the making of thepoint of no quorum. Generally, seeCh. 20, infra.


MR. [JAMES C.] WRIGHT [Jr., ofTexas]: I thank the Speaker for permit-ting me this additional parliamentaryinquiry. . . .

On occasion the Chair has held thatcertain motions and points of orderamounted to dilatory tactics, and thatthat was their obvious motivation, andon those occasions the Chair has sum-marily refused to recognize such obvi-ously dilatory points of order and mo-tions.

Mr. Speaker, my point of parliamen-tary inquiry is: would the Chair notfeel that under the present situation,with repeated points of order beingmade that a quorum is not present,immediately followed by the absentingof themselves by certain Members whohave come in to answer the quorum, tobe a rather obvious dilatory tactic, andone which might obviously lend itselfto the assumption on the part of theChair that a quorum having been es-tablished and proven so frequently andrepeatedly during the day, would bepresumed to be present for the comple-tion of business?

THE SPEAKER: PRO TEMPORE: (Mr.Mills): The Chair is ready to respondto the parliamentary inquiry posed bythe gentleman from Texas.

It is the understanding of the Chairthat no occupant of the Chair has everin the history of the Congress heldthat a point of order that a quorum isnot present is a dilatory tactic. Thereasoning, obviously, is that the Con-stitution itself requires the presence onthe floor of the House of a quorum atall times in the transaction of the busi-ness of the House of Representatives.(9)

Permitting Exhibits

§ 4.10 It is for the House andnot the Speaker to decidewhether a Member may beallowed to display an exhibitin debate.On June 2, 1937,(10) a point of

order was made concerning thedisplay of an exhibit during de-bate in the House.

MR. [MAURY] MAVERICK [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, I make the point of orderthat the gentleman has no right to dis-play a liquor bottle in the House ofRepresentatives.

MR. [ROBERT F.] RICH [of Pennsyl-vania]: Mr. Speaker, this is Govern-ment rum, presented to me by Sec-retary Ickes.

THE SPEAKER: [William B.Bankhead, of Alabama]: The gen-tleman will suspend. The gentlemanfrom Texas makes the point of orderthat the gentleman from Pennsylvaniahas no right to exhibit the bottle with-out permission of the House. The pointof order is well taken.

MR. [CHARLES W.] TOBEY [of NewHampshire]: Mr. Speaker, a par-liamentary inquiry.

480





MR. TOBEY: The Speaker called theattention of the gentleman from Texasto the fact that the gentleman had abottle of liquor.

How does the Speaker know it is liq-uor, sir?

THE SPEAKER: That is a question ofwhich the House cannot take judicialnotice. The point of order is well taken.

The Chair will submit it to theHouse, if the gentleman insists on dis-playing the exhibit.

MR. MAVERICK: I insist on the pointof order, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: As many as are infavor of granting the gentleman fromPennsylvania the right to exhibit thebottle which he now holds in his handwill say ‘‘aye’’ and those opposed willsay ‘‘no.’’

The vote was taken and the Speakerannounced that the ayes have it, andthe permission is granted.

Answering Parliamentary In-quiries

§ 4.11 The Speaker normallydeclines to answer par-liamentary inquiries that areimproperly addressed to him.On Apr. 11, 1935,(11) a par-

liamentary inquiry was addressedto Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, ofTennessee:

MR. [JOSEPH P.] MONAGHAN [of Mon-tana]: Mr. Speaker

THE SPEAKER: For what purposedoes the gentleman from Montanarise?

MR. MONAGHAN: For the purpose ofsubmitting a parliamentary inquiry.


MR. MONAGHAN: Is not the state-ment that was made by the gentlemanfrom Oregon [Mr. Mott] correct, that ifthis rule passes, then only one par-ticular plan, the plan that we nowhave under discussion, may be passedupon by the Congress,

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not inposition to answer that parliamentaryinquiry. That is a matter which willcome up subsequently under the rulesof the House. The Chair would notseek to anticipate what the Chairmanof the Committee of the Whole mayrule or what the Committee itself maydo. The Chair feels very certain thatthe Chairman of the Committee will hegoverned, as all chairmen of commit-tees are, by the rules and precedents ofthe House. Certainly the Chair wouldnot anticipate his ruling; and in addi-tion to this, the Chair cannot passupon any particular amendment untilit has been presented in all its phases.

§ 4.12 The Chair has declinedto answer a parliamentaryinquiry in the midst of a de-mand that certain words betaken down.On Oct. 31, 1963,(12) a Member

made some remarks which be-came the subject of a request thatthey may be taken down.

THE SPEAKER: [John W. McCormack,of Massachusetts]: Under previous

481



order of the House, the gentlemanfrom Texas [Mr. Foreman] is recog-nized for 60 minutes.

MR. [EDGAR FRANKLIN] FOREMAN:Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bernard Baruch oncesaid:

Every man has a right to his opin-ion but no man has a right to bewrong in his facts.

