<DOC>
[Cannon's Precedents -- Volume VIII]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:cannon_cclxxiv.wais]



                          Chapter CCLXXIV.\1\
 
                       THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

   1. Office of Official Reporter. Section 3459.
   2. As to what should be printed in Record. Section 3460.
   3. Revision of remarks of Members. Sections 3461-3470.
   4. Disorderly words excluded or stricken out. Sections 3475-
     3495.
   5. As to authority of Speaker over. Section 3474.
   6. ``Leave to print'' and questions arising therefrom. Sections 
     3475-3495.
   7. Correction of the Record a question of privilege. Sections 
     3496-3498.
   8. Rules for publication of Record. Sections 3499-3502.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

  3459. Official stenographers to the standing committees of the House 
shall not furnish transcripts of testimony adduced before such 
committees without written authorization from the chairman of the 
committee.
  The Speaker exercises jurisdiction over the Official Reporters of the 
House and the committee stenographers and their assistants and 
substitutes.
  On June 30, 1926,\2\ the Speaker,\3\ addressing the House by consent, 
said:

  The attention of the Chair has recently been drawn to a practice 
which, it seems, is of at least doubtful propriety, if not quite 
reprehensible. The practice to which the Chair refers, and apparently 
there has been no ruling against it, concerns the sale by committee 
stenographers and their assistants or substitutes of transcripts of 
their notes, taken before committees of the House, to interested 
parties before the transcripts have been submitted to the witnesses or 
to members of the committee for revision, and certainly without asking 
permission of the chairmen of the different committees.
  A special case was called to the attention of the Chair a few days 
ago, where a committee, having held public hearings and heard certain 
testimony, decided that it was unwise to print the testimony for 
various reasons of public policy. In the meantime, however, it 
developed that a committee substitute stenographer had sold the 
transcript of his notes to an interested party. It occurs to the Chair 
that that is an extremely reprehensible practice. In the first place, 
the Chair is unable to see what right of property the committee 
stenographer has in these notes, and an even more serious situation 
presents itself in such an occasion as that to which the Chair has 
referred, where the committee thought it inadvisable to make public the 
testimony taken at the hearing. Certainly the committee should have the 
right to say that testimony should not be made public, and if a 
committee stenographer or a substitute may, immediately after 
transcribing his notes, sell a transcript of them to interested 
parties, then the functions and powers of the committee, in so far as 
publicity is concerned, are nil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXLIV.
  \2\ First session, Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 12395.
  \3\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 3460
  The Chair understands that the Speaker has entire jurisdiction with 
regard to both the Official Reporters of the House and the committee 
stenographers and their assistants or substitutes. As there is no rule, 
so far as the Chair can ascertain, that would apply to this situation, 
he will make the ruling here and now that no committee stenographer or 
assistant committee stenographer or any substitute may, either for or 
without consideration, dispose of a transcript of his notes to anyone 
without first receiving from the chairman of the committee permission 
in writing, specifying the person or persons to whom such transcript is 
to be delivered; and if any case is called to the attention of the 
Chair in the future where anyone has violated that rule, his sphere of 
usefulness in the south end of the Capitol will be at once ended.

  3460. A Member may not demand the reading of the reporter's notes.
  On February 6, 1918,\1\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 5667) providing for the 
deportation of certain aliens.
  Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, offered this amendment:

  Strike out the words ``or with any of the other central powers of 
Europe'' and insert in lieu thereof ``Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, or 
Turkey.''

  After brief debate the amendment was agreed to.
  Shortly thereafter, Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, whose 
attention had been temporarily distracted, submitted that the amendment 
had not been voted on.
  Being assured that the vote had been taken and that it had been 
decided in the affirmative, Mr. Madden asked that the reporter's notes 
be read to sustain his contention.
  The Chairman \2\ declined to entertain the request and held that a 
demand for the reading of the reporter's record of the proceedings was 
out of order.
  3461. A Member may, with the approval of the Speaker, revise his 
remarks before publication in the Record; but may not change the notes 
of his speech in such a way as to affect the remarks of others without 
securing their consent.
  In revising remarks for the Record a Member may insert the words 
``laughter'', ``applause'', etc., when they reflect actual proceedings 
on the floor, although the practice is deprecated.
  Revisions of remarks which do not materially alter the purport of the 
Member's statements or affect colloquies with others are admissible, 
but alterations or omissions productive of statements substantially 
different from those submitted by the Official Reporters of the House 
are not in order.
  A question of privilege takes precedence of a motion to resolve into 
the Committee of the Whole.
  Instance wherein a question involving the right to revise remarks for 
the Record was submitted to a special committee.
  On January 27, 1917,\3\ Mr. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, moved that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for the consideration of the fortifications 
appropriation bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1788.
  \2\ Joseph J. Russell, of Missouri, Chairman.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 2124.
                                                            Sec. 3461
  Pending that motion, Mr. J. Willard Ragsdale, of South Carolina, 
claimed the floor for a question of privilege and offered the following 
resolution:

  Whereas the report of the colloquy between Messrs. Norton of North 
Dakota, Fess of Ohio, Heflin of Alabama, and Ragsdale of South Carolina 
as printed in the Record of January 25, 1917, differs from the official 
reports of the colloquy, as will be shown by reference to the 
typewritten reports now on file and the printed report of the record of 
January 25, 1917:
  Resolved, That the Record of January 25, 1917, be amended by printing 
the colloquies between Messrs. Norton of North Dakota, Fess of Ohio, 
Heflin of Alabama, and Ragsdale of South Carolina as reported by the 
Official Reporters of the House.

  Mr. Sherley made the point of order that the resolution was not 
privileged.
  The Speaker \1\ decided:

  The Chair thinks it is a privileged resolution, as it goes to the 
good order of the House. The Chair investigated that matter yesterday.

  After debate Mr. Claude Kitchin, of North Carolina, moved to refer 
the resolution to a special committee of three to be appointed by the 
Speaker.
  On an aye and no vote the motion was agreed to, yeas 147, nays 137, 
and the Speaker appointed as members of the committee so authorized, 
Mr. Lincoln Dixon, of Indiana, Mr. Alfred G. Allen, of Ohio, and Mr. 
Frank Wheeler Mondell, of Wyoming.
  On March 3, 1917,\2\ Mr. Dixon presented the report of the special 
committee as a matter of privilege and asked for its immediate 
consideration.
  By direction of the Speaker the Clerk read the report in full.
  The question submitted to the special committee is thus set forth in 
the report:

  This resolution involves the question of the right of a Member of the 
House to demand that the words of another Member spoken in debate or 
discussion on the floor of the House be entered in the Record as 
reported by the Official Reporters of the House; but, by reason of the 
circumstances of the particular case in question, the issue is narrowed 
to that of the right of a Member to demand the printing in the Record 
words spoken in colloquial debate as reported by the Official Reporters 
of the House, including the interlineations made by the Official 
Reporters indicating laughter and applause during the course of the 
discussion.
  The question at issue is divisible to two parts: First, the question 
of the right of a Member to demand that words shall be printed in the 
Record as reported by the official Reporters, together with the 
official interlineations indicating laughter and applause where there 
is no controversy as to the substantial accuracy of the report; and, 
second, the right of a Member to demand that the words spoken in debate 
and the interlineations relative to laughter and applause as reported 
by the Official Reporters of the House shall be printed in the Record 
even though the substantial accuracy of the report as presented may be 
questioned.

  The unwritten law governing the revision of remarks for the Record is 
outlined by the committee as follows:

  The practice of editing and revising remarks, either with or without 
specific authority from the House in the particular case, is long 
established and quite generally--oftentimes quite freely--indulged in. 
When the revision involves no substantial modification of a statement, 
but simply improves or amplifies the form of statement or argument, 
your committee is of the opinion that such revision has the sanction of 
long and quite general practice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \2\ Record, p. 4927.
Sec. 3461
  The more specific issue presented for the consideration of the 
special committee is submitted in this language:

  In the case in question, however, the debate became colloquial and 
personal, and the question is as to the right of the Member or Members 
who participated in such a debate to insist that when a portion of the 
debate has been printed in the Record as reported by the Official 
Reporters of the House, without substantial modification, erasure, or 
addition, the remainder of the debate shall also be printed 
substantially as reported.

  The report then proceeds to apply the rule to the case in point:

  After a careful reading of the official notes of the debate and the 
debate as printed in the Record, your committee finds that the remarks 
made by the gentleman from South Carolina, as printed in the daily 
Record January 25, 1917, pages 2271, 2272, 2276, and 2277, are 
substantially as reported by the Official Reporters of the House, and 
the interruptions and interlineations denoting laughter and applause 
are printed exactly as shown by the reporters' notes of his remarks.
  We find that the remarks made by the gentleman from Alabama in reply 
to the gentleman from South Carolina, as printed in the Record of the 
aforesaid date, on page 2276, are substantially correct as to the words 
uttered and the statements made as reported by the Official Reporters 
of the House, the changes being such as are reasonably allowable in a 
revision.

