document_title: United States House of Representatives

question_text: what is the term of an official in the house of representatives

question_tokens: what is the term of an official in the house of representatives

text: United States House of Representatives

text: History[edit]

text: Under the Articles of Confederation, the Congress of the Confederation was a unicameral body in which each state was equally represented, and in which each state had a veto over most action. After eight years of a more limited confederal government under the Articles, numerous political leaders such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton initiated the Constitutional Convention in 1787, which received the Confederation Congress's sanction to "amend the Articles of Confederation". All states except Rhode Island agreed to send delegates.

tag: p

text: The issue of how to structure Congress was one of the most divisive among the founders during the Convention. Edmund Randolph's Virginia Plan called for a bicameral Congress: the lower house would be "of the people", elected directly by the people of the United States and representing public opinion, and a more deliberative upper house that would represent the individual states, and would be less susceptible to variations of mass sentiment, would be elected by the lower house.[6]

text: The House is referred to as the lower house, with the Senate being the upper house, although the United States Constitution does not use that terminology. Both houses' approval is necessary for the passage of legislation. The Virginia Plan drew the support of delegates from large states such as Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, as it called for representation based on population. The smaller states, however, favored the New Jersey Plan, which called for a unicameral Congress with equal representation for the states.[6]

text: Eventually, the Convention reached the Connecticut Compromise or Great Compromise, under which one house of Congress (the House of Representatives) would provide representation proportional to each state's population, whereas the other (the Senate) would provide equal representation amongst the states.[6] The Constitution was ratified by the requisite number of states (nine out of the 13) in 1788, but its implementation was set for March 4, 1789. The House began work on April 1, 1789, when it achieved a quorum for the first time.

text: During the first half of the 19th century, the House was frequently in conflict with the Senate over regionally divisive issues, including slavery. The North was much more populous than the South, and therefore dominated the House of Representatives. However, the North held no such advantage in the Senate, where the equal representation of states prevailed.

text: Regional conflict was most pronounced over the issue of slavery. One example of a provision repeatedly supported by the House but blocked by the Senate was the Wilmot Proviso, which sought to ban slavery in the land gained during the Mexican–American War. Conflict over slavery and other issues persisted until the Civil War (1861–1865), which began soon after several southern states attempted to secede from the Union. The war culminated in the South's defeat and in the abolition of slavery. All southern senators except Andrew Johnson resigned their seats at the beginning of the war, and therefore the Senate did not hold the balance of power between North and South during the war.

text: The years of Reconstruction that followed witnessed large majorities for the Republican Party, which many Americans associated with the Union's victory in the Civil War and the ending of slavery. The Reconstruction period ended in about 1877; the ensuing era, known as the Gilded Age, was marked by sharp political divisions in the electorate. The Democratic Party and Republican Party each held majorities in the House at various times.

text: The late 19th and early 20th centuries also saw a dramatic increase in the power of the Speaker of the House. The rise of the Speaker's influence began in the 1890s, during the tenure of Republican Thomas Brackett Reed. "Czar Reed", as he was nicknamed, attempted to put into effect his view that "The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch." The leadership structure of the House also developed during approximately the same period, with the positions of Majority Leader and Minority Leader being created in 1899. While the Minority Leader was the head of the minority party, the Majority Leader remained subordinate to the Speaker. The Speakership reached its zenith during the term of Republican Joseph Gurney Cannon, from 1903 to 1911. The powers of the Speaker included chairmanship of the influential Rules Committee and the ability to appoint members of other House committees. These powers, however, were curtailed in the "Revolution of 1910" because of the efforts of Democrats and dissatisfied Republicans who opposed Cannon's arguably heavy-handed tactics.

text: The Democratic Party dominated the House of Representatives during the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945), often winning over two-thirds of the seats. Both Democrats and Republicans were in power at various times during the next decade. The Democratic Party maintained control of the House from 1955 until 1995. In the mid-1970s, there were major reforms of the House, strengthening the power of sub-committees at the expense of committee chairs and allowing party leaders to nominate committee chairs. These actions were taken to undermine the seniority system, and to reduce the ability of a small number of senior members to obstruct legislation they did not favor. There was also a shift from the 1990s to greater control of the legislative program by the majority party; the power of party leaders (especially the Speaker) grew considerably.

text: The Republicans took control of the House in 1995, under the leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich attempted to pass a major legislative program, the Contract with America, on which the House Republicans had been elected, and made major reforms of the House, notably reducing the tenure of committee chairs to three two-year terms. Many elements of the Contract did not pass Congress, were vetoed by President Bill Clinton, or were substantially altered in negotiations with Clinton. The Republicans held on to the House until 2006, when the Democrats won control and Nancy Pelosi was subsequently elected by the House as the first female Speaker. The Republicans retook the House in 2011, with the largest shift of power since the 1930s.[7]

text: Membership, qualifications and apportionment[edit]

text:
This article is part of a series on the

United States House
of Representatives

History of the United States
House of Representatives

Members

Current members

(by seniority
by age
non-voting)

Former members

Hill committees

(DCCC
NRCC)

Congressional districts

Speaker of the United States
House of Representatives (list)

Party leaders
Democratic Caucus
Republican Conference

Politics and procedure

Committee of the Whole

Closed session (list)
Saxbe fix

Committees (list)
Procedures

Origination Clause
Quorum call

Unanimous consent
Salaries

Apportionment (Huntington–Hill method)

Redistricting
Gerrymandering

Articles of impeachment

Self-executing rule
Rules suspension

General ticket
Plural district

Places

United States Capitol

House office buildings

(Cannon
Ford
Longworth
Rayburn)

v
t
e

text: Apportionments[edit]

text: Under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned among the states by population, as determined by the census conducted every ten years. Each state is entitled to at least one Representative, however, small its population.

text: The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House states: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative."[8] Congress regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth until it fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911.[1] In 1959, upon the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, the number was temporarily increased to 437 (seating one Representative from each of those states without changing existing apportionment), and returned to 435 four years later, after the reapportionment consequent to the 1960 census.

text: The Constitution does not provide for the representation of the District of Columbia or of territories. The District of Columbia and the territories of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are each represented by one non-voting delegate. Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner, but other than having a four-year term, the Resident Commissioner's role is identical to the delegates from the other territories. The five Delegates and Resident Commissioner may participate in debates; prior to 2011,[9] they were also allowed to vote in committees and the Committee of the Whole when their votes would not be decisive.[10]

text: Redistricting[edit]

text: States that are entitled to more than one Representative are divided into single-member districts. This has been a federal statutory requirement since 1967.[11] Prior to that law, general ticket representation was used by some states.