My purpose today is to set the factsstraight to clarify and briefly discuss aseemingly very interesting and dis-turbing subject for some colleagues atleast of a recent news article by aWashington news correspondent em-ployed by the Scripps-Howard news-papers. . . . I was surprised to see thestory written by their dedicated Wash-ington correspondent, Mr. Seth Kantor,last week, because I was quoted ascalling 20 of my colleagues in this body‘‘pinkos.’’ Apparently in his zeal towrite a colorful and controversial frontpage story, at the time when congres-sional news was very meager, this en-terprising correspondent decided to dosome name calling for me.

‘‘Pinkos’’ seems to be a very popularand controversial name, so he wrote astory, ‘‘Foreman Labels 20 ColleaguesPinkos.’’ The fact of the matter is, toset the record straight, I have only re-ferred to one Member of this body as a‘‘pinko.’’ On Friday, October 18,1963——

MR [JOHN J.] ROONEY [of New York]:Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentle-man’s words be taken down.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman willsuspend. The demand has been madethat the gentleman’s words be takendown.

MR. [BRUCE R.] ALGER [of Texas]:Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair cannot en-tertain that at this time.

§ 4.13 The Speaker does notentertain hypothetical ques-tions.On Sept. 14, 1944,(13) a par-

liamentary inquiry was addressedto Speaker pro tempore OrvilleZimmerman, of Missouri:

MR. [CLARK E.] HOFFMAN [of Michi-gan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in-quiry.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:: Thegentleman will state it.

MR. HOFFMAN: I gathered fromstatements which were made on thefloor today that a statement going backas far as 1920 and containing informa-tion as to the amounts of money re-quested by the military establishmentsof the Government, as to the amountsthat had been recommended by the ex-ecutive department, and as to theamounts finally appropriated by Con-gress, had been sent to the Committeeon Appropriations, but for some 2years it had been in the safe overthere, inaccessible to Members of theHouse. By what authority or what ruleof Congress or what rule governingcommittees was that suppressed?

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE (Mr.Zimmerman): The present occupant ofthe chair has no knowledge of any suchfacts, and therefore is not in a positionto answer the gentleman’s inquiry.

MR. HOFFMAN: Does the Chair meanhe does not have any knowledge thatthat is true?

482



THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: TheChair has no knowledge of that, exceptthat somebody has said it is true, ac-cording to the gentleman’s statement.

MR. HOFFMAN: Submitting that thenas a hypothetical question.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: TheChair does not entertain a hypotheticalquestion. . . .

§ 4.14 The Speaker normallyavoids answering parliamen-tary inquiries based upon hy-pothetical facts or futureevents which are not certainof happening.On Mar. 1, 1967,(14) a par-

liamentary inquiry was addressedto Speaker John W. McCormack,of Massachusetts:

MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., ofLouisiana]: Mr. Speaker, in view of thefact that I am limited to one inquiry,that one inquiry will of necessity berather long.

Am I correct in assuming that underthe rules in debating House Resolution278 that now, since the time has beenextended an additional hour by unani-mous consent over and beyond whatthe rules of the House provide for, thatthe gentleman from New York [Mr.Celler] will control the time for the 2hours less that yielded to the gen-tleman from West Virginia and thatthis time will be used for no purposeexcept debate of House Resolution 278;that he will have the option of deter-mining whether or not amendments or

substitutes can be offered; that at theconclusion of this two hours of debateon House Resolution 278 he will movethe previous question, which, if voteddown, will make amendments or sub-stitutes to House Resolution 278 inorder; at that time will the Speakergive preference, if the previous ques-tion is voted down, to the minority whooppose the resolution to control the en-suing hour, or will the Chair give pref-erence to committee members who op-pose the resolution regardless of whichside of the aisle they sit on to offeramendments or substitutes to HouseResolution 278; and if amendments orsubstitutes are offered then will thereoccur another vote on the previousquestion, if the preceding previousquestion is voted down, and what willbe the order of priority in recognizingsome Member of the House on eitherside of the aisle, either alternativelyDemocratic and Republican or alter-natively Republican and Democratic indetermining who will control each en-suing hour; and will we have the op-portunity to vote on all previous ques-tions no matter how many amend-ments are offered as long as precedingprevious questions are voted down?

THE SPEAKER: In answering the sev-eral questions involved in the state-ment made or in the parliamentary in-quiry made by the gentleman fromLouisiana, the Chair will state that theChair will follow the rules of the Houseof Representatives as it is the duty ofthe Chair to do, and the precedents.The question of the allocation of timeis a matter for the chairman of thecommittee, one-half of the time beingyielded to the gentleman from WestVirginia [Mr. Moore]. Both the chair-man and the ranking minority member

483



of the select committee control the allo-cation of time. The question of recogni-tion is one that the Chair will passupon if that time should arise.