  Particular attention is given in the report to the charge that the 
words ``laughter'' and ``applause'' were inserted after the reporter's 
notes were submitted for revision. The committee find:

  We do find, however, that in connection with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Alabama, printed on page 2276, the words ``laughter,'' 
the words ``applause and laughter,'' the word ``applause,'' and the 
words ``applause on the Democratic side'' appear in the printed Record 
where no such words are found in the official report of the reporters 
of the House. Relative to these words, however, it is claimed that 
while they did not appear in the official reports their insertion in 
the Record was justified by what actually occurred. Your committee is 
of the opinion, from statements of Mr. Heflin and other Members of the 
House, that some laughter and applause did greet the speech of the 
gentleman from Alabama, as indicated in the printed Record.

  On this question the committee conclude:

  As to the interlineations in this part of the remarks of the 
gentleman from Alabama indicating ``laughter,'' ``laughter and 
applause,'' ``applause,'' and ``applause on the Democratic side,'' your 
committee is inclined to the opinion, from the statements of the 
gentleman from Alabama and other Members of the House who were present 
when the remarks were made, that there was some laughter and applause, 
as indicated in the Record, which the Official Reporters failed to 
note, and that, therefore, the insertion of these words in the Record 
was possibly justifiable under the practice of the House, though your 
committee respectfully suggests that the insertion of the words 
``applause'' and ``laughter and applause'' is a practice that should be 
discontinued.

  As to the matter of omission of words spoken in debate, however, the 
committee find:

  The closing remarks of the gentleman from Alabama as printed at the 
top of the second column of page 2277 differ substantially both as to 
the language used and as to the character of the interlineations 
relative to interruption, laughter, and applause. The remarks of the 
gentleman from Alabama as printed in the Record are not only 
substantially different from those reported by the Official Reporters, 
but a considerable portion of the remarks of the gentleman from 
Alabama, as reported by the Official Reporters, does not appear in the 
printed Record, and the interruption by the gentleman from Oregon is 
omitted from the printed Record, and the interlineations relative to 
laughter and applause differ.
                                                            Sec. 3462
  The committee therefore decide:

  In view of the facts thus stated, your committee begs to recommend 
and does recommend that, so far as the remarks of the gentleman from 
Alabama first referred to and printed on page 2276 of the Record are 
concerned, they should be held and considered as having been inserted 
in the Record without substantial modification or such change of 
statement as may properly give offense or justify a demand for the 
printing of the words spoken as reported by the Official Reporters, 
although it is admitted that the words as reported were substantially 
as uttered.

  However, the committee further conclude:

  As to the portion of the remarks of the gentleman from Alabama 
printed in the Record on page 2277, at the top of the second column, 
your committee is of the opinion that the remarks as printed in the 
Record admittedly differ so substantially from the words spoken as 
reported by the Official Reporters of the House that it presents a case 
in which it is the privilege of any Member of the House, feeling that 
the dignity of the House or of any Member of the House is affected, to 
demand the printing in the Record of the language as reported by the 
House Reporters, the same being admittedly a substantially correct 
report of what was said. There may be some ground for difference of 
opinion as to correctness of the interlineations--at least some of 
them--but in the main the context and the words of the gentleman from 
Alabama himself in the debate clearly indicate that the interlineations 
relative to laughter and applause were substantially correctly reported 
by the reporters. Furthermore, the omission of the colloquy with the 
gentleman from Oregon is contrary to the established practice of the 
House.

  In conclusion the committee unanimously recommend:

  We therefore recommend that in lieu of the remarks of the gentleman 
from Alabama as printed at the top of the second column on page 2277 of 
the daily Record of January 25, 1917, there be inserted in the 
permanent Record the remarks of the gentleman from Alabama as reported 
by the Official Reporters of the House, a copy of which is herewith 
transmitted.

  The reading of the report having been completed, Mr. Dixon moved the 
adoption of the report, including this resolution:

  Resolved, That the Record of January 25, 1917, be amended by printing 
the colloquies between Messrs. Norton of North Dakota, Fess of Ohio, 
Heflin of Alabama, and Ragsdale of South Carolina as reported by the 
Official Reporters of the House.

  The report was adopted and the resolution was agreed to without 
debate.
  3462. While a Member may revise the reporter's notes of his remarks 
with the approval of the Speaker, he may not extend his remarks in the 
Record without the express consent of the House.
  A Member may not in the revision of his remarks alter language 
affecting the context or colloquies with other Members without their 
approval.
  Permission to extend remarks applies to the Member's remarks only and 
the incorporation of other matter requires specific permission from the 
House.
  On March 1, 1928,\1\ Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, rising to a 
parliamentary inquiry, called attention to recent instances in which 
questions had arisen as to the extent to which a Member might revise 
language in colloquies between Members, and asked the Chair to make a 
concrete statement on the subject.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 3863.
Sec. 3462
  The Speaker \1\ replied that he had lately had occasion to examine 
the precedents on the subject and said:

  The Chair thinks that the inquiry of the gentleman from Tennessee is 
timely and pertinent. A few days ago the question arose, but the Chair 
was not called upon to decide it because unanimous consent was asked 
and given. The Chair at the time took occasion to look up the 
precedents and has one or two before him.
  The Chair is not advised of any rule of the House that covers the 
situation directly. The general theory as to the revision and extension 
of remarks can be put in this language: Although a Member has the right 
to revise his remarks with the approval of the Speaker, he has not the 
right to extend those remarks except in the case where the House has 
expressly given permission to do so.
  That has been held by several speakers, among them Speaker Kiefer and 
Speaker Randall. Therefore in order to extend remarks the Chair thinks 
that permission must be given by the House; but on the question of 
revision of remarks a Member may do so without permission of the House, 
but must have consent of the Speaker.
  On a further development of the question, where remarks are made in 
colloquy during the running debate, what is the proper rule with 
reference thereto? The present occupant of the chair, on May 17, 1926, 
ruled as follows in response to a parliamentary inquiry:
  ``Generally speaking, the Chair understands the rule to be that a 
Member in the course of debate may not alter any language that he used 
which affects the context or affects the remarks of the gentleman who 
interrupts him.''
  There are quite a number of decisions upon which that decision was 
based, all primarily laying down the proposition that a Member may not 
revise his remarks in such a way as to affect the remarks of another.
  The Chair thinks that the mere change of a word or two could be made 
in the remarks during colloquy, but that change must not be such as 
would affect the position of either gentleman engaged in the debate, or 
the purport of the debate. Mr. Speaker Reed on December 13, 1897, said:
  ``It has always seemed to the Chair that when the Record was to be 
corrected, and where there was a controversy upon a particular point, 
either the correction should be made with the consent of the other 
Member or Members participating or should not be made at all.''
  Mr. Speaker Randall on one occasion said:
  ``I think it wise that permission in such cases should be under the 
control of the Chair.''
  On the whole, the Chair thinks that under the precedents the proper 
procedure should always be that no correction be made in the remarks 
made during a colloquy between Members which would in any way affect 
the position of either Member, without the approval of the other.
  The Chair holds that where remarks are made during a colloquy or 
debate, no change is permissible in the remarks either of the gentleman 
himself or the gentleman with whom he was engaged in debate without the 
full consent and approval of the other gentleman.
  The Chair thinks that extension is limited to an extension of the 
remarks the gentleman himself makes, and that specific authority would 
be necessary to extend remarks by printing newspaper and magazine 
articles or other documents. The Chair thinks a Member would not have 
that right unless he receives specific authority from the House.
  The Chair thinks it is unquestionable that that is the practice, that 
were merely the general request is made to have the privilege to revise 
and extend, a Member may not incorporate anything except his own 
remarks, and the only circumstances under which he can insert something 
other than his own remarks is where he asks specific leave and refers 
specifically to the documents he desires to insert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3463
  3463. A motion to correct the Record is privileged.
  A Member having so revised his remarks as to affect the import of 
words uttered by another Member, the House corrected the Record.
  On April 8, 1909, \1\ following the approval of the Journal Mr. 
William H. Calderhead, of Kansas, prefacing a motion to correct the 
Record, explained that during debate on a previous day, Mr. Rufus 
Hardy, of Texas, had asked this question:

  If protection is a righteous proposition, ought it not to prevail for 
every locality and in favor of every State?

  To which he had replied:

  It does, without question.

  However, in correcting the manuscript, Mr. Hardy has interpolated 
these words:

  If the principle is right, is it not just as right if used to protect 
Texas and Wisconsin against New England as when used to protect New 
England against old England?