text: States typically redraw district boundaries after each census, though they may do so at other times, such as the 2003 Texas redistricting. Each state determines its own district boundaries, either through legislation or through non-partisan panels. "Malapportionment" is unconstitutional and districts must be approximately equal in population (see Wesberry v. Sanders). Additionally, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits redistricting plans that are intended to, or have the effect of, discriminating against racial or language minority voters.[12] Aside from malapportionment and discrimination against racial or language minorities, federal courts have allowed state legislatures to engage in gerrymandering for the benefit of political parties or incumbents.[13][14] In a 1984 case, Davis v. Bandemer, the Supreme Court held that gerrymandered districts could be struck down on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause, but the Court did not articulate a standard for when districts are impermissibly gerrymandered. However, the Court overruled Davis in 2004 in Vieth v. Jubelirer, and Court precedent currently holds gerrymandering to be a political question. According to calculations made by Burt Neuborne using criteria set forth by the American Political Science Association, about 40 seats, less than 10% of the House membership, are chosen through a genuinely contested electoral process, given partisan gerrymandering.[15][16]

text: Qualifications[edit]

text: Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for representatives. Each representative must: (1) be at least twenty-five years old; (2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and (3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state he or she represents. Members are not required to live in the districts they represent, but they traditionally do.[17] The age and citizenship qualifications for representatives are less than those for senators. The constitutional requirements of Article I, Section 2 for election to Congress are the maximum requirements that can be imposed on a candidate.[18] Therefore, Article I, Section 5, which permits each House to be the judge of the qualifications of its own members does not permit either House to establish additional qualifications. Likewise a State could not establish additional qualifications.

text: Disqualification: under the Fourteenth Amendment, a federal or state officer who takes the requisite oath to support the Constitution, but later engages in rebellion or aids the enemies of the United States, is disqualified from becoming a representative. This post–Civil War provision was intended to prevent those who sided with the Confederacy from serving. However, disqualified individuals may serve if they gain the consent of two-thirds of both houses of Congress.

text: Elections[edit]

text: Elections for representatives are held in every even-numbered year, on Election Day the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. By law, Representatives must be elected from single-member districts. After a census is taken (in a year ending in 0), the year ending in 2 is the first year in which elections for U.S. House districts are based on that census (with the Congress based on those districts starting its term on the following Jan. 3).

text: In most states, major party candidates for each district are nominated in partisan primary elections, typically held in spring to late summer. In some states, the Republican and Democratic parties choose their respective candidates for each district in their political conventions in spring or early summer, which often use unanimous voice votes to reflect either confidence in the incumbent or the result of bargaining in earlier private discussions. Exceptions can result in so-called floor fight—convention votes by delegates, with outcomes that can be hard to predict. Especially if a convention is closely divided, a losing candidate may contend further by meeting the conditions for a primary election.

text: The courts generally do not consider ballot access rules for independent and third party candidates to be additional qualifications for holding office and there are no federal regulations regarding ballot access. As a result, the process to gain ballot access varies greatly from state to state, and in the case of a third party may be affected by results of previous years' elections.

text: In 1967, the United States Congress passed the Uniform Congressional District Act, which requires almost all representatives be elected from single-member-districts,[19][20] Following the Wesberry v. Sanders decision, Congress was motivated by fears that courts would impose at-large plurality districts on states that did not redistrict to comply with the new mandates for districts roughly equal in population, and Congress also sought to prevent attempts by southern states to use such voting systems to dilute the vote of racial minorities.[21] Several states have used multi-member districts in the past, although only two states (Hawaii and New Mexico) used multi-member districts in 1967.[20] Hawaii and New Mexico were made exempt from the Uniform Congressional District Act, and are free to use multi-member districts, although neither state chooses to do so.[20]

text: Louisiana is unique in that it holds an all-party "primary election" on the general Election Day with a subsequent runoff election between the top two finishers (regardless of party) if no candidate received a majority in the primary. The states of Washington and California now use a similar (though not identical) system to that used by Louisiana. Seats vacated during a term are filled through special elections, unless the vacancy occurs closer to the next general election date than a pre-established deadline. The term of a member chosen in a special election usually begins the next day, or as soon as the results are certified.

text: Non-voting delegates[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Additionally, Washington D.C. and the five inhabited U.S. territories each elect a non-voting delegate. With the exception of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, each representative and delegate serves for a two-year term. They have a voice and can introduce bills on the floor, but cannot vote there.

text: Terms[edit]

text: Representatives and Delegates serve for two-year terms, while the Resident Commissioner serves for four years. The Constitution permits the House to expel a member with a two-thirds vote. In the history of the United States, only five members have been expelled from the House; in 1861, three were removed for supporting the Confederate states' secession: John Bullock Clark (D-MO), John William Reid (D-MO) and Henry Cornelius Burnett (D-KY). Michael Myers (D-PA) was expelled after his criminal conviction for accepting bribes in 1980, and James Traficant (D-OH) was expelled in 2002 following his conviction for corruption.[22] The House also has the power to formally censure or reprimand its members; censure or reprimand of a member requires only a simple majority, and does not remove that member from office.

text: Comparison to the Senate[edit]

text: As a check on the regional, popular, and rapidly changing politics of the House, the Senate has several distinct powers. For example, the "advice and consent" powers (such as the power to approve treaties) are a sole Senate privilege.[23] The House, however, has the exclusive power to initiate bills for raising revenue, to impeach officials, and to choose the President in the event that a presidential candidate fails to get a majority of the Electoral College votes.[24] The Senate and House are further differentiated by term lengths and the number of districts represented: the Senate has longer terms of six years, fewer members (currently one hundred, two for each state), and (in all but seven delegations) larger constituencies per member. The Senate is informally referred to as the "upper" house, and the House of Representatives as the "lower" house.

text: Salary and benefits[edit]

text: Salaries[edit]

text: As of December 2014[update], the annual salary of each Representative is $174,000.[25][26] The Speaker of the House and the Majority and Minority Leaders earn more: $223,500 for the Speaker and $193,400 for their party leaders (the same as Senate leaders).[26] A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it. Congress sets members' salaries; however, the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a change in salary (but not COLA[27]) from taking effect until after the next election of the whole House. Representatives are eligible for retirement benefits after serving for five years.[28] Outside pay is limited to 15% of congressional pay, and certain types of income involving a fiduciary responsibility or personal endorsement are prohibited.[26]

text: Titles[edit]

text: Representatives use the prefix "The Honorable" before their names. A member of the House is referred to as a representative, congressman, or congresswoman. While senators are members of Congress, the terms congressman and congresswoman are not generally used by them.