On the other questions of the gen-tleman from Louisiana the Chair willdetermine them as they arise in ac-cordance with the rules of the Houseand the precedents.

§ 4.15 Although it is generallywithin the discretion of theSpeaker to construe the ap-plicability of a House rule toa given situation, where arule explicitly calls for a de-cision by a House committeethe Speaker does not nor-mally answer a general par-liamentary inquiry regardinga committee’s actions or fu-ture actions respecting sucha decision.On Apr. 5, 1967,(15) a par-

liamentary inquiry was addressedto Speaker John W. McCormack,of Massachusetts:

MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois].Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry:


MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, rule XI,26(m) of the Rules of the House of Rep-resentatives states as follows:

If the committee determines thatevidence or testimony at an inves-tigative hearing may tend to defame,degrade, or incriminate any person,it shall—

(1) receive such evidence or testi-mony in executive session;

Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Ifthe committee determines that the evi-dence it is about to receive may tend todefame, degrade or incriminate a wit-ness, is it not compulsory under theRules of the House for the committeeto hold such hearings in executive ses-sion?

THE SPEAKER: The Chair will statethat that is a matter which would bein the control of the committee forcommittee action.

MR. YATES: Mr. Speaker, a furtherparliamentary inquiry.


MR. YATES: I must say that I do notunderstand the ruling. Is the Chairruling that a committee can waive thisrule? That it can refuse to recognizethis rule?

THE SPEAKER: The Chair would notwant to pass upon a general par-liamentary inquiry, as distinguishedfrom a particular one with facts, butthe Chair is of the opinion that if thecommittee voted to make public thetestimony taken in executive session, itis not in violation of the rule, and cer-tainly that would be a committee mat-ter.

§ 4.16 Although it is consid-ered within the discretion ofthe Chair to respond to aparliamentary inquiry con-cerning an amendment, it isnot considered proper forhim to do so before theamendment is offered.

484


16. 113 CONG. REC. 17754, 17755 90thCong. 1st Sess.



On June 28, 1967,(16) a par-liamentary inquiry was addressedto the Chairman of the Committeeof the Whole, John J. Flynt, Jr., ofGeorgia:

MR. [JOSEPH E.] KARTH [of Min-nesota]: Mr. Chairman, if that figurecannot be further amended, and thegentleman chooses to pursue hisamendment, and change the figure onpage 2, would it then be a properamendment?

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does notpass on that until an amendment de-scribed by the gentleman from Min-nesota is offered.

The gentleman’s parliamentary in-quiry is premature. It cannot be madeuntil such an amendment is offered.

§ 4.17 Whether a propositionwill be subject to a roll callvote at a future time is amatter for the House, andnot the Speaker, to decide.On June 29, 1961,(17) a Member

introduced a resolution which be-came the subject of two par-liamentary inquiries when hewithdrew it.

MR. [SAMUEL W.] FRIEDEL [of Mary-land]: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the res-olution.

MR. [HAROLD R.] GROSS [of Iowa]:Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

THE SPEAKER: [Sam Rayburn, ofTexas]: The gentleman will state it.

MR. GROSS: Is is not necessary toask unanimous consent to withdrawthe resolution?

THE SPEAKER: It is, but the Chairdid not think anyone would object tothat unanimous consent request.

MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, a furtherparliamentary inquiry.


MR. GROSS: Will this resolution besubject to a rollcall vote when it iscalled up again?

THE SPEAKER: That would be up tothe House to decide.

When Rulings Would Be Im-proper

§ 4.18 The Chair does not ruleon the constitutionality ofmeasures.On Oct. 7, 1966,(18) the Chair-

man of the Committee of theWhole ruled on a point of order asfollows:

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. [Charles Mel-vin] Price [of Illinois]): The Chair isready to rule.

The gentleman from Virginia [Mr.Smith] raises a point of order againstthe amendment as to the constitu-tionality and the germaneness of theamendment. The Chair holds that theamendment is germane because it pro-vides a different condition in the mat-ter of agreement to the compact.

As to the question of constitu-tionality, the Chair holds that the

485




Chair does not pass upon a constitu-tional question and this is in keepingwith the ruling made by the gentlemanfrom Virginia [Mr. Smith] on March11, 1958.

Therefore, the point of order is over-ruled.

§ 4.19 The Chair does not passon the effect of an amend-ment. . . .On June 23, 1960,(19) Mr. Her-

man C. Anderson, of Minnesota,sought a determination from theChair as to whether an amend-ment, if adopted, would ‘‘undo’’the work of the previous day.Chairman Frank N. Ikard, ofTexas, in the exchange below, de-clined to rule on the effect of theamendment:

MR. ANDERSON of Minnesota: Mr.Chairman, a point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman willstate it.

MR. ANDERSON of Minnesota: Is thegentleman’s amendment in order atthis point after the substitute for theQuie amendment has been adopted?