  Mr. Calderhead submitted that his reply conveyed a different meaning 
when considered as a response to the amended question and moved that 
the Record be corrected by revising the question propounded by Mr. 
Hardy to conform to the reporter's notes.
  Mr. James L. Slayden, of Texas, proposed to delay action on the 
motion.
  The Speaker \2\ held the motion to be privileged and entitled to 
immediate consideration.
  3464. A question as to the accuracy or propriety of the report of 
proceedings as printed in the Record may be submitted to the House as a 
matter of privilege.
  While correction of the Record is usually proposed informally, a 
motion or resolution must be submitted if a question of order is 
raised.
  On July 23, 1909,\3\ Mr. Robert B. Macon, of Arkansas, rising to a 
question of privilege, read the following paragraph appearing in a 
report of a colloquy between himself and Mr. Atterson W. Rucker, of 
Colorado, in the Record of the preceding day:

  I hope that the gentleman from Arkansas, in his anxiety, will for the 
present withhold his resignation, so that his constituents may at the 
next election write it for him. [Great applause.]
  Mr. Macon stated that the paragraph was inserted in the typewritten 
notes of debate in handwriting and that the official reporters 
disclaimed having reported it. Mr. Macon therefore moved to correct the 
Record by striking out the paragraph.
  Mr. Thomas W. Hardwick, of Georgia, demanded the regular order.
  The Speaker \2\ held that the question submitted involved a question 
of privilege and was in order.
  The question on the motion to correct the Record being taken, it was 
decided in the affirmative and the paragraph was stricken from the 
Record.
  Whereupon, Mr. Rucker informally requested a correction of the Record 
on a similar insertion by Mr. Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1191.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 4594.
Sec. 3465
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, rose to a question of order.
  The Speaker said:

  The question arises of a matter of privilege in the House. The 
gentleman should state it. We are in the habit of calling attention to 
a correction of the Record pro forma, but if objection is made, the 
gentleman should state or present or a resolution covering the 
correction he desires to make.

  3465. A Member having the floor and yielding for a question may not 
in revising the manuscript of his speech omit the interruption; but if 
he declines to yield for interruption, may in revision strike out such 
words interpolated by another without his consent.
  After the House had voted to resolve into the Committee of the Whole 
the Speaker entertained a question of personal privilege.
  On April 29, 1918,\1\ Mr. Martin D. Foster, of Illinois, moved that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H. R. 11259) to 
control the distribution of ores, metals, and minerals for war 
purposes.
  The question being put and the yeas and nays being ordered, it was 
decided in the affirmative.
  The Speaker announced the result of the vote, when Mr. Fred A. 
Britten, of Illinois, claimed the floor on a question of personal 
privilege.
  Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, made the point of order that the House 
had just voted to go into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union.
  The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order and held the question of 
privilege took precedence, and recognized Mr. Britten.
  Mr. Britten stated that in a speech appearing in the Record of the 
previous Friday Mr. J. Thomas Heflin, of Alabama, had charged that a 
bill introduced by Mr. Britten had been written by one George Sylvester 
Viereck, editor of a mazagine characterized as disloyal.
  During the discussion of the question by Mr. Britten, Mr. Heflin 
interpolated statements without waiting for Mr. Britten to yield.
  Mr. Britten addressed a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair asking if 
in revising his remarks for the Record he would be within his rights in 
striking such statements from the manuscript.
  The Speaker ruled:

  The rule is this: Speaker Reed taught me a lesson in regard to it. 
One day I was making a speech, and I thought I was making a good one. I 
wound up with a long rhetorical sentence, and right in the middle of 
it, Mr. Steele, of Indiana, asked me a question which had nothing to do 
with it. I answered his question and then went back and repeated the 
sentence, and then when it was brought to me I struck his question and 
my answer out. The next morning he rose to a question of privilege and 
wanted to know why it was stricken out. Mr. Reed asked me, and I told 
him it had nothing in the world to do with my speech, and I did not 
propose to have a good sentence like that ruined by Governor Steele or 
anybody else. Then, as I say, the Speaker taught me a lesson. He said 
that when a man has the floor and another gentleman interrupts him to 
ask him a question and he answers it he has no right to strike it out, 
but that if a man breaks in without permission on the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 5777.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3466
gentleman who has the floor and gets his remarks in, the gentleman 
making the speech has a perfect right to cut them out, or if he 
declines to yield and the man insists on interrupting he has a right to 
cut them out.

  3466. The Speaker may order stricken from the notes of the reporters 
remarks made by Members who have not been recognized and to whom the 
Member having the floor has declined to yield.--On August 4, 1991,\1\ 
Mr. Charles N. Fowler, of New Jersey, rising to a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked if remarks made by a Member who had not received 
recognition from the Chair and to whom the Member having the floor had 
declined to yield, were properly incorporated in the Record.
  The Speaker \2\ replied:

  The rule has been that if the gentleman from Illinois, for instance, 
is addressing the House, and some other Member asks leave to interrupt 
him, and the gentleman from Illinois declines to be interrupted, and 
the other Member persists in talking, the Speaker has the right to 
strike out what the interrupting Member said after he had been notified 
that interruptions were not desired. But it takes all of that to get it 
out.

  3467. While remarks in order may not be stricken from the Record, 
remarks interjected into the speech of a Member by another to whom he 
has not yielded, may be stricken out by the Member himself in revising 
the manuscript of his speech; or if allowed to remain and printed in 
the Record, may be stricken from the Record by the House.--On November 
1, 1919,\3\ immediately after the reading and approval of the Journal, 
Mr. Edward J. King, of Illinois, moved to correct the Record by 
striking out language used by Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, without 
recognition from the Chair or from Mr. King, who had the floor at the 
time.
  The language claimed to have been improperly incorporated in the 
Record was as follows:

  No. Only the autocratic, anarchistic leaders who preach revolution 
against our Government.

  Mr. King raised no question against the purport and character of the 
language but based his motion on the right of a Member to speak without 
interruption from others to whom he had not yielded.
  The Speaker \4\ entertained the motion and said:

  It seems to the Chair at first blush that it is in order to strike 
out the words as a question of privilege. If a Member without 
permission interjects a statement into another Member's speech, the 
House has a right to determine whether it should be stricken out. The 
Chair is disposed to think that if another gentleman interjects a 
statement into a Member's speech, the Member himself has the right to 
strike that out, but that is a matter of procedure rather than of 
parliamentary law, and the Member might not have the opportunity to 
strike it out or even to see it.

  The question being put it was decided in the affirmative and the 
motion was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 3603.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 7843.
  \4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 3468
  3468. Where the remarks of another are not affected, a Member in 
revising a speech for the Record may strike out any portion or may omit 
the speech in its entirety.--On May 17, 1926,\1\ Mr. James B. Aswell, 
of Louisiana, rose to a question of privilege and called attention to 
the omission of remarks made by Mr. Charles Brand, of Ohio, in a 
colloquy on the preceding Friday.
  During the ensuing debate, Mr. J. N. Tincher, of Kansas, inquired of 
the Chair if Members were authorized under the practice of the House to 
omit questions or answers in revising their remarks for the printer.
  The Speaker \2\ replied:

  Generally speaking, the Chair understands the rule to be that a 
Member in the course of debate may not alter any language that he used 
which affects the context or affects the remarks of the gentleman who 
interrupted him. Of course, the mere leaving out of a sentence in 
speech is not improper. Members frequently leave out a speech in its 
entirety.

  3469. The House may not strike from the Record the remarks of a 
Member made in order.
  A charge that a Member has ``violated the rules of the House'' was 
held not to give rise to a question of privilege.
  On April 15, 1910,\3\ Mr. William S. Bennett, of New York, claiming 
the floor for a question of privilege, read from the Record remarks 
made by Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, on the preceding day, as 
follows:

  I am aware of the fact that a few days ago the Attorney General of 
the United States had read into the record, in violation of the rules 
of this House, by the gentleman from New York a remarkable statement.

  Mr. Bennett moved to strike from the Record the phrase ``in violation 
of the rules of this House.''
  Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, raised a question of order 
against the motion on the ground that the words sought to be expunged 
were actually delivered on the floor and were in order.
  The Speaker \4\ ruled:

  The general rule is that where a Member is speaking, if some other 
Member conceives him to be not in order in what he is saying, he is 
called to order, and then it is his duty to take his seat, under the 
rule, until the House orders that he proceed, or otherwise.
  Words spoken in debate, under the practices of the House ordinarily, 
have not been expunged, and yet there are exceptions. The most notable 
case was during the last Congress, when the gentleman from New York, 
Mr. Willett, made a speech in which he made some charges and personal 
reflections upon the President. He was called to order, but not until 
he had proceeded for some time; and afterwards the House on resolution, 
struck out matters that he had stated in the floor of the House without 
being called to order. That case was exceptional, in that it involved 
the relations of the House to a coordinate branch of the Government, 
the President. The present case involves the relation of Members of the 
House to one another.
  As a general proposition it is in order for the House to control the 
Record by resolution, as was done in the Willett case. If a member, 
being called to order, proceeds not in order, then,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 9527.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 4739.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3470
under the practice of the House and the rules, the Speaker, on his own 
motion, may expunge from the Record what is stated out of order. This 
is not that case.
  When Mr. Randall was Speaker, on February 1, 1878--
  ``Mr. John H. Baker, of Indiana, made certain changes against the 
Doorkeeper of the House, presenting certain affidavits reflecting on 
his character, which were made a part of the speech.
  ``After action on the charges, Mr. Charles C. Ellsworth, of Michigan, 
moved that the affidavits, which were ex parte, be stricken from the 
record of debates. This motion was agreed to, but was subsequently 
reconsidered.
  ``Thereupon, Mr. Baker protested that the affidavits were a part of 
his speech made on the floor in support of his motion, and that a 
majority on the floor had no right to expurgate the Record, thus saying 
by resolution what sentiments a Member should utter on the floor of the 
House.
  ``The Speaker said:
  `` `The Chair thinks that the position taken by the gentleman from 
Indiana * * * is the correct one, that the House can not eliminate from 
the remarks of a Member what has been permitted to be made part of his 
remarks in order.'
  ``No appeal was taken from this decision, but Mr. James A. Garfield, 
of Ohio, said that the decision seemed just to all concerned, and that 
in all his service on the Committee on Rules he remembered but two 
instances where the House had struck from the Record what had been 
said, and in each case it was done because the words were spoken 
against order.''
  Yet the Chair was inclined to hesitate about sustaining the point of 
order, but the gentleman from New York states that when he first 
presented the motion he was under the impression that these words were 
not stated in actual debate, but were printed by leave of the House, 
the ordinary leave to print. He has subsequently stated that he is 
informed and is satisfied that the words were actually spoken by the 
gentleman from Illinois.
  While ordinarily the Chair would submit the question to the House to 
determine by vote whether the words covered by the motion should be 
stricken from the Record, yet under all the conditions, each case 
resting upon its own merits, the Chair is inclined to sustain the point 
of order.

  3470. On May 29, 1933,\1\ Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, in 
the course of general debate, quoted from ``the protocols of Zion.'' On 
May 31,\2\ Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, speaking by unanimous 
consent, read a communication denying the authenticity of the matter 
quoted by Mr. McFadden and asking that the denial be placed in the 
Record.
  Whereupon, Mr. John J. Boylan, of New York, moved that this portion 
of Mr. McFadden's speech be expunged from the Record.
  The Speaker \3\ declined recognition for the motion and said:

  That requires unanimous consent.

  3471. In exceptional instances words flagrantly disorderly have been 
excluded from the Record by direction of the Speaker.--On March 30, 
1926,\4\ in debating impeachment charges against Judge George English, 
United States judge for the eastern judicial district of Illinois, Mr. 
John N. Tillman of Arkansas, quoted language used by Judge English 
which was represented in the Record as follows:

  I will be ------ ------ if you are going to pass the buck to this 
court. I have power to call out a thousand men to enforce my 
injunctions, and if you do not cooperate, I will remove every ------ 
one of you from office.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventy-third Congress, Record, p. 4539.
  \2\ Record, p. 4712.
  \3\ Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 6602.
Sec. 3472
  And again:

  I will not try any case where Mr. Karch appears as counsellor or 
attorney. I will not try any cases when that ------ ------ ------ ----
-- ------ ------ appears as an attorney.

  At the conclusion of the speech, the Speaker \1\ addressed the House 
and said:

  The Chair has been in doubt on one or two occasions this afternoon 
whether he should permit the use of certain language even by way of 
quotation. The Chair at the time realized, of course, that the members 
of the majority of the committee might think the use of this language 
would be material in describing an individual. The Chair hopes that it 
will not be used further during this debate and suggests also that 
those words be stricken from the Record.
  The Chair thinks his ruling ought to be regarded as a precedent as 
far as these proceedings in the House are concerned. If the Chair 
should be officially advised that the use of this language is actually 
necessary, he might order the galleries cleared.

  3472. Where one paragraph of a speech inserted in the Record under 
leave to print contained unparliamentary language, the entire speech 
was stricken out.--On October 24, 1921,\2\ on motion of Mr. Frank M. 
Mondell, of Wyoming, a speech by Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, 
inserted under leave to print, was stricken from the Record, on the 
ground that one paragraph quoted an affidavit by an employee of the 
Government Printing Office couched in unparliamentary language.
  3473. Instance wherein proceedings in the Senate were ordered 
excluded and expunged from the Record.
  On October 11, 1929,\3\ (legislative day of September 30), in the 
Senate on motion of Mr. James E. Watson, of Indiana, by unanimous 
consent, a telegram was read from the desk by the Chief Clerk.
  In the course of the reading, Mr. William H. King, of Utah, 
interrupted and raised the question of order that the communication was 
a personal attack on Mr. Henry F. Ashurst, of Arizona.
  Whereupon, on motion of Mr. Joseph T. Robinson, of Arkansas, it was 
ordered that it be excluded and expunged from the Congressional Record.
  3474. The Speaker has no control over the Congressional Record and no 
authority to censor or exclude speeches of Members.--On May 26, 
1921,\4\ Mr. Tom Connally, of Texas, rising to a parliamentary inquiry, 
said:

  What is the parliamentary procedure by which remarks, delivered in 
the Committee of the Whole House, that do not come within the rule as 
reflecting on any individual, but reflect on the dignity and honor of 
the country, may be stricken out in the House? Does it simply require a 
motion or does it require a resolution? I will state that my inquiry is 
prompted by the fact that while we were sitting in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union this afternoon we were treated to 
a most disgraceful reflection on the course the American Government and 
American people pursued during the World War that has lately come to an 
end. If there is no way under the rules of this House by which it can 
protect itself and the dignity and the honor of the country from such a 
slimy, slanderous, disgraceful, outrageous assault as was made by the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Michaelson--and that language is used only 
because parliamentary law
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6687.
  \3\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Senate Journal, p. 165.
  \4\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 1818.
                                                            Sec. 3475
requires its use--if there is no way by which the House and the country 
can be protected from these outrageous slanders on its dignity and its 
honor, there ought to be some way by which the House can exclude from 
its Record this slimy exudation of one who is not worthy to sit in this 
Chamber.

  The Speaker \1\ held that a parliamentary inquiry had not been 
submitted.
  Whereupon, Mr. Connally inquired:

  Mr. Speaker, is it not true that under the rule of the House the 
Speaker has jurisdiction to control the Record, and in case a point of 
order is made can exercise the right to withhold those remarks until 
the House can take action in that regard?

  The Speaker ruled:

  The Chair does not think the Speaker has such control of the Record 
as would justify him in keeping a speech out of the Record.

  3475. It is for the House and not the Speaker to determine whether 
matter inserted in the Congressional Record under leave to print is in 
violation of the rules.
  A resolution to expunge from the Record a speech alleged to be an 
abuse of the leave to print must be entertained as a matter of 
privilege.
  An instance in which the Speaker deferred ruling on an unusual point 
of order until time could be had to consult the precedents.
  A Member, having inserted articles from a magazine under leave to 
extend his own remarks, was given unanimous consent to expunge the 
unauthorized matter on condition that it not be reprinted by the Public 
Printer as frankable.
  On June 20, 1919,\2\ Mr. Eugene Black, of Texas, claiming the floor 
on a question of privilege of the House, offered this resolution:

  Resolved, That whereas it appears from the publication of the 
Congressional Record of Thursday, June 19, 1919, that Hon. James A. 
Gallivan, of Massachusetts, addressed the House during general debate 
on the sundry civil appropriation bill and was granted leave to revise, 
extend, and correct his remarks; and whereas under such grant he has 
caused to be published seven printed articles from the New Republic 
written by William Hard, covering about nine closely printed pages of 
the Congressional Record, said articles attacking the official acts of 
the Postmaster General, A. S. Burleson.
  Resolved, That the publications of said articles are without sanction 
of the House and in contravention of the special order granting to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts leave to revise, extend, and correct his 
remarks, and that said articles be expunged from the Record and the 
Public Printer be directed to omit them from the public Record and be 
prohibited from issuing any copy or copies thereof in pamphlet or other 
form from the columns of the daily Record.

  Mr. Black read the authorization for the extension of remarks granted 
Mr. James A. Gallivan, of Massachusetts, on the previous day, as 
follows:

  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise, extend, and correct 
my remarks in the Record.
  The Chairman. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears 
none.

and submitted that the leave to print did not include the magazine 
articles accompanying the extension in the Record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1459.
Sec. 3476
  Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, made the point of order that the 
resolution was not privileged.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  This is a rather important question. The Chair offhand was under the 
impression that a Member who obtains the right to extend his remarks in 
the Record may print not only his remarks but extracts which he chooses 
to append thereto, unless he is limited, as is often done, by somebody 
objecting to any extraneous matter, but the Chair would like to examine 
the authorities, so that we may be sure that a proper precedent is set. 
The Chair will ask the gentleman from Texas if he is willing to let 
this matter go over until tomorrow?