text: Pension[edit]

text: All members of Congress are automatically (without the option of withdrawal) enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System, a pension system also used for federal civil servants. They become eligible to receive benefits after five years of service (two and one-half terms in the House). The FERS is composed of three elements:

text:
Social Security
The FERS basic annuity, a monthly pension plan based on the number of years of service and the average of the three highest years of basic pay
The Thrift Savings Plan, a 401(k)-like defined contribution plan for retirement account into which participants can deposit up to a maximum of $18,000 in 2017.[needs update] Their employing agency matches employee contributions up to 5% of pay.

text: Members of Congress may retire with full benefits at age 62 after five years of service, at age 50 after twenty years of service, and at any age after twenty-five years of service. They may retire with reduced benefits at ages 55 to 59 after five years of service. Depending on birth year, they may receive a reduced pension after ten years of service if they are between 55 years and 57 years of age.[29]

text: Tax deductions[edit]

text: Members of Congress are permitted to deduct up to $3,000 of living expenses per year incurred while living away from their district or home state.[30]

text: Health benefits[edit]

text: Prior to 2014, members of Congress and their staff had access to essentially the same health benefits as federal civil servants; they could voluntarily enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), an employer-sponsored health insurance program, and were eligible to participate in other programs, such as the Federal Flexible Spending Account Program (FSAFEDS).[31]

text: However, Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided that the only health plans that the federal government can make available to members of Congress and certain congressional staff are those created under the ACA or offered through a health care exchange. The Office of Personnel Management promulgated a final rule to comply with Section 1312(d)(3)(D).[31] Under the rule, effective January 1, 2014, members and designated staff are no longer able to purchase FEHBP plans as active employees.[31] However, if members enroll in a health plan offered through a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchange, they remain eligible for an employer contribution toward coverage, and members and designated staff who are eligible for retirement may enroll in a FEHBP plan upon retirement.[31]

text: The ACA and the final rule do not affect members' or staffers' eligibility for Medicare benefits.[31] The ACA and the final rule also do not affect members' and staffers' eligibility for other health benefits related to federal employment, so current members and staff are eligible to participate in FSAFEDS (which has three options within the program), the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program, and the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program.[31]

text: There is an Office of the Attending Physician at the U.S. Capitol, which current members may seek health care from for an annual fee.[31] The attending physician provides routine exams, consultations, and certain diagnostics, and may write prescriptions (although it does not dispense them).[31] The office does not provide vision or dental care.[31]

text: Current members (but not their dependents, and not former members) may also receive medical and emergency dental care at military treatment facilities.[31] There is no charge for outpatient care if it is provided in the National Capital Region, but members are billed at full reimbursement rates (set by the Department of Defense) for inpatient care.[31] (Outside the National Capital Region, charges are at full reimbursement rates for both inpatient and outpatient care).[31]

text: Personnel, mail and office expenses[edit]

text: House members are eligible for a Member's Representational Allowance (MRA) to support them in their official and representational duties to their district.[32] The MRA is calculated based on three components: one for personnel, one for official office expenses and one for official or franked mail. The personnel allowance is the same for all members; the office and mail allowances vary based on the members' district's distance from Washington, D.C., the cost of office space in the member's district, and the number of non-business addresses in their district. These three components are used to calculate a single MRA that can fund any expense—even though each component is calculated individually, the franking allowance can be used to pay for personnel expenses if the member so chooses. In 2011 this allowance averaged $1.4 million per member, and ranged from $1.35 to $1.67 million.[33]

text: The Personnel allowance was $944,671 per member in 2010. Each member may employ no more than 18 permanent employees. Members' employees' salary is capped at $168,411 as of 2009.[33]

text: Travel allowance[edit]

text: Each member-elect and one staffer can be paid for one round trip between their home in their congressional district and Washington, D.C. for organization caucuses.[33]

text: Officers[edit]

text: Member officials[edit]

text: The party with a majority of seats in the House is known as the majority party. The next-largest party is the minority party. The Speaker, committee chairs, and some other officials are generally from the majority party; they have counterparts (for instance, the "ranking members" of committees) in the minority party.

text: The Constitution provides that the House may choose its own Speaker.[34] Although not explicitly required by the Constitution, every Speaker has been a member of the House. The Constitution does not specify the duties and powers of the Speaker, which are instead regulated by the rules and customs of the House. Speakers have a role both as a leader of the House and the leader of their party (which need not be the majority party; theoretically, a member of the minority party could be elected as Speaker with the support of a fraction of members of the majority party). Under the Presidential Succession Act (1947), the Speaker is second in the line of presidential succession behind the Vice President.

text: The Speaker is the presiding officer of the House but does not preside over every debate. Instead, s/he delegates the responsibility of presiding to other members in most cases. The presiding officer sits in a chair in the front of the House chamber. The powers of the presiding officer are extensive; one important power is that of controlling the order in which members of the House speak. No member may make a speech or a motion unless s/he has first been recognized by the presiding officer. Moreover, the presiding officer may rule on a "point of order" (a member's objection that a rule has been breached); the decision is subject to appeal to the whole House.

text: Speakers serve as chairs of their party's steering committee, which is responsible for assigning party members to other House committees. The Speaker chooses the chairmen of standing committees, appoints most of the members of the Rules Committee, appoints all members of conference committees, and determines which committees consider bills.

text: Each party elects a floor leader, who is known as the Majority Leader or Minority Leader. The Minority Leader heads their party in the House, and the Majority Leader is their party's second-highest-ranking official, behind the Speaker. Party leaders decide what legislation members of their party should either support or oppose.

text: Each party also elects a Whip, who works to ensure that the party's members vote as the party leadership desires. The current majority whip in the House of Representatives is Steve Scalise, who is a member of the Republican Party. The current minority whip is Steny Hoyer, who is a member of the Democratic Party. The whip is supported by chief deputy whips.

text: In the 112th Congress, the Democratic Party has an additional Assistant Minority Leader, Jim Clyburn, who ranks between the whips and the caucus/conference chair.

text: After the whips, the next ranking official in the House party's leadership is the Party Conference Chair (styled as the Republican Conference Chair and Democratic Caucus Chair).

text: After the Conference Chair, there are differences between each party's subsequent leadership ranks. After the Democratic Caucus Chair is the Campaign Committee Chair (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), then the co-chairs of the Steering Committee. For the Republicans it is the Chair of the House Republican Policy Committee, followed by the Campaign Committee Chairman (styled as the National Republican Congressional Committee).