THE CHAIRMAN: It is.MR. ANNDERSON of Minnesota: And

its effect would be to undo everythingthat we did yesterday?

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does notpass on the effect of amendments. . . .

§ 4.20 Although the Chair mayrule on the germaneness of

an amendment to a bill, hedoes not rule on the meritsof the amendment or bill.On May 19, 1948,(1) a point of

order was raised against anamendment being considered bythe Committee of the Whole:

MR. [KARL E.] MUNDT [of South Da-kota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the pointof order against the amendment that itis not germane to the pendingbill. . . .

THE CHAIRMAN [James W. Wads-worth, Jr., of New York]: . . . TheChair is ready to rule.

The Chair would remind the gen-tleman . . . that [the Chair’s] functionis not to pass upon the merits of anamendment nor to pass upon the mer-its of the bill which the gentleman sayshas already passed the House. TheChair may personally find himself incomplete agreement with the objectivesought by the legislation. . . . but thelegislation to which he refers, as theChair understands, has to do with theimmigration and naturalization laws ofthe United States. This bill pendingbefore the Committee of the Wholedoes not approach that subject. . . . Itcomes from the Committee on Un-American Activities. That committeehas no jurisdiction over legislation hav-ing to do with immigration and natu-ralization laws. Therefore, the Chairholds that the amendment is not ger-mane.

§ 4.21 The Speaker does notrule on the purpose of a

486


2. 79 CONG. REC. 4781, 4782 74thCong. 1st Sess.


recommended committeeamendment to a bill.On Apr. 1, 1935,(2) a point of

order was raised against anamendment being considered bythe House:

MR. [MALCOLM C.] TARVER [of Geor-gia] (interrupting the reading of thecommittee amendment): Mr. Speaker, Idesire to make a point of order againstthe first committee amendment, whichis to strike out all of section 1 after theenacting clause and insert certain lan-guage. The language which is proposedbe inserted is identical with the lan-guage of section 1 now in the bill. Theproposal of the committee amendmentis simply to strike out existing lan-guage and then reinsert identical lan-guage.

THE SPEAKER: [Joseph W. Byrns, ofTennessee]: The Chair cannot pass onthat. The Chair will say to the gen-tleman from Georgia that is a matterfor the House to determine. The Chaircannot enter into the purpose of thecommittee in proposing the amend-ment, since that is not within the prov-ince of the Chair. The Chair will sug-gest to the gentleman from Georgiathat the remedy that occurs to theChair is for the House to vote downthe committee amendment and passthe bill as originally introduced.

§ 4.22 The Chair does not ruleon the sufficiency, insuffi-ciency, legal effect, or bind-ing nature of a committee re-port.

On Apr. 14, 1955,(3) a questionregarding a committee report wasraised during debate in the Com-mittee of the Whole:

MR. [ROBERT C.] WILSON of Cali-fornia: I have a question relative to theUnited States Information Agency as itaffects the report of the com-mittee. . . .

I am wondering if the fact that theselimitations appear in the report makethem actual limitations in law. [ noticethey are not mentioned in the billitself, and I wonder if the committeeregards them as binding on the agency,because there are many serious limita-tions, particularly in regard to exhib-its, for example. I would just like tohear the opinion of the chairman.

MR. [JOHN J.] RODNEY [of NewYork]: I may say to the gentlemanfrom California that it is expected thatthey will be the law; and that they arebinding. The fact that they have notbeen inserted in the bill is not impor-tant. They represent the consideredjudgment of the committee and we ex-pect the language of the report to befollowed.

MR. WILSON of California: Mr. Chair-man, a parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN [Jere Cooper, of Ten-nessee]: The gentleman will state it.

MR. WILSON of California: Are limi-tations written in a committee reportsuch as this, but not written into thewording of the legislation, binding?

THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a par-liamentary inquiry. That is a matter tobe settled by the members of the Com-mittee of the Whole.

487



5. 102 CONG. REC. 11875, 84TH CONG. 2D

SESS.

MR. WILSON of California: I merelywanted it for my own understandingand information, for I am fairly newhere. It seems to me rather unusual toconsider matter written into a report ofthe same binding effect on an adminis-trator as though written into the lawitself.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is not the preroga-tive of the Chair to pass upon the suffi-ciency or insufficiency of a committeereport.

§ 4.23 The Speaker does notrule on the substantive effectof extraneous material in acommittee report on a bill.On Dec. 3, 1963,(4) a parliamen-

tary inquiry was addressed toSpeaker John W. McCormack, ofMassachusetts, during the col-loquy set out below after his rul-ing on a committee report:

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is preparedto rule. . . .

It is the opinion of the Chair thatthe report of the committee complieswith the Ramseyer rule, the purpose ofwhich is to give Members informationin relation to any change in existinglaw.