  On the following day,\2\ Mr. Black again called up the resolution.
  The Speaker ruled:

  A question of order was raised that this was not privileged. The 
Chair has examined the precedents and thinks that the rule is very well 
settled, and some of the old cases are very entertaining. According to 
the precedents this is a privileged resolution, but the Chair also is 
glad to find it laid down by Mr. Speaker Carlisle, in a case which has 
been followed ever since, that the question whether the matter alleged 
is a violation of the rules of the House is a matter not for the 
Speaker to decide but for the House to decide. The resolution is now 
before the House, and it is for the House to decide whether the matter 
inserted violates the rules of the House and should be expunged.

  Mr. Gallivan asked unanimous consent that the extension objected to 
be stricken from the Record.
  Mr. Black asked to have coupled with that request provision that the 
extension should not be printed by the Public Printer for distribution.
  The Speaker put the question:

  The question is on the unanimous consent asked by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  He asked unanimous consent to strike out all the matter published 
except his own remarks.
  That it will not be printed as frankable matter. Is there objection?

  There was no objection.
  3476. The period within which Members may extend remarks under leave 
to print begins with the day on which permission is granted.
  On December 21, 1932,\3\ pending adjournment, Mr. William B. 
Bankhead, of Alabama, referred to a general leave to extend remarks for 
five legislative days which had been granted on the previous day, and 
inquired if the 5-day period began on the day on which granted or on 
the succeeding day.
  The Speaker \4\ said:

  It dates from the day the consent was given.

  3477. Individual permission to extend remarks permits but one 
extension, and Members proposing to insert more than one speech in the 
Record are required to secure separate leave for each extension.
  On July 13, 1932,\5\ a number of requests were made by Members for 
leave to extend their remarks in the Record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ Record, p. 1508.
  \3\ Second session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 868.
  \4\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 15234.
                                                            Sec. 3478
  Mr. Robert G. Simmons, of Nebraska, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked 
if under leave granted to extend remarks a Member might insert more 
than one extension.
  The Speaker \1\ replied that under general permission to extend 
remarks, a Member might make as many insertions as he desired, but 
under permission granted to Members individually, only one insertion 
was permissible and it was necessary to secure specific permission for 
each insertion.
  3478. General leave to print extended at the close of a session 
authorizes Members to extend remarks without restriction as to the 
number of extensions.
  On June 30, 1932,\2\ Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, asked 
unanimous consent that all Members be permitted to extend their own 
remarks in the Record until the close of the session.
  In submitting the request, Mr. Snell specified:

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each Member may have from 
now until the time of the printing of the last Record in which to 
extend his own remarks and in order that there may be no 
misunderstanding I mean that if I individually want to extend my own 
remarks on two different subjects I may do it in two different 
extensions.

  The Speaker \1\ said:

  That is the rule. Is there objection?

  3479. Authorizations to extend remarks in the Record are strictly 
construed and it is not in order under leave to print to insert other 
material than that designated in the request.
  A resolution to expunge from the Record material inserted without 
authorization is privileged and entitles the proponent to recognition 
to debate it.
  If a Member in debate transgress the rules it is the duty of the 
Speaker to intervene and require that he proceed in order.
  On March 23, 1908,\3\ Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, offered as 
privileged the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the Congressional Record of March 21, 1908, be 
corrected by striking out, on pages 3820, 3821, 3823, 3824, 3825, and 
3826, the speech purporting to have been delivered by the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Sulzer, and inserting in lieu thereof the transcript 
of the notes of the official reporters of the House of the speech 
actually made, together with the copy of any record referred to in such 
speech.

  The resolution was read by the Clerk and Mr. Mann was proceeding in 
debate, when Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, made a point of order 
that Mr. Mann was not entitled to the floor.
  The Speaker \4\ overruled the point of order and held that the 
resolution must be entertained as privileged and that Mr. Mann having 
been recognized to present such a resolution was entitled to the floor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Seventh-second Congress, Record, p. 14388.
  \3\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 3748.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 3480
  Subsequently, during debate on the resolution, Mr. William Sulzer, of 
New York, referring to Mr. Mann, charged:

  I stand on the Record. I abide by the Record, and I say to the 
gentleman from Illinois that he barks and gets bitten and then whines; 
and I am surprised that the gentleman has appeared to-day in his mean, 
little, pettifogging way, whining and squealing--because he deceived 
the House and he deceived the country the other day when he said he 
originated the ``idea''; that he was the author of the ``law'' to 
create the Bureau of Corporations. His claim was preposterous and 
ridiculous, and nobody knew it better than the gentleman from Illinois 
when he said it; but he did it deliberately, and when he was told he 
was deceiving the House he refused to give me permission to reply to 
correct the misstatement.

  The Speaker interposed;

  The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman is out of order in his 
remarks, and it is the duty of the Chair to so state to the gentleman. 
And the gentleman will proceed in order.

  Later in the same address, Mr. Sulzer said:

  Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois, like a pettifogging 
lawyer, has dodged all around this question--

  The Speaker again interrupted and reiterated:

  The Chair desires to say to the gentleman from new York that it is 
not in order to use such terms toward any Member of the House, and it 
is the duty of the Chair to call the gentleman to order. The gentleman 
will proceed in order under the rules of the House.

  3480. Leave to print authorizes extensions of the Member's remarks 
only and other matter may not be included without specific permission.
  On March 27, 1933,\1\ Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, rising to 
submit a parliamentary inquiry, called attention to instances in which 
Members in extending their remarks in the Record under leave to print 
had included extraneous matter without having secured permission, and 
asked for a statement of the practice of the House in that respect.
  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair will make the announcement now. Under permission to extend 
remarks a Member obtains permission to extend his own remarks only, 
unless he receives specific permission from the House to include in his 
remarks the documents that he desires to incorporate.

  3481. Leave to extend remarks in the Record may be granted 
conditionally.
  Instance wherein it was stipulated that matter inserted under leave 
to print should be limited to the Member's own remarks and should not 
include newspaper articles or other extraneous matter.
  On January 12, 1920,\3\ following the announcement of the result of 
the vote on the passage of the bill (H. R. 7158) to provide for the 
expenses of the government of the District of Columbia, Mr. Carl E. 
Mapes, of Michigan, submitted a request for unanimous consent that all 
Members have five legislative days in which to extend remarks on the 
bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventy-third Congress, Record, p. 882.
  \2\ Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1467.
                                                            Sec. 3482
  Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, under reservation of the right to 
object, proposed to consent with the stipulation that matter so 
inserted should be restricted to the Member's own remarks and should 
not include newspaper articles or other dissertations.
  The Speaker \1\ put the question.

  With the restriction suggested by the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
is there objection?

  There was no objection.
  3482. On September 11, 1919,\2\ at the conclusion of a speech 
delivered under an order previously made by the House, Mr. Thomas L. 
Blanton, of Texas, asked unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the 
Record by including facts and figures and certain communications 
bearing out his argument.
  Mr. Otis Wingo, of Arkansas, stipulated:

  Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the gentleman extending his 
remarks by printing an official communication such as he suggests. If 
the gentleman will ask leave to extend his remarks by inserting such 
facts and figures and communications, I shall not object. If they are 
official communications, I shall not object.

  The Speaker \1\ qualified:

  The gentleman will proceed under the limitations suggested.

  3483. Remarks extended in the Record under leave to print are 
inserted as of the date on which permission is granted.
  Under leave to extend remarks a Member may not insert reference to 
proceedings subsequent to the date on which leave to extend was 
granted.
  The Speaker has no authority over the Congressional Record, and it is 
for the House to say when the rules have been violated and to enforce 
their observance.
  On October 26, 1918,\3\ when the House met, following a recess of the 
legislative day of October 24, Mr. Frederick H. Gillett, of 
Massachusetts, gave notice that he desired to correct the Record with 
reference to remarks extended in the Record of October 25 by Mr. J. 
Thomas Heflin, of Alabama, without having secured leave to print.
  Mr. Heflin stated that he had received permission to extend remarks 
during the previous week.
  Mr. Gillett pointed out that the remarks included a copy of an order 
by the Director General of Railroads which was not issued until October 
19, a day subsequent to the date on which Mr. Heflin obtained leave to 
print.
  The Speaker \4\ ruled:

  The rule is plain enough. If a gentleman rises and simply gets leave 
to extend remarks, he can extend them any time before the 4th of March, 
but he can not put into the extended remarks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 5238.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 11478.
  \4\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3484
anything that happened after the date that he got his leave. That has 
been the practice of the House. Of course, the rule has not been 
invoked very frequently.

  Mr. Gillett moved to strike from the extension of remarks all 
reference to proceedings subsequent to the date on which leave to print 
was granted.
  Mr. Joe H. Eagle, of Texas, inquired why a motion was necessary when 
the Speaker had just stated the rule and was authorized to enforce it.
  The Speaker said:

  The Congressional Record is a matter entirely in the hands of the 
House and not in the hands of the Speaker. The Speaker stated the rule.