text: The chairs of House committees, particularly influential standing committees such as Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Rules, are powerful but not officially part of House leadership hierarchy. Until the post of Majority Leader was created, the Chair of Ways and Means was the de facto majority leader.

text: Leadership and partisanship[edit]

text: When the Presidency and Senate are controlled by a different party from the one controlling the House, the Speaker can become the de facto "leader of the opposition". Some notable examples include Tip O'Neill in the 1980s, Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, and John Boehner in the 2010s. Since the Speaker is a partisan officer with substantial power to control the business of the House, the position is often used for partisan advantage.

text: In the instance when the Presidency and both Houses of Congress are controlled by one party, the Speaker normally takes a low profile and defers to the President. For that situation the House Minority Leader can play the role of a de facto "leader of the opposition", often more so than the Senate Minority Leader, due to the more partisan nature of the House and the greater role of leadership.

text: Non-member officials[edit]

text: The House is also served by several officials who are not members. The House's chief such officer is the Clerk, who maintains public records, prepares documents, and oversees junior officials, including pages, until the junior position's discontinuation in 2011. The Clerk also presides over the House at the beginning of each new Congress pending the election of a Speaker. Another officer is the Chief Administrative Officer, responsible for the day-to-day administrative support to the House of Representatives. This includes everything from payroll to foodservice.

text: The position of Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) was created by the 104th Congress following the 1994 mid-term elections, replacing the positions of Doorkeeper and Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services (created by the previous congress to administer the non-partisan functions of the House). The CAO also assumed some of the responsibilities of the House Information Services, which previously had been controlled directly by the Committee on House Administration, then headed by Representative Charlie Rose of North Carolina, along with the House "Folding Room".

text: The Chaplain leads the House in prayer at the opening of the day. There is also a Sergeant at Arms, who as the House's chief law enforcement officer maintains order and security on House premises. Finally, routine police work is handled by the United States Capitol Police, which is supervised by the Capitol Police Board, a body to which the Sergeant at Arms belongs, and chairs in even-numbered years.

text: Procedure[edit]

text: Daily procedures[edit]

text: Like the Senate, the House of Representatives meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. At one end of the chamber of the House is a rostrum from which the Speaker, Speaker Pro Tempore, or (when in the Committee of the Whole) the Chair presides.[35] The lower tier of the rostrum is used by clerks and other officials. Members' seats are arranged in the chamber in a semicircular pattern facing the rostrum and are divided by a wide central aisle.[36] By tradition, Democrats sit on the left of the center aisle, while Republicans sit on the right, facing the presiding officer's chair.[37] Sittings are normally held on weekdays; meetings on Saturdays and Sundays are rare. Sittings of the House are generally open to the public; visitors must obtain a House Gallery pass from a congressional office.[38] Sittings are broadcast live on television and have been streamed live on C-SPAN since March 19, 1979,[39] and on HouseLive, the official streaming service operated by the Clerk, since the early 2010s.

text: The procedure of the House depends not only on the rules, but also on a variety of customs, precedents, and traditions. In many cases, the House waives some of its stricter rules (including time limits on debates) by unanimous consent.[40] A member may block a unanimous consent agreement; in practice, objections are rare. The presiding officer, the Speaker of the House enforces the rules of the House, and may warn members who deviate from them. The Speaker uses a gavel to maintain order.[41] The box in which legislation is placed to be considered by the House is called the hopper.[42]

text: In one of its first resolutions, the U.S. House of Representatives established the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. In an American tradition adopted from English custom in 1789 by the first Speaker of the House, Frederick Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, the Mace of the United States House of Representatives is used to open all sessions of the House. It is also used during the inaugural ceremonies for all Presidents of the United States. For daily sessions of the House, the sergeant at Arms carries the mace in front of the Speaker in procession to the rostrum. It is placed on a green marble pedestal to the Speaker's right. When the House is in committee, the mace is moved to a pedestal next to the desk of the Sergeant at Arms.[43]

text: The Constitution provides that a majority of the House constitutes a quorum to do business.[44] Under the rules and customs of the House, a quorum is always assumed present unless a quorum call explicitly demonstrates otherwise. House rules prevent a member from making a point of order that a quorum is not present unless a question is being voted on. The presiding officer does not accept a point of order of no quorum during general debate, or when a question is not before the House.[45]

text: During debates, a member may speak only if called upon by the presiding officer. The presiding officer decides which members to recognize, and can therefore control the course of debate.[46] All speeches must be addressed to the presiding officer, using the words "Mr. Speaker" or "Madam Speaker". Only the presiding officer may be directly addressed in speeches; other members must be referred to in the third person. In most cases, members do not refer to each other only by name, but also by state, using forms such as "the gentleman from Virginia", "the distinguished gentlewoman from California", or "my distinguished friend from Alabama".

text: There are 448 permanent seats on the House Floor and four tables, two on each side. These tables are occupied by members of the committee that have brought a bill to the floor for consideration and by the respective party leadership. Members address the House from microphones at any table or "the well," the area immediately in front of the rostrum.[47]

text: Passage of legislation[edit]

text: Per the constitution, the House determines the rules according to which it passes legislation. The rules are in principle open to change with each new Congress, but in practice each new session amends a standing set of rules built up over the history of the body in an early resolution published for public inspection.[48] Before legislation reaches the floor of the House, the Rules Committee normally passes a rule to govern debate on that measure (which then must be passed by the full House before it becomes effective). For instance, the committee determines if amendments to the bill are permitted. An "open rule" permits all germane amendments, but a "closed rule" restricts or even prohibits amendment. Debate on a bill is generally restricted to one hour, equally divided between the majority and minority parties. Each side is led during the debate by a "floor manager", who allocates debate time to members who wish to speak. On contentious matters, many members may wish to speak; thus, a member may receive as little as one minute, or even thirty seconds, to make his/her point.[49]

text: When debate concludes, the motion in question is put to a vote. In many cases, the House votes by voice vote; the presiding officer puts the question, and members respond either "yea" or "aye" (in favor of the motion) or "nay" or "no" (against the motion). The presiding officer then announces the result of the voice vote. A member may however challenge the presiding officer's assessment and "request the yeas and nays" or "request a recorded vote". The request may be granted only if it is seconded by one-fifth of the members present. In practice, however, members of congress second requests for recorded votes as a matter of courtesy. Some votes are always recorded, such as those on the annual budget.[50]

text: A recorded vote may be taken in one of three different ways. One is electronically. Members use a personal identification card to record their votes at 46 voting stations in the chamber. Votes are usually held in this way. A second mode of recorded vote is by teller. Members hand in colored cards to indicate their votes: green for "yea", red for "nay", and orange for "present" (i.e., to abstain). Teller votes are normally held only when electronic voting breaks down. Finally, the House may conduct a roll call vote. The Clerk reads the list of members of the House, each of whom announces their vote when their name is called. This procedure is only used rarely (such as for the election of a Speaker) because of the time consumed by calling over four hundred names.[50]