If a report includes some other ref-erences to other laws which in a sensewould be surplusage or unnecessary, itis the Chair’s opinion that the com-mittee was attempting to give to theMembers of the House as full informa-tion as was possible. . . .

MR. [PAUL] FINDLEY [of Illinois]: Mr.Speaker——

THE SPEAKER: For what purposedoes the gentleman from Illinois rise?

MR. FINDLEY: To propound a par-liamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman willstate the parliamentary inquiry.

MR. FINDLEY: I am not clear aboutthe substantive effect of the ruling ofthe Chair at this time. Does it meanthat section 105 of the 1949 act andsection 330 of the 1938 act are re-pealed by this bill?

THE SPEAKER: The Chair did notpass on that. The Chair simply saidthat they were included in the report.

§ 4.24 The Chair does not ruleon whether language con-tained in a measure is ambig-uous.On July 5, 1956,(5) certain

points of order were raised con-cerning a pending amendment:

MR. [ROSS] BASS of Tennessee: Imake the point of order that theamendment is not germane to the bill.

THE CHAIRMAN [Francis E. Walter,of Pennsylvania]: It is certainly ger-mane to the amendment offered by thegentleman from New York to sub-stitute the word ‘‘decisions’’ for theword ‘‘provisions.’’ The Chair so rules.

MR. BASS of Tennessee: Mr. Chair-man, a further point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman willstate it.

MR. BASS of Tennessee: I make thepoint of order that the word ‘‘provi-sions’’ is ambiguous and has no mean-

488




ing whatever and would make theamendment not germane.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does notrule on the question of ambiguity. It isa question of germaneness solely, andthe Chair has ruled that the amend-ment is germane.

§ 4.25 The Speaker does notrule in advance as to wheth-er a particular motion to re-commit a measure with in-structions might be in order.On Dec. 19, 1963,(6) a par-

liamentary inquiry was addressedto Speaker John W. McCormack,of Massachusetts, relative to amotion to recommit with instruc-tions a conference report.

MR. [CHARLES A.] HALLECK [of Indi-ana]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in-quiry.


MR. HALLECK: Mr. Speaker, in theevent that the conference report isacted on first in the House, as we nowunderstand it will be, would a motionto recommit with instructions be inorder?

THE SPEAKER: A proper motionwould be.

MR. HALLECK: Of course, it wouldhave to be germane. If so, a motion torecommit to insist on the wheatamendment, I take it, would be inorder.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair, of course,would pass upon any question at theappropriate time.

MR. HALLECK: I thank the Chair.

§ 4.26 The Chair does not rulein advance whether an an-nounced topic of speech is inorder.On Sept. 26 (legislative day,

Sept. 25), 1961,(7) a Member re-quested unanimous consent to ad-dress the House on a particulartopic:

MR. [CLARK E.] HOFFMAN of Michi-gan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent that at the conclusion of theregularly scheduled business of theHouse and all other special orders fortoday that I may be permitted to pro-ceed for 5 minutes on the topic: ‘‘Is theCongress Mentally Ill?’’

MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr.Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: [JohnW. McCormack, of Massachusetts]: Thegentleman will state it.

MR. BOW: Is that a proper subject fordebate on the floor of the House?

MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr.Speaker, I submit neither the Chairnor the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.Bow], can tell until they hear it.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Thegentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoff-man] asked unanimous consent thatafter all other special orders he be per-mitted to address the House for 5 min-utes. That is the gentleman’s unani-mous consent request?

MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Yes, Mr.Speaker.

489




THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Whatthe gentleman from Michigan [Mr.Hoffman] talks about is a matter forhim to determine, and then a matterfor the Members.

Is there objection to the request ofthe gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

§ 4.27 The Chair does not con-strue the consequences of a‘‘no’’ vote by the House on aproposed motion.On Sept. 7, 1965,(8) various par-

liamentary inquiries concerningcertain motions were addressed toSpeaker pro tempore Carl Albert,of Oklahoma, as follows:

MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Mis-souri]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentaryinquiry.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Thegentleman will state it.

MR. HALL: Is a highly privileged mo-tion according to the Constitution sub-ject to a motion to table?

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It is.MR. [L. MENDEL] RIVERS of South

Carolina: Mr. Speaker, a parliamen-tary inquiry.


MR. RIVERS of South Carolina: Thosedesiring to table the motion of the gen-tleman from Missouri will vote ‘‘aye’’when their names are called.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: TheChair is about to state the question. Somany as are in favor of the motion by

the gentleman from South Carolina totable the motion of the gentleman fromMissouri will when their names arecalled vote ‘‘aye’’ and those who are op-posed will vote ‘‘no.’’

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, a furtherparliamentary inquiry.


MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, would a‘‘no’’ vote as just stated by the Chair betantamount to overriding the Presi-dential veto of the military construc-tion bill?

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: TheChair cannot make such constructionon a motion.