  3484. On June 1, 1920,\1\ following the reading and approval of the 
Journal, Mr. Eugene Black, of Texas, referred to an extension of 
remarks in the Record inserted by Mr. John M. Baer, of North Dakota, on 
the adjusted pay for service men, and called attention to the fact that 
the House had refused all requests for permission to extend remarks on 
the subject.
  In Mr. Baer's absence, Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, explained 
that the speech was evidently extended under a leave to print which he 
recalled having been granted Mr. Baer some time previously.
  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, expressed the option that the 
extension was a breach of order in that a speech delivered on one date 
could not be inserted in the Record as of a different date or under 
prior leave to print.
  Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, concurred in that view and 
discussed complications arising from the practice of Members utilizing 
leave to print previously obtained and extending remarks on bills which 
had not been considered at the time leave to print was granted.
  Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, referred to instances in which 
difficulty had been experienced in determining whether extensions of 
remarks in the Record were authorized due to insertion under dates 
other than those on which delivered.
  The Speaker \2\ ruled:

  The Chair would like to suggest that the Chair thinks whenever a 
Member extends remarks he should extend them as of the date when the 
permission was granted.

  3485. Matter inserted in the Record under leave to print, if in 
continuation of remarks actually delivered on the floor, appears in 
connection with the speech in the body of the Record, but where the 
Member has not actually occupied the floor such extensions of remarks 
are printed in the Appendix.--On January 8, 1929,\3\ Mr. Marvin Jones, 
of Texas, being recognized to submit a parliamentary inquiry, asked why 
remarks, newspaper articles, documents, petitions, and other matter 
inserted in the Record by Members under leave to extend remarks was 
printed in the Appendix in the House proceedings but appeared in the 
body of the Record in the proceedings of the Senate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8089.
  \2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
  \3\ Second session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 1351.
                                                            Sec. 3486
  The Speaker\1\ replied:

  It is a matter for each body to determine for itself; but the Chair 
has stated on a number of occasions that he thinks the proper 
distinction is this, that if a Member obtains the right to extend 
remarks which he is actually making by placing therein a document which 
he gets leave to print, that document is printed with those remarks in 
the main part of the Record. If, however, he asks leave to extend 
remarks not actually made by printing a certain document, that goes in 
the Appendix.
  If the gentlemen is making remarks on the floor of the House and 
obtains leave to print any document which helps his argument or refers 
to matters he is discussing, the Chair thinks that properly becomes a 
part of his remarks in the main body of the Record; but if he rises and 
asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks and to incorporate therein 
a document, letter, or editorial--whatever it may be--that must be 
printed in the Appendix.

  3486. On January 7, 1930,\2\ Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, 
rising to a parliamentary inquiry, called attention to an extension of 
remarks inserted in the body of the Record of the preceding day under 
leave to print granted Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, no part of which had 
actually been delivered on the floor.
  Mr. Snell asked for a ruling of the Chair differentiating between 
extension of remarks which were entitled to incorporation in the body 
of the proceeding and those to be printed in the Appendix.
  The Speaker\1\ said:

  That question has been several times ruled upon by the present 
occupant of the Chair. The latest ruling was in January, 1929. The 
Chair will request the Clerk to read the colloquy on that occasion, 
because if covers the subject very fully.

  The Clerk having read from the Record\3\ the colloquy referred to, 
the Speaker continued:

  The Chair thinks that is a fair statement of the proper practice 
which should exist in the House. In other words where a Member actually 
takes the floor and makes a speech and asks unanimous consent to add to 
his remarks, either by way of continuing his own remarks or by the 
publication of a document or documents relating to the subject which he 
has actually discussed on the floor, that that addition might properly 
go into the body of the Record. But when he merely rises and asks leave 
to extend his remarks by printing a document or documents, and has made 
no speech, and has not occupied the floor for that purpose, the Chair 
thinks that those documents should be printed in the Appendix. The 
Chair hopes that Members will follow this rule, and also that officials 
connected with the printing of the Record will follow the rule.

  3487. On February 11, 1910,\4\ Mr. Henry Allen Cooper, of Wisconsin, 
submitted a parliamentary inquiry as to the proper method of correcting 
minor errors in the Record.
  The Speaker \5\ replied:

  If it is a correction of words in a speech, the gentleman could have 
it corrected without bringing it to the attention of the House. If it 
concerns another Member, it would be better to submit the question in 
the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 1187.
  \3\ Section 3485 of this work.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1768.
  \5\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 3488
  3488. General leave to print may be granted only by the House, 
although in Committee of the Whole a Member, by unanimous consent, may 
be given leave to extend his remarks.--On February 24, 1931,\1\ during 
debate on the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 292) proposing an amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States fixing the time of the 
assembling of Congress, Mr. Lamar Jeffers, of Alabama, requested 
unanimous consent that all Members have permission to extend their 
remarks in the Record on the subject.
  The Chairman\2\ declined to recognize Mr. Jeffers to submit the 
request and said:

  The Chair can not entertain that request, because it must be made in 
the House.

  Thereupon, Mr. Jeffers modified his request and asked that he be 
granted permission to revise and extend his remarks.
  The Chairman put the request and, there being no objection, it was 
agreed to.
  3489. On January 18, 1921,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union was considering the bill (H. R. 14498) for the 
apportionment of Representatives in Congress under the Fourteenth 
census, when Mr. Issac Siegel, of New York, asked unanimous consent 
that all members who had spoken on the subject be permitted to extend 
their remarks in the Record.
  The Chairman\4\ declined to entertain the request and said:

  That is a request that can not be acted upon in Committee of the 
Whole. The committee can grant leave to one Member, but no general 
leave.

  Whereupon, Mr. Siegel asked unanimous consent to extend his own 
remarks on the pending bill.
  The Chairman having submitted the request to the House, there was no 
objection.
  3490. On April 10, 1908,\5\ during consideration of the naval 
appropriation bill the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, Mr. Lemuel P. Padgett, of Tennessee, asked leave to extend his 
remarks in the Record.
  Whereupon, Mr. George E. Foss, of Illinois, asked that the request be 
amended to include all Members speaking on the bill.
  The Chairman\6\ said:

  Under the rule, the committee can not give unanimous consent. The 
gentleman from Tennessee asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks 
on this subject in the Record. Is there objection?

  There was no objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5895.
  \2\ Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, Chairman.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1642.
  \4\ Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, Chairman.
  \5\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 4581.
  \6\ James A. Mann, of Illinois, Chairman.
                                                            Sec. 3491
  3491. A motion to expunge unparliamentary language inserted under 
leave to print was entertained as privileged.
  Insertion of improper language under leave to print was held to 
sustain a question of the privilege of the House.
  A question of privilege takes precedence of a report from the 
Committee on Rules.
  A committee appointed to investigate the propriety of a Member's 
remarks appearing in the Record affords the Member an opportunity to be 
heard in person or by counsel.
  On March 24, 1916,\1\ Mr. Edward W. Pou, of North Carolina, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, reported the resolution (H. Res. 
182) providing for the consideration of the immigration bill.
  During debate on the resolution, Mr. Martin B. Madden, of Illinois, 
rising to a question of privilege, moved to expunge from the Record 
certain remarks inserted by Mr. James H. Davis, of Texas, on a previous 
day under leave to print.
  Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, submitted that a question of 
privilege could not be entertained during consideration of a report 
from the Committee on Rules.
  The Speaker \2\ held that the question of privilege took precedence 
of a report from the Committee on Rules.
  After debate, Mr. Madden modified his motion to provide for the 
appointment by the Speaker of a select committee to investigate the 
propriety of the speech referred to.
  Mr. Davis inquired what opportunity would be given him to justify his 
remarks.
  The Speaker said:

  The House will act under the general practice of the House and under 
the general rules of the House. The Chair will explain to the gentlemen 
that if the gentleman from Illinois stood on his first resolution to 
expunge it from the Record, the matter would come up immediately. If it 
follows the practice, so far as the Chair recollects since he has been 
here, to appoint a committee to investigate it, which was done on three 
different occasions, then the gentleman can appear before the committee 
either in person or by counsel.

  The question on the motion being taken, it was agreed to; and the 
Speaker appointed on the committee so authorized Mr. Edwin Yates Webb, 
of North Carolina, Mr. Alben W. Barkley, of Kentucky, Mr. Andrew J. 
Montague, of Virginia, Mr. Henry Allen Cooper, of Wisconsin, and Mr. 
Edmund Platt, of New York.
  On March 27, 1916,\3\ Mr. Webb from the select committee presented 
the report of the committee, stating that Mr. Davis had been invited to 
submit a statement and had been heard, and had approved the 
recommendation of the committee that certain portions of the speech be 
omitted from the permanent Record.
  The committee therefore submitted the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the foregoing language referred to in the speech of 
Mr. J.H. Davis, Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and 
printed in the daily Congressional Record of March 22, 1916, be 
stricken from the permanent Record.