text: Voting traditionally lasts for, at most, fifteen minutes, but it may be extended if the leadership needs to "whip" more members into alignment.[50] The 2003 vote on the prescription drug benefit was open for three hours, from 3:00 to 6:00 a.m., to receive four additional votes, three of which were necessary to pass the legislation.[51] The 2005 vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement was open for one hour, from 11:00 p.m. to midnight.[52] An October 2005 vote on facilitating refinery construction was kept open for forty minutes.[53]

text: Presiding officers may vote like other members. They may not, however, vote twice in the event of a tie; rather, a tie vote defeats the motion.[54]

text: Committees[edit]

text: The House uses committees and their subcommittees for a variety of purposes, including the review of bills and the oversight of the executive branch. The appointment of committee members is formally made by the whole House, but the choice of members is actually made by the political parties. Generally, each party honors the preferences of individual members, giving priority on the basis of seniority. Historically, membership on committees has been in rough proportion to the party's strength in the House as a whole, with two exceptions: on the Rules Committee, the majority party fills nine of the thirteen seats;[55] and on the Ethics Committee, each party has an equal number of seats.[56] However, when party control in the House is closely divided, extra seats on committees are sometimes allocated to the majority party. In the 109th Congress, for example, the Republicans controlled about 53% of the House as a whole, but had 54% of the Appropriations Committee members, 55% of the members on the Energy and Commerce Committee, 58% of the members on the Judiciary Committee, and 69% of the members on the Rules Committee.

text: The largest committee of the House is the Committee of the Whole, which, as its name suggests, consists of all members of the House. The Committee meets in the House chamber; it may consider and amend bills, but may not grant them final passage. Generally, the debate procedures of the Committee of the Whole are more flexible than those of the House itself. One advantage of the Committee of the Whole is its ability to include otherwise non-voting members of Congress.

text: Most committee work is performed by twenty standing committees, each of which has jurisdiction over a specific set of issues, such as Agriculture or Foreign Affairs. Each standing committee considers, amends, and reports bills that fall under its jurisdiction. Committees have extensive powers with regard to bills; they may block legislation from reaching the floor of the House. Standing committees also oversee the departments and agencies of the executive branch. In discharging their duties, standing committees have the power to hold hearings and to subpoena witnesses and evidence.

text: The House also has one permanent committee that is not a standing committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and from time to time may establish committees that are temporary and advisory in nature, such as the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. This latter committee, created in the 110th Congress and reauthorized for the 111th, has no jurisdiction over legislation and must be chartered anew at the start of every Congress. The House also appoints members to serve on joint committees, which include members of the Senate and House. Some joint committees oversee independent government bodies; for instance, the Joint Committee on the Library oversees the Library of Congress. Other joint committees serve to make advisory reports; for example, there exists a Joint Committee on Taxation. Bills and nominees are not referred to joint committees. Hence, the power of joint committees is considerably lower than those of standing committees.

text: Each House committee and subcommittee is led by a chairman (always a member of the majority party). From 1910 to the 1970s, committee chairs were powerful. Woodrow Wilson in his classic study,[57] suggested:

text: Power is nowhere concentrated; it is rather deliberately and of set policy scattered amongst many small chiefs. It is divided up, as it were, into forty-seven seigniories, in each of which a Standing Committee is the court-baron and its chairman lord-proprietor. These petty barons, some of them not a little powerful, but none of them within the reach of the full powers of rule, may at will exercise almost despotic sway within their own shires, and may sometimes threaten to convulse even the realm itself.

text: From 1910 to 1975 committee and subcommittee chairmanship was determined purely by seniority; congressmembers sometimes had to wait 30 years to get one, but their chairship was independent of party leadership. The rules were changed in 1975 to permit party caucuses to elect chairmen, shifting power upward to the party leaders. In 1995, Republicans under Newt Gingrich set a limit of three two-year terms for committee chairs. The chairman's powers are extensive; he controls the committee/subcommittee agenda, and may prevent the committee from dealing with a bill. The senior member of the minority party is known as the Ranking Member. In some committees like Appropriations, partisan disputes are few.

text: Legislative functions[edit]

text: Most bills may be introduced in either House of Congress. However, the Constitution states, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives". As a result of the Origination Clause, the Senate cannot initiate bills imposing taxes. This provision barring the Senate from introducing revenue bills is based on the practice of the British Parliament, in which only the House of Commons may originate such measures. Furthermore, congressional tradition holds that the House of Representatives originates appropriation bills.

text: Although it cannot originate revenue bills, the Senate retains the power to amend or reject them. Woodrow Wilson wrote the following about appropriations bills:[58]

text: [T]he constitutional prerogative of the House has been held to apply to all the general appropriations bills, and the Senate's right to amend these has been allowed the widest possible scope. The upper house may add to them what it pleases; may go altogether outside of their original provisions and tack to them entirely new features of legislation, altering not only the amounts but even the objects of expenditure, and making out of the materials sent them by the popular chamber measures of an almost totally new character.

text: The approval of the Senate and the House of Representatives is required for a bill to become law. Both Houses must pass the same version of the bill; if there are differences, they may be resolved by a conference committee, which includes members of both bodies. For the stages through which bills pass in the Senate, see Act of Congress.

text: The President may veto a bill passed by the House and Senate. If he does, the bill does not become law unless each House, by a two-thirds vote, votes to override the veto.

text: Checks and balances[edit]

text: The Constitution provides that the Senate's "advice and consent" is necessary for the President to make appointments and to ratify treaties. Thus, with its potential to frustrate Presidential appointments, the Senate is more powerful than the House.

text: The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" and empowers the Senate to try such impeachments. The House may approve "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority vote; however, a two-thirds vote is required for conviction in the Senate. A convicted official is automatically removed from office and may be disqualified from holding future office under the United States. No further punishment is permitted during the impeachment proceedings; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law.

text: In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (Another, Richard Nixon, resigned after the House Judiciary Committee passed articles of impeachment but before a formal impeachment vote by the full House.) Only two Presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction.

text: Under the Twelfth Amendment, the House has the power to elect the President if no presidential candidate receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College. The Twelfth Amendment requires the House to choose from the three candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. The Constitution provides that "the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote." It is rare for no presidential candidate to receive a majority of electoral votes. In the history of the United States, the House has only had to choose a President twice. In 1800, which was before the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment, it elected Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr. In 1824, it elected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson and William H. Crawford. (If no vice-presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the Senate elects the Vice President from the two candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes.)