§ 4.28 The Chair does not con-strue the result of a vote.On Sept. 13, 1961,(9) questions

regarding a future vote were ad-dressed to Speaker pro temporeJohn W. McCormack, of Massa-chusetts.

MR. [WILLIAM C.] CRAMER [of Flor-ida]: Is it true, Mr. Speaker, that ifthis motion is voted upon favorably,there will be no opportunity on thepart of the House whatsoever to con-sider the vote fraud amendment ap-proved in a bill——

MR. [JOHN J.] ROONEY [of NewYork]: Mr. Speaker, I submit that isnot a parliamentary inquiry.

MR. CRAMER: Which is now pendingbefore the Committee on Rules?

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: TheChair has stated before that he has hisown personal opinion. The Chair can-not construe the result of the vote.

490


10. 94 CONG. REC. 9268, 9269, 80thCong. 2d Sess.


Challenge of Conference Re-port

§ 4.29 The Speaker may not im-peach the names of confereeswho have signed a con-ference report on a bill whenthe report has been chal-lenged as being invalid foran alleged failure of the con-ferees to meet.On June 19, 1948,(10) a point of

order was raised regarding a con-ference report.

MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of NewYork]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point oforder, and I ask the indulgence of theSpeaker so that I may argue the point.

THE SPEAKER: [Joseph W. Martin,Jr., of Massachusetts]: The Chair willhear the gentleman.

MR. MARCANTONIO: Mr. Speaker, Imake the point of order that the docu-ment which has just been presented isnot the report of any conference. It isnot the product of a full and free con-ference as required in Jefferson’s Man-ual. I make my point of order based onthe proposition that there has neverbeen a valid conference—specifically,that there has never been a validmeeting on the part of the managerson the part of the House. . . .

THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready torule.

On page 770, volume 5, of Hinds’Precedents, section 6497 states:

A conference report is received ifsigned by a majority of the managersof each House.

The Chair has examined the reportand the papers and finds that it issigned by five of the managers on thepart of the Senate and six of the sevenmanagers on the part of the House.

The Chair has no knowledge, ofcourse, how this report was reached,but the Chair cannot impeach thenames of the managers on the part ofthe two Houses. Furthermore, the Sen-ate having already received the report,and according to a message heretoforereceived by the House has officiallyadopted it, the Chair feels that underthe circumstances the report is prop-erly before the House for such actionas the House may see fit to take. TheChair overrules the point of order.

When Recognition Required

§ 4.30 The Speaker is con-strained to recognize on Cal-endar Wednesdays any Mem-ber properly proposing a mo-tion to dispense with Cal-endar Wednesday business.On June 5, 1946,(11) a motion

was made to dispense with Cal-endar Wednesday business.

MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of NewYork]: Mr. Speaker, that motion is notin order. To dispense with CalendarWednesday requires the unanimousconsent of the House. . . .

THE SPEAKER: [Sam Rayburn, ofTexas]: The Chair will state that thefollowing was held by Speaker Gillette,who has been quoted today, as follows:

491


12. Recognizing for debate, see Ch. 29,infra.

13. Motions generally, see Ch. 23, infra.14. 91 CONG. REC. 2379, 2380, 79th

Cong. 1st Sess.15. 89 CONG. REC. 8197, 78th Cong. 1st

Sess.

The Speaker is constrained to rec-ognize on Wednesdays any Memberproposing a motion to dispense withfurther proceedings in order on thatday.

The motion is in order, but it takesa two-thirds vote to pass it.

§ 4.31 Although the Speakerhas the discretion to choosebetween Members seekingrecognition,(12) he is obligedto recognize for a privilegedmotion when the proponenthas the floor and no othermotion of higher privilege ispending or offered.(13)

§ 4.32 Although the Speakerhas discretion to recognize,or not, a Member under mostcircumstances, he may notrefuse to recognize a Mem-ber having the floor for a mo-tion to adjourn.On Mar. 16, 1945,(14) a motion

to recommit a bill was made.Votes were taken and a quorumfound not to be present. This ledto a call for adjournment.

MR. [CLARE E.] HOFFMAN [of Michi-gan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in-quiry.

THE SPEAKER: [Sam Rayburn, ofTexas]: The gentleman will state it.

MR. HOFFMAN: What is the regularorder now?

THE SPEAKER: The regular order isto see if a quorum develops.

MR. HOFFMAN: Is it in order to ad-journ?

THE SPEAKER: That motion is alwaysin order in the House.

MR. HOFFMAN: If there is not aquorum, Mr. Speaker, I move we ad-journ.

THE SPEAKER: Will the gentlemanwithhold that for a moment?

THE HOFFMAN: If the Chair is refus-ing recognition, I will.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair cannot dothat.

The House then agreed to a mo-tion, offered by Mr. John W.McCormack, of Massachusetts, toadjourn.