  The resolution was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 4769.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Record, p. 4931.
Sec. 3492
  3492. On February 20, 1931,\1\ a resolution (H. Res. 364) presented 
by Mr. John J. Boylan, of New York, as involving the privilege of the 
House, was agreed to without division or debate as follows:

  Whereas in the Congressional Record of February 18, 1931, on page 
5472, there appears in the remarks purporting to be made by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McFadden, certain language reflecting 
upon the integrity, honesty, reputation, and conduct of Members of the 
Senate, individually, in their representative capacity; and
  Whereas the said statements were not, as a matter of fact, made upon 
the floor; and
  Whereas the said statements were unparliamentary, out of order, and a 
violation of the privileges of the House, and if the same had been 
uttered upon the floor of the House would have been subject to a point 
of order: Now, therefore, be it
  Resolved, That the said remarks be stricken from the Record (February 
18, 1931) and the Public Printer be prohibited from issuing copies of 
thereof from the columns of the Congressional Record.

  3493. A resolution providing for the appointment of a committee to 
consider the propriety of remarks inserted under leave to print was 
entertained as privileged.--On March 9, 1912,\2\ Mr. Martin D. Foster, 
of Illinois, offered as privileged the following:

  Whereas the speech of Mr. Akin, of New York, printed in the 
Congressional Record of March 7, 1912, contains language improper and 
in violation of the privilege of debate: Be it
  Resolved, That a committee of five Members be appointed to consider 
the remarks aforesaid and to report thereon to the House within 10 
days.

  The Speaker \3\ recognized Mr. Foster to present the resolution, 
which after debate was agreed to without division.
  On the next legislative day,\4\ on request of Mr. Wyatt Aiken, of 
South Carolina, the remarks referred to in the resolution, and 
reflecting on the President of the United States, were stricken from 
the Record.
  Whereupon, on motion of Mr. Foster, by unanimous consent the 
proceedings whereby the resolution was agreed to were vacated.
  3494. On February 4, 1910,\5\ Mr. George F. Burgess, of Texas, rising 
to a question of the privilege of the House, submitted the following 
resolution:

  Whereas the speech of the Hon. Rufus Hardy, printed in the 
Congressional Record of February 2, 1910, and delivered in the House on 
January 28, 1910, and purporting to print a speech delivered by him on 
October 18, 1909, at Cameron, Tex., contains language improper and in 
violation of the rules and the privilege of debate, in that it contains 
criticism of the proceedings in the Senate and the action of a Senator, 
who is specified by name: Be it
  Resolved, That this resolution be referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, with instructions to report in 10 days what action shall be 
taken.

  After debate, in which Mr. Hardy participated, the resolution was 
agreed to without division.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Temporary Record, p. 5633.
  \2\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 3095.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ Record, p. 3148.
  \5\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1496.
                                                            Sec. 3495
  Subsequently,\1\ on motion of Mr. Hardy, by unanimous consent, the 
speech referred to in the resolution was withdrawn.
  Whereupon, Mr. R. Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, offered the following:

  Resolved, That inasmuch as the speech of the Hon. Rufus Hardy, 
mentioned in said resolution as referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, has on his motion been stricken from the permanent Record, 
the Committee on the Judiciary are hereby discharged from further 
consideration of said resolution so referred, and that the same do lie 
upon the table.

  The resolution was agreed to without debate.
  3495. A resolution providing for an investigation of the propriety of 
remarks, alleged to be an abuse of the leave to print, is entertained 
as a matter of privilege.
  An abuse of the leave to print in the Congressional Record gives rise 
to a question of privilege.
  When a Member, under leave to print, places in the Congressional 
Record that which would not have been in order if uttered on the floor, 
the House may exclude the language.
  Intimation that Members were influenced by mercenary considerations 
in the exercise of their official duties was held to give rise to a 
question of privilege.
  On July 21, 1916,\2\ Mr. John Jacob Rogers, of Massachusetts, offered 
as privileged the following resolution:

  Whereas in the Congressional Record of June 1, 1916, page 10410, the 
following language appears in a speech made by Hon. Oscar Callaway, of 
Texas, to wit:
  ``The Maxims, Gardners, and Thompsons have attempted to frighten the 
people into the belief that we were in danger of invasion. This is not 
the fear that disturbs the peace of mind of the gentlemen on the Naval 
Affairs Committee who heard the evidence. The fear that disturbs the 
peace of mind of the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, New York, and 
Massachusetts is not that our homes will be invaded, our cities 
bombarded, or our coasts laid waste; it is that the stocks of the 
Bethlehem, Midvale, Carnegie, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey 
steel, ordnance, and ship manufacturing concerns will shrink when the 
foreign war closes unless a new market is developed. Bethlehem Steel 
stock increased, due to the war, from $30 a share to $530 a share. 
Certain powder stocks increased from $8 a share to $1,100 a share.'' Be 
it
  Resolved, That a special committee of five be appointed by the Chair 
to investigate and report to the House whether or not said language 
ought to be expunged from the Record.

  After brief debate the resolution was agreed to and the Speaker \3\ 
appointed as members of the committee so authorized Mr. Robert N. Page, 
of North Carolina, Mr. John E. Raker, of California, Mr. Edward T. 
Taylor, of Colorado, Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, and Mr. Horace 
M. Towner, of Iowa.
  On August 22,\4\ Mr. Page submitted a report \5\ from the special 
committee recommending that the language referred to be stricken from 
the Record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Record, p. 1845.
  \2\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 11402.
  \3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \4\ Record, p. 12995.
  \5\ House report No. 1170.
Sec. 3496
  The report cited the rules involved as follows:

  The rules of the House provide that in addressing the House Members 
must avoid personalities (par. 1, rule 14), and this rule is amplified 
by the following statement in Jefferson's Manual:
  ``The consequences of a measure may be reprobated in strong terms; 
but to arraign the motives of those who propose to advocate it is a 
personality, and against order.'' (House Manual and Digest, secs. 354, 
355, 356, and note, pp. 136 and 137, and Hinds' Precedents, vol. 5, 
secs. 5147-5155).

  The application of the rules to the case at bar was thus made:

  This rule has been enforced even by Speakers interrupting a Member on 
the floor and challenging a Member for the use of personalities. In the 
case in question there was no opportunity either for the Member to 
himself object or for the Presiding Officer or another Member to call 
attention to the violation of the rule, because of the fact that the 
record shows that the words complained of were not uttered on the floor 
but were inserted in the revision and extension of the speech for 
printing in the Record.

  The special committee therefore unanimously reported that the 
language as set forth in the resolution ``was a personality, arraigned 
the motives of a Member, and was for that reason in violation of the 
rules of the House,'' and recommended that ``the said language be 
expunged from the Record.''
  On motion of Mr. Page, the recommendations of the committee were 
agreed to without debate or division.
  3496. A motion for the correction of the Congressional Record may be 
made properly after the reading and approval of the Journal.
  Instance wherein a Member produced and read the reporter's notes of 
remarks not reflecting on himself delivered by another Member but not 
withheld for revision.
  A motion to correct the Record, undisposed of at adjournment, was 
held to be in order as the unfinished business if called up when the 
House next convened.
  On March 27, 1924,\1\ following conclusion of the consideration of 
the War Department appropriation bill, Mr. Ben Johnson, of Kentucky, 
moved to correct the Record by striking out certain alterations made by 
Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, as follows:

  Colonel Hunt may have been guilty of bad judgment. It was pointed out 
here that he permitted this prisoner to go without handcuffs, but all 
gentlemen know that if Colonel Hunt or any other Army officer would put 
handcuffs on a prisoner, there would be 20 or 30 gentlemen on the floor 
of this House protesting against the brutality of that officer.

  Mr. Johnson then read the remarks as appearing in the Record in this 
form:

  Colonel Hunt may have exercised bad judgment. It was pointed out here 
that he permitted this prisoner to go without handcuffs, but all 
gentlemen know that if Colonel Hunt or any other Army officer would put 
handcuffs on a prisoner ``while on a train or traveling,'' there would 
be 20 or 30 gentlemen on the floor of this House protesting against the 
brutality of that officer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 5115.
                                                            Sec. 3497
  Mr. Johnson also read the following excerpt from Mr. LaGuardia's 
remarks as given in the reporter's notes:

  After 30 years of service I think it is not fair, it is unjust, to 
brand an officer as a traitor because he was guilty of using bad 
judgment in a case with which he had no personal contact--

which had appeared in the Record as follows:

  After 30 years of service I think it is not fair, it is unjust, to 
brand an officer as a traitor because he was guilty of using bad 
judgment, and in the actual desertion he had no personal contact with 
the prisoner at the time.

  Mr. Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, raised a question of order and 
objected that a Member is not entitled to inspect the reporter's notes 
of remarks which do not contain reflections on himself delivered by 
another Member and withheld for revision.
  Mr. Johnson replied that the rule did not apply for the reason that 
the notes produced were not withheld for revision.
  The Speaker pro tempore did not pass on the point of order, but Mr. 
LaGuardia again read the excerpts from the notes and submitted that the 
alterations were not material.
  Mr. Johnson dissented and moved that the alterations be expunged from 
the Record.
  The question being taken, on a division, the yeas were 18, noes 30, 
and Mr. Johnson made the point of order that there was not a quorum 
present.
  Mr. Longworth moved that the House adjourn.
  Pending the motion to adjourn, Mr. Johnson propounded a parliamentary 
inquiry as to the status of the motion to expunge when the House next 
met.
  The Speaker pro tempore said:

  It will be the first business in order, as the Chair understands it, 
tomorrow morning, if the gentleman from Kentucky calls it up.