text: Latest election results and current party standings[edit]

text: Current standing[edit]

text:
Affiliation
Members
Delegates/resident
commissioner
(non-voting)
State
majorities

Republican Party
237
2
32

Democratic Party
192
3
12

Independent
0
1
0

Vacant
6
0

Total
435
6

text: End of previous Congress[edit]

text:
Affiliation
Members
Delegates/resident
commissioner
(non-voting)
State
majorities

Republican Party
246
0

Democratic Party
187
5

Independent
0
1[59]
0

Vacant
2
0

Total
435
6


question_text: where was the first t20 cricket match played

root

text: History[edit]

text: Origins[edit]

text: When the Benson & Hedges Cup ended in 2002, the ECB needed another one day competition to fill its place. Cricketing authorities were looking to boost the game's popularity with the younger generation in response to dwindling crowds and reduced sponsorship. It was intended to deliver fast paced, exciting cricket accessible to thousands of fans who were put off by the longer versions of the game. Stuart Robertson, the marketing manager of the ECB, proposed a 20 over per innings game to county chairmen in 2001 and they voted 11–7 in favour of adopting the new format.[4]

text: The first official Twenty20 matches were played on 13 June 2003 between the English counties in the Twenty20 Cup.[5] The first season of Twenty20 in England was a relative success, with the Surrey Lions defeating the Warwickshire Bears by 9 wickets in the final to claim the title.[6] The first Twenty20 match held at Lord's, on 15 July 2004 between Middlesex and Surrey, attracted a crowd of 27,509, the highest attendance for any county cricket game at the ground – other than a one-day final – since 1953.[7]

text: Spread worldwide[edit]

text: Thirteen teams from different parts of the country participated in Pakistan's inaugural competition in 2004, with Faisalabad Wolves the first winners. On 12 January 2005 Australia's first Twenty20 game was played at the WACA Ground between the Western Warriors and the Victorian Bushrangers. It drew a sell-out crowd of 20,000, which was the first time in nearly 25 years the ground had been completely sold out.[8]

text: Starting 11 July 2006 19 West Indies regional teams competed in what was named the Stanford 20/20 tournament. The event was financially backed by billionaire Allen Stanford, who gave at least US$28,000,000 funding money. It was intended that the tournament would be an annual event. Guyana won the inaugural event, defeating Trinidad and Tobago by 5 wickets, securing US$1,000,000 in prize money.[9][10]

text: On 5 January 2007 Queensland Bulls played the New South Wales Blues at The Gabba, Brisbane. A crowd of 11,000 was expected based on pre-match ticket sales. However, an unexpected 16,000 turned up on the day to buy tickets, causing disruption and confusion for surprised Gabba staff as they were forced to throw open gates and grant many fans free entry. Attendance reached 27,653.[11]

text: For 1 February 2008 Twenty20 match between Australia and India, 85,824[12] people attended the match at the Melbourne Cricket Ground involving the Twenty20 World Champions against the ODI World Champions.

text: The Stanford Super Series was held in October 2008 between Middlesex and Trinidad and Tobago, the respective winners of the English and Caribbean Twenty20 competitions, and a Stanford Superstars team formed from West Indies domestic players; Trinidad and Tobago won the competition, securing US$280,000 prize money.[13][14] On 1 November, the Stanford Superstars played England in what was expected to be the first of five fixtures in as many years with the winner claiming a US$20,000,000 in each match. The Stanford Superstars won the first match,[15] however no further fixtures were held as Allen Stanford was charged with fraud in 2009.[16]

text: Twenty20 Internationals[edit]

text: The first Twenty20 International match was held on 5 August 2004 between the England and New Zealand women's teams with New Zealand winning by nine runs[17]

text: On 17 February 2005 Australia defeated New Zealand in the first men's full international Twenty20 match, played at Eden Park in Auckland. The game was played in a light-hearted manner – both sides turned out in kit similar to that worn in the 1980s, the New Zealand team's a direct copy of that worn by the Beige Brigade. Some of the players also sported moustaches/beards and hair styles popular in the 1980s taking part in a competition amongst themselves for best retro look, at the request of the Beige Brigade. Australia won the game comprehensively, and as the result became obvious towards the end of the NZ innings, the players and umpires took things less seriously – Glenn McGrath jokingly replayed the Trevor Chappell underarm incident from a 1981 ODI between the two sides, and Billy Bowden showed him a mock red card (red cards are not normally used in cricket) in response.

text: The first Twenty20 international in England was played between England and Australia at the Rose Bowl in Hampshire on 13 June 2005, which England won by a margin of 100 runs, a record victory which lasted until 2007.[18]

text: On 9 January 2006 Australia and South Africa met in the first international Twenty20 game in Australia. In a first, each player's nickname appeared on the back of his uniform, rather than his surname. The international match drew a crowd of 38,894 people at The Gabba. Australia convincingly won the match with man of the match Damien Martyn scoring 96 runs.

text: On 16 February 2006 New Zealand defeated West Indies in a tie-breaking bowl-out 3–0; 126 runs were scored apiece in the game proper. The game was the last international match played by Chris Cairns – NZC handed out life-size cardboard masks of his face to patrons as they entered the ground.

text: Every two years an ICC World Twenty20 tournament is to take place, except in the event of an ICC Cricket World Cup being scheduled in the same year, in which case it will be held the year before. The first tournament was in 2007 in South Africa where India defeated Pakistan in the final. Two Associate teams had played in the first tournament, selected through the 2007 ICC World Cricket League Division One, a 50-over competition. In December 2007 it was decided to hold a qualifying tournament with a 20-over format to better prepare the teams. With six participants, two would qualify for the 2009 World Twenty20 and would each receive $250,000 in prize money.[19] The second tournament was won by Pakistan who beat Sri Lanka by 8 wickets in England on 21 June 2009. The 2010 ICC World Twenty20 tournament was held in West Indies in May 2010, where England defeated Australia by 7 wickets. The 2012 ICC World Twenty20 was won by the West-Indies, by defeating Sri Lanka at the finals. It was the first time in Cricket history when a T20 World Cup tournament took place in an Asian country. The 2014 ICC World Twenty20 was won by Sri Lanka, by defeating India at the finals, where the tournament was held in Bangladesh. The 2016 ICC World Twenty20 was won by West-Indies, by defeating England at the finals, where the tournament was held in India.