§ 4.33. Inasmuch as Membersof the Senate may not ad-dress the House unless theHouse rules are changed byproper procedure, the Speak-er has declined to recognizea Member for the purpose ofasking unanimous consentfor the consideration of aresolution to allow Senatorsto address the House.On Oct. 11, 1943,(15) Members

discussed the desirability of invit-ing certain Senators to addressthe House.

MRS. [EDITH NOURSE] ROGERS ofMassachusetts: Mr. Speaker, on Thurs-

492


16. Compare § 3.44, supra, as to theSpeaker’s inherent power to declarea recess in an emergency.


18. 115 CONG. REC. 24653, 91st Cong 1stSess.

day last I, with several others, calledattention to the importance of havingthe five Senators who have just re-turned from the far-flung battle frontsgive the Members of the House theirfindings regarding conditions on thebattle fronts. I understand there issome objection to having them appearin the House Chamber. I hope the gen-tleman from Mississippi and some ofthe other Members will join in askingthem to appear in the Caucus Room.Then we can all have the benefit oftheir valuable information. It does notmatter where we hear their testimonyso long as we hear it.

MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mis-sissippi]: If the gentlewoman will yield,let me say that these are Members ofthe United States Senate. They havethe privilege of the floor. We have aperfect right to invite them here to ad-dress the Members of the House in se-cret session. We want them to comehere and give us the benefit of the in-formation they have garnered in theirtrip to the various battle fronts of theworld.

MRS. ROGERS of Massachusetts: Hasthe gentleman consulted the Speakerand leaders about it?

MR. RANKIN: I have, and I think thatwhen the resolution is offered they willagree that this is the place to havethem.

THE SPEAKER: [Sam Rayburn, ofTexas]: The Chair thinks it is time forthe Chair to make a statement, be-cause this matter was discussed withthe Chair by the gentlewoman fromMassachusetts [Mrs. Rogers], lastweek, and the gentleman from Mis-sissippi [Mr. Rankin], over the phone.

The Chair does not intend to recog-nize a Member to ask unanimous con-

sent for the present consideration of aresolution inviting Senators to addressthe House in open or executive session,because the Chair thinks that is tanta-mount to an amendment to the rules ofthe House and, therefore, is a matterfor the House to determine. If resolu-tions like that are introduced, they willbe sent to the proper committee.

Authority to Declare Recess

§ 4.34 The Speaker, under nor-mal circumstances, must beauthorized by the House todeclare recesses.(16)

On Oct. 3, 1964,(17) for example,unanimous consent was requestedand received to authorize SpeakerJohn W. McCormack, of Massa-chusetts, to declare recesses, sub-ject to the call of the Chair, dur-ing the remainder of the day.

§ 4.35 Authority conferredupon the Speaker to declarerecesses of the House may bevacated by unanimous con-sent.On Sept. 8, 1969,(l8) unanimous

consent was requested to vacateprevious authorization for Speak-er John W. McCormack, of Massa-

493


19. Parliamentarian’s Note: The author-ization to declare the recess was va-cated due to the death of SenatorEverett Dirksen.


chusetts, to declare recess on acertain day.

Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr.Speaker, I ask unanimous consent thatthe authority for the Speaker to de-clare a recess on September 10 be va-cated.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromOklahoma?

There was no objection.MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I also ask

unanimous consent that it may be inorder for the Speaker to declare a re-cess at any time on September 16 forthe purpose of receiving in joint meet-ing the Apollo 11 astronauts.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromOklahoma?

There was no objection.(19)

Authority to Sign Bills andResolutions

§ 4.36 The Speaker must beformally authorized to sign aduplicate copy of an enrolledbill.On May 27, 1938,(20) a unani-

mous-consent request was madeas follows:

MR. [SAM] RAYBURN [of Texas]: Mr.Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for

the present consideration of SenateConcurrent Resolution No. 37.

The Clerk read the concurrent reso-lution, as follows:

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 37

Resolved by the Senate (the Houseof Representatives concurring), Thatthe Speaker of the House of Rep-resentatives and the President of theSenate be, and they are hereby, au-thorized to sign a duplicate copy ofthe enrolled bill (S. 3532) entitled‘‘An act to extend the times for com-mencing and completing the con-struction of a bridge across the Mis-souri River at or near Randolph,Mo.,’’ and that the Secretary of theSenate be, and he is hereby, directedto transmit the same to the Presi-dent of the United States.

THE SPEAKER [William B. Bankhead,of Alabama]: Is there objection to therequest of the gentleman from Texas?

MR. [CARL E.] MAPES [of Michigan]:Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to ob-ject, will the gentleman from Texas ex-plain the purpose of this resolution?

MR. RAYBURN: Mr. Speaker, the situ-ation is that before this bill got to thePresident for his signature it was mis-placed or lost. This is a resolution toallow the President to sign a duplicate.

THE SPEAKER: Is there objection tothe request of the gentleman fromTexas?