  Whereupon, the House adjourned and the matter was not again called 
up.
  3497. Alterations of a Member's own remarks which place a different 
aspect on the remarks of a colleague may be made only on authorization 
by the House, but mere typographical errors or minor changes in 
phraseology may be made informally by notifying the Record Clerk.--On 
June 4, 1930,\1\ Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, rising to a 
parliamentary inquiry, asked if the practice of the House permitted the 
correction of typographical errors and other minor amendments of a 
Member's own remarks through notification of the Record clerk.
  The Speaker \2\ replied:

  The Chair thinks the rule is that anything that corrects the remarks 
of another Member or puts a different aspect on a Member's own remarks 
requires consent, but corrections such as the two just made, the Chair 
thinks can be made in the manner suggested by the gentleman.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 10039.
  \2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 3498
  3498. While a motion to correct the Record is privileged, a motion to 
strike from the Record words in order, actually spoken in debate, is 
not admissible.--On October 28, 1921,\1\ under consent to proceed for 
one minute, Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, speaking for Mr. Thomas 
L. Blanton, of Texas, asked unanimous consent that certain words used 
by the latter in debate on the preceding day be omitted in the printing 
of the permanent Record.
  Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, having objected to the request, Mr. 
Meyer London, of New York, submitted an inquiry as to whether it would 
be in order to move to omit the words in the printing of the permanent 
Record.
  The Speaker pro tempore \2\ held that the motion could not be 
entertained.
  3499. Provisions for the printing of the Congressional Record is 
statutory and motions mandatory thereto are not in order.
  A motion to correct the Congressional Record is entertained as a 
matter of privilege.
  On March 15, 1910,\3\ immediately following the reading and approval 
of the Journal, Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, called attention to 
the omission of a number of speeches from the proceedings of the 
preceding day, as reported in the Congressional Record, and moved that 
the proceedings of the House on that day be printed in full and in 
their appropriate order in the current Record as of the day on which 
transacted.
  Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, objected that the motion was 
not in order.
  The Speaker \4\ sustained the point of order and said:

  The Chair suggests, a point of order being made, that the Record is 
printed under law and under the direction of the Joint Committee on 
Printing. Now, it seems to the Chair that it is somewhat doubtful as to 
whether yesterday's Record can be printed to-morrow morning so far as 
the proceedings of the House are concerned, leaving out any reference 
to the Senate. It is perfectly patent to the Chair that the Record can 
be corrected, so that the permanent Record will be exactly as the 
proceedings were yesterday.
  And that would happen, probably, without any action on the part of 
the House. The Chair, as at present advised, would have to sustain the 
point of order.

  Whereupon, Mr. William Hughes, of New Jersey, moved that the Record 
of the preceding day be corrected to conform to the notes of the 
official reporters.
  The Speaker entertained the motion as follows:

  The gentleman moves that the Record be corrected by inserting the 
proceedings of yesterday--those that are omitted--according to the 
notes of the official reporters.

  The motion was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 6968.
  \2\ Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro tempore.
  \3\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3193.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 3500
  3500. The rules governing the publications of the Congressional 
Record prescribe the conditions under which Members may revise their 
remarks.
  Rules governing the furnishing of copy under leave to print in the 
Congressional Record.
  The insertion of maps or diagrams in the Congressional Record is 
within the control of the Joint Committee on Printing.
  The arrangement, style, type, etc., of the Congressional Record is 
prescribed by the Joint Committee on Printing.
  On December 10, 1924, the Joint Committee on Printing \1\ adopted the 
following rules for the publication of the Congressional Record.

  1. The Public Printer will arrange the contents of the Record as 
follows: First, the Senate proceedings; second, the House proceedings; 
third, the Appendix: Provided, That when the proceedings of the Senate 
are not received in time to follow this arrangement, the Public Printer 
may begin the Record with the House proceedings.
  2. The Public Printer shall begin the proceedings of each House and 
the Appendix on a new page, with appropriate headings centered thereon.
  3. The Public Printer shall print the verbatim report of the 
proceedings and debates of the Senate and House of Representatives, as 
furnished by the official reports of the Congressional Record, in 8-
point type, solid; and all matter included in the remarks or speeches 
of Members of Congress, other than their own words, and all reports, 
documents and other matter authorized to be inserted in the Record 
shall be printed in 6-point type, leaded; and all roll calls and lists 
of pairs shall be printed in 6-point type, solid.
  4. When copy is submitted to Members for revision it should be 
returned to the Government Printing Office not later than 9 o'clock 
p.m., in order to insure publication in the Record issued on the 
following morning; and if all of said copy is not furnished at the time 
specified, the Public Printer is authorized to withhold it from the 
Record for one day. In no case will a speech be printed in the Record 
of the day of its delivery if the copy is furnished later than 12 
o'clock midnight.
  5. The copy of speeches containing large tabular statements to be 
published in the Record shall be in the hands of the Public Printer not 
later than 6 o'clock p.m. on the day prior to their publication.
  6. Proofs of ``leave to print'' and advance speeches will not be 
furnished the day the copy is received, but will be submitted the 
following day, whenever possible to do so without causing delay in the 
publication of the regular proceedings of Congress. Advance speeches 
shall be set in the Record style of type, and not more than six sets of 
proofs may be furnished to Members without charge.
  7. If copy or proofs have not been returned in time for publication 
in the proceedings, the Public Printer will insert the words ``Mr. ----
-- addressed the Senate (House or committee). His remarks will appear 
hereafter in the Appendix,'' and proceed with the printing of the 
Record.
  8. The Public Printer shall not publish in the Congressional Record 
any speech or extension of remarks which has been withheld for a period 
exceeding 30 calendar days (exclusive of Sundays and holidays) from the 
date when its printing was authorized: Provided, That at the expiration 
of each session of Congress the time limit herein fixed shall be 10 
days, unless otherwise ordered by the committee.
  9. When leave has been obtained to print (1) a speech not delivered 
in either House, (2) a newspaper or magazine article, or (3) any other 
matter not germane to the proceedings, the same shall be published in 
the Appendix, but this rule shall not apply to quotations which form 
part of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ For discussion of the statute authorizing the Joint Committee on 
Printing to prescribe rules for governing the publication of the 
Congressional Record see footnote to section 7024 of Hinds' Precedents.
Sec. 3501
a speech of a Member, or to an authorized extension of his own remarks. 
The official reporters of each House shall indicate on copy and prepare 
headings for all matter to be printed in the Appendix, and shall make 
suitable reference thereto at the proper place in the proceedings. Any 
Member may, upon request noted on the manuscript, have an authorized 
extension of his own remarks printed in the Appendix.
  10. Illustrations shall not be inserted in the Record without the 
approval of the Joint Committee on Printing. Requests for such approval 
should be submitted to the Joint Committee on Printing through the 
chairman of the Committee on Printing of the respective House in which 
the speech desired to be illustrated may be delivered. Illustrations 
shall not exceed in size a page of the Record and shall be line cuts 
only. Copy for illustrations must be furnished to the Public Printer 
not later than 12:30 p.m. of the day preceding publication.
  11. The permanent Record is made up for printing and binding 30 days 
after each daily publication is issued; therefore all corrections must 
be sent to the Public Printer within that time: Provided, That upon the 
final adjournment of each session of Congress the time limit shall be 
10 days unless otherwise ordered by the committee.
  The Public Printer shall insert the contents of the daily Appendix in 
its regular place in the proceedings of each House when printing the 
bound edition of the Congressional Record.

  3501. The statute requires that requests for permission to insert 
illustrations in the Record be submitted to the Joint Committee on 
Printing through the chairman of the respective House in which the 
speech desired to be illustrated may be delivered,\1\ and motions for 
the insertion of illustrations are not in order in the House.
  On Monday, February 23, 1931,\2\ in pursuance of an order of the 
House, Mr. James M. Beck, of Pennsylvania, was recognized to deliver an 
address on George Washington.
  At the conclusion of the address, Mr. John J. Boylan, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent that a picture of George Washington, the first 
President of the United States, be printed in the Record in connection 
with the speech.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The Chair can not recognize the gentleman for that purpose, as that 
is contrary to law.

  3502. On June 23, 1930,\4\ during the call of the Consent Calendar, 
Mr. John J. Boylan, of New York, asked unanimous consent to extend his 
remarks in the Record by printing a cartoon appearing in a daily 
newspaper.
  The Speaker pro tempore,\5\ declined to submit the request to the 
House and said:

  The Joint Committee on Printing has charge of that matter under the 
statute. The Chair can not entertain a request of that kind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Section 181 of Title 44 of the United States Code.
  \2\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5742.
  \3\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 11541.
  \5\ C. William Ramseyer, of Iowa, Speaker pro tempore.