text: Impact on the game[edit]

text: Twenty20 cricket is claimed to have resulted in a more athletic and explosive form of cricket. Indian fitness coach Ramji Srinivasan declared in an interview with the Indian fitness website Takath.com, that Twenty20 had "raised the bar" in terms of fitness levels for all players, demanding higher levels of strength, speed, agility and reaction time from all players regardless of role in the team.[20] Matthew Hayden credited retirement from international cricket with aiding his performance in general and fitness in particular in the Indian Premier League.[21]

text: In June 2009, speaking at the annual Cowdrey Lecture at Lord's, former Australian wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist pushed for Twenty20 to be made an Olympic sport. "It would," he said, "be difficult to see a better, quicker or cheaper way of spreading the game throughout the world."[22]

text: Match format and rules[edit]

text: Format[edit]

text: Twenty20 match format is a form of limited overs cricket in that it involves two teams, each with a single innings, the key feature being that each team bats for a maximum of 20 overs. In terms of visual format, the batting team members do not arrive from and depart to traditional dressing rooms, but come and go from a bench (typically a row of chairs) visible in the playing arena, analogous to association football's technical area or a baseball dugout.[23]

text: General rules[edit]

text: The Laws of cricket apply to Twenty20, with some exceptions:[24]

text:
Each bowler may bowl a maximum of only one-fifth of the total overs per innings. For a full, uninterrupted match, this is 4 overs.
If a bowler delivers a no ball by overstepping the popping crease, it costs 1 run and his next delivery is designated a "free-hit". In this circumstance the batsman can only be dismissed through a run out, hitting the ball twice, obstructing the field or handling the ball.
The following fielding restrictions apply:

No more than five fielders can be on the leg side at any time.
During the first six overs, a maximum of two fielders can be outside the 30-yard circle (this is known as the powerplay).
After the first six overs, a maximum of five fielders can be outside the fielding circle.

If the fielding team does not start to bowl their 20th over within 75 minutes, the batting side is credited an extra six runs for every whole over bowled after the 75-minute mark; the umpire may add more time to this if he believes the batting team is wasting time.

tag: ul

text: Tie deciders[edit]

text: Currently, if the match ends with the scores tied and there must be a winner, the tie is broken with a one over per side Eliminator[25] or Super Over:[26][27] Each team nominates three batsmen and one bowler to play a one-over per side "mini-match". The team which bats second in the match bats first in the Super Over.[28][29] In turn, each side bats one over bowled by the one nominated opposition bowler, with their innings over if they lose two wickets before the over is completed. The side with the higher score from their Super Over wins. If the super over also ends up in a tie, the team that has scored the most boundaries (4s+6s) in the 20 overs wins.

text: In the Australian domestic competition the Big Bash League the Super Over is played slightly differently, with no 2-wicket limit, and if the super over is also tied then a "countback" is used, with scores after the fifth ball for each team being used to determine the result. If it is still tied, then the countback goes to 4 balls and so on.[30] The latest Super Over to decide a match was between the Sydney Sixers winning against the Brisbane Heat on the 25th January 2017, in the Big Bash League at the Brisbane Cricket Ground, with the Sixers winning 0/22 to 0/15 in the Super Over after tying on 164.[31]

text: Tied Twenty20 matches were previously decided by a bowl-out.[32]

text: International[edit]

text: Women's and men's Twenty20 Internationals have been played since 2004 and 2005 respectively. To date, 20 nations have played the format, including all test playing nations. This considers only matches between teams with Twenty20 International status, which is limited by the International Cricket Council to a small number of top teams.

text:
Nation
Date of men's T20I debut
Date of women's T20I debut

 Australia
17 February 2005
2 September 2005

 New Zealand
17 February 2005
5 August 2004

 England
13 June 2005
5 August 2004

 South Africa
21 October 2005
10 August 2007

 West Indies
16 February 2006
27 June 2008

 Sri Lanka
15 June 2006
12 June 2009

 Pakistan
28 August 2006
25 May 2009

 Bangladesh
28 November 2006
27 August 2012

 Zimbabwe
28 November 2006

 India
1 December 2006
5 August 2006

 Kenya
1 September 2007

 Scotland
12 September 2007

 Netherlands
2 August 2008
27 June 2008

 Ireland
2 August 2008
27 June 2008

 Canada
2 August 2008

 Bermuda
3 August 2008

 Afghanistan
2 February 2010

   Nepal
16 March 2014

 Hong Kong
16 March 2014

 United Arab Emirates
17 March 2014

 Oman
25 July 2015

tag: table

text: T20 International rankings[edit]

text: In November 2011, the ICC released the first Twenty20 International rankings for the men's game, based on the same system as the Test and ODI rankings. The rankings cover a 2 to 3-year period, with matches since the most recent 1 August weighted fully, matches in the preceding 12 months weighted two-thirds, and matches in the 12 months preceding that weighted one-third. To qualify for the rankings, teams must have played at least eight Twenty20 Internationals in the ranking period.[33][34]

text:
ICC T20I Championship

v
t
e

Rank
Team
Matches
Points
Rating

1
 New Zealand
13
1,625
125

2
 Pakistan
20
2,417
121

3
 West Indies
20
2,395
120

4
 England
17
2,029
119

5
 India
22
2,545
116

6
 Australia
15
1,665
111

7
 South Africa
18
1,983
110

8
 Sri Lanka
21
1,961
93

9
 Afghanistan
25
2,157
86

10
 Bangladesh
15
1,168
78

11
 Scotland
11
737
67

12
 Zimbabwe
13
842
65

13
 United Arab Emirates
16
827
52

14
 Netherlands
9
441
49

15
 Hong Kong
13
599
46

16
 Papua New Guinea
6
235
39

17
 Oman
9
345
38

18
 Ireland
15
534
36

Reference: ICC rankings for Tests, ODIs, Twenty20 & Women, 10 October 2017

"Matches" is the number of matches played in the 12-24 months since the May before last, plus half the number in the 24 months before that.

text: The ICC do not maintain a separate Twenty20 ranking for the women's game, instead aggregating performance over all three forms of the game into one overall women's teams ranking.[35]

text: Domestic[edit]

text: This is a list of the current Twenty20 domestic competitions in several of the leading cricket countries.