§ 4.37 The Speaker must beformally authorized by theHouse to sign enrolled billsand joint resolutions duringa sine die adjournment of theCongress.

494





On Oct. 14, 1968,(11) a resolu-tion was offered by Mr. Carl Al-bert, of Oklahoma, as follows:

MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I call upSenate Concurrent Resolution 82 andask for its present consideration.

The Clerk read the Senate concur-rent resolution, as follows:

S. CON. RES. 82

Resolved by the Senate (the Houseof Representatives concurring), That,notwithstanding the sine die ad-journment of the two Houses, theSpeaker of the House of Representa-tives and the President of the Sen-ate, the President pro tempore, orthe Acting President pro tempore be,and they are hereby, authorized tosign enrolled bills and joint resolu-tions duly passed by the two Housesand found truly enrolled.

The Senate concurrent resolu-tion was concurred in.

§ 4.38 The Speaker is normallyauthorized by unanimousconsent to sign enrolled billsand joint resolutions duringany adjournment of theHouse.On Aug. 10, 1961,(2) a unani-

mous consent request was madeas follows:

MR. [JOHN W.] MCCORMACK [of Mas-sachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-mous consent that notwithstandingany adjournment of the House during

the present session of the 87th Con-gress, the Clerk be authorized to re-ceive messages from the Senate andthat the Speaker be authorized to signany enrolled bills and joint resolutionsduly passed by the two Houses andfound truly enrolled.

MR. [HAROLD R.] GROSS [of Iowa]:Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to ob-ject, are we going to enter into somerecesses or adjournments of the House?

MR. MCCORMACK: For example, suchas adjourning from Friday to Monday.

MR. GROSS: That is all the gen-tleman has in mind?

MR. MCCORMACK: That is all. . . .THE SPEAKER: [Sam Rayburn, of

Texas]: Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from Massa-chusetts?


§ 4.39 Although it is within theauthority of the Speaker tosign enrolled bills, by con-current resolution the Con-gress may rescind the Speak-er’s signature.On July 1, 1947,(3) a resolution

was introduced as follows:MR. [EVERETT M.] DIRKSEN [of Illi-

nois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimousconsent to take from the Speaker’stable Senate Concurrent Resolution 22.. . .

The Clerk read the concurrent reso-lution, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate (the Houseof Representatives concurring), That

495



5. House Rules and Manual § 751(1973).

6. See §§ 5.1, 5.2, infra.7. See § 5.3, infra.8. See Ch. 29, infra, for fuller treat-

ment of the Speaker’s participationin debate.

9. Rule I clause 6, House Rules andManual § 632 (1973).

the President of the United Statesbe, and he is hereby, requested to re-turn to the House of Representativesthe enrolled bill (H.R. 493) to amendsection 4 of the act entitled ‘‘An actto control the possession, sale, trans-fer, and use of pistols and other dan-gerous weapons in the District of Co-lumbia,’’ approved July 8, 1932 (sec.22, 3204 D.C. Code, 1940 ed.): that ifand when the said bill is returned bythe President, the action of the Pre-siding Officer of the two Houses insigning the said bill be deemed to berescinded; and that the House en-grossed bill be returned to the Sen-ate.

THE SPEAKER [Joseph W. Martin,Jr., of Massachusetts]: Is there objec-tion to the request of the gentlemanfrom Illinois?

There was no objection.The concurrent resolution was

agreed to.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

§ 4.40 Although it is within theauthority of the Speaker tosign enrolled bills of theHouse, the House may agreeto a Senate resolution re-questing that the Speaker’ssignature be rescinded.On July 30, 1942,(4) Speaker pro

tempore Alfred L. Bulwinkle, ofNorth Carolina, laid before theHouse a Senate resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary be di-rected to request the House of Rep-resentatives to rescind the action ofthe Speaker in signing the enrolled

bill (H.R. 7297) entitled ‘‘An act au-thorizing the assignment of per-sonnel from departments or agenciesin the executive branch of the Gov-ernment to certain investigatingcommittees of the Senate and Houseof Representatives, and for otherpurposes,’’ and that the House ofRepresentatives be further requestedto return the above-numbered en-grossed bill to the Senate.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: With-out objection, it is so ordered.


§ 5. Participation in De-bate and Voting

The Speaker is entitled as aMember of the House to partici-pate in debate.(5) Accordingly,when the Speaker desires to beheard in debate on a matter hemay speak from the floor, whetherdebate is in the House (6) or in theCommittee of the Whole.(7) Occa-sionally the Speaker will speak indebate from the Chair.(8)

Under the House rules (9) theSpeaker may, but is not required,to vote on matters except where(1) his vote would be decisive, or

§4. Limitations on the Speaker’s Powers · PDF fileLimitations on the...

Documents

Transcript of §4. Limitations on the Speaker’s Powers · PDF fileLimitations on the...