text:
Country
Domestic Competition
Number of Teams

Afghanistan
Shpageeza Cricket League
6

Australia
Big Bash League
8

Bangladesh
Bangladesh Premier League
8

England
NatWest t20 Blast
18

Hong Kong
Hong Kong T20 Blitz
5

India
Indian Premier League
8

Ireland
Inter-Provincial Trophy
4

Netherlands
Dutch Twenty20 Cup
16

Nepal
Everest Premier League, Dhangadhi Premier League
6,6

New Zealand
Super Smash
6

Pakistan
Pakistan Super League
5

Scotland
Regional Pro Series
3

South Africa
Ram Slam T20 Challenge, T20 Global League
6, 8

Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka Premier League
7

West Indies
Caribbean Premier League
6

Zimbabwe
Stanbic Bank 20 Series
4

text: Records[edit]

text: See also: List of Twenty20 International records


document_title: Discovery of the neutron

question_text: who came up with the initial concept of protons and neutrons

text: Discovery of the neutron

text: Gold foil experiment[edit]

text: At the start of the 20th century, the vigorous debate as to the existence of atoms had not yet been resolved. Philosophers such as Ernst Mach and Wilhelm Ostwald denied that atoms were real, viewing them as a convenient mathematical construct, while scientists such as Arnold Sommerfeld and Ludwig Boltzmann saw that physical theories required the existence of atoms.[9]:§1 Radioactivity had been recently discovered in uranium and thorium. Ernest Rutherford had separated radioactivity into three types: alpha, beta, and gamma rays, depending on their ability to penetrate, or travel into, ordinary objects or gases.[11] These radiations were soon identified with known particles: alpha rays were shown to be helium ions by Rutherford and Thomas Royds in 1907;[12] beta rays were shown to be electrons by Henri Becquerel in 1900; and gamma rays were shown to be electromagnetic radiation, that is, a form of light, in 1914.[1]:62 These radiations had also been identified as emanating from atoms, hence they provided clues as to processes occurring within atoms. Conversely, the radiations were also recognized as tools that could be exploited in scattering experiments to probe the interior of atoms.

text: At the University of Manchester between 1908 and 1913, Rutherford directed Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden in a series of experiments to determine what happens when alpha particles scatter from metal foil. Now called the Rutherford gold foil experiment, or the Geiger–Marsden experiment, these measurements made the extraordinary discovery that alpha particles would occasionally scatter to high angle when passing through a thin gold foil. The scattering indicated that the alpha particles were reflecting from a small, but dense, component of atoms. Based on these measurements, by 1911 it was apparent to Rutherford that the atom consisted of a small massive nucleus with positive charge surrounded by a much larger cloud of negatively charged electrons.[2] The concentrated atomic mass was required to provide the observed reflection of the alpha particles, and Rutherford developed a mathematical model that accounted for the scattering.[2]

text: The Rutherford model was very influential, motivating the Bohr model for electrons orbiting the nucleus in 1913[13] and eventually leading to quantum mechanics by the mid-1920s.

text: Discovery of isotopes[edit]

text: Concurrent with the work of Rutherford, Geiger, and Marsden, the radiochemist Frederick Soddy at the University of Glasgow was studying radioactive decay chains of uranium. Soddy had been a student of Rutherford. Soddy's study indicated about 40 different radioactive elements, referred to as radioelements, between uranium and lead, although the periodic table only allowed for 11 elements.[14] By 1913 Soddy had determined that several of these elements had identical chemical properties but different atomic weights. He called these chemically similar elements isotopes.[15][16] For his study of radioactivity and the discovery of isotopes, Soddy was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.[17]

text: Building from work by J. J. Thomson on the deflection of positively charged atoms by electric and magnetic fields, Francis Aston built the first mass spectrograph at the Cavendish Laboratory in 1919.[4] His aim was to try to separate the two isotopes of neon, which he was able to easily do. Aston discovered that the masses of all the particles are whole numbers, called the whole number rule, that is, the masses of all the isotopes are whole number multiples of the mass of the hydrogen atom.[18] Aston arbitrarily computed his masses relative to oxygen-16, which he took to have a mass of exactly 16. (Today the atomic mass unit (amu) is relative to carbon-12.[19]) Ironically, the one exception to this rule was hydrogen itself, which had a mass value of 1.008. The excess mass was small, but well outside experimental uncertainty. Aston and others quickly realized that the discrepancy is due to the binding energy of atoms, that is, the mass of a number of hydrogen atoms bound into a single atom must be less than the sum of the masses of the separate hydrogen atoms. Additional work determined the nuclide binding energies. Aston's work on isotopes garnered him the 1922 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of isotopes in a large number of non-radioactive elements, and for his enunciation of the whole-number rule. [20] Noting Aston's recent discovery of nuclear binding energy, in 1920 Arthur Eddington suggested that stars may obtain their energy by fusing hydrogen (protons) into helium and that the heavier elements may form in stars.[21][22]

text: Atomic number and Moseley's law[edit]

text: Rutherford and others had noted the disparity between the mass of an atom, computed in atomic mass units, and the approximate charge required on the nucleus for the Rutherford model to work. The required charge of the atomic nucleus was usually about half its atomic mass. In 1911 Antonius van den Broek made the then bold suggestion that the required charge, denoted Z, was not half of the atomic weight for elements, but instead was exactly equal to the element's atomic number, or place in the periodic table.[1]:5 At that time the positions of the elements in the table were not known to have any physical significance, except as a way to order the elements in particular sequences with similar chemical properties.

text: At the University of Manchester in 1913 Henry Moseley discussed the new Bohr model of the atom with the visiting Bohr.[23] The model accounted for the electromagnetic emission spectrum from the hydrogen atom, and Moseley wondered if the electromagnetic emission spectra of heavier elements such as cobalt and nickel would follow their ordering by weight, or by their position in the periodic table. In 1913-1914 Moseley tested the question experimentally by using x-ray diffraction techniques. He found that the most intense short-wavelength line in the x-ray spectrum of a particular element, known as the K-alpha line, was related to the element's position in the periodic table, that is, its atomic number, Z. Indeed, Moseley introduced this nomenclature.[5]:§1.1.2 Moseley found that the frequencies of the radiation were related in a simple way to the atomic number of the elements for a large number of elements.[24]

text: Within a year it was noted that the equation for the relation, now called Moseley's law, could be explained in terms of the 1913 Bohr model, with reasonable extra assumptions about atomic structure in other elements. Moseley's result, by Bohr's later account, not only established atomic number as a measurable experimental quantity, but gave it a physical meaning as the positive charge on the atomic nucleus. The elements could be ordered in the periodic system in order of atomic number, rather than atomic weight. The result tied together the organization of the periodic table, the Bohr model for the atom, and Rutherford's model for alpha scattering from nuclei. It was cited by Rutherford, Bohr, and others as a critical advance in understanding the nature of the atomic nucleus.[25]

text: Further research in atomic physics was interrupted by the outbreak of World War I. Moseley was killed in 1915 at the Battle of Gallipoli,[26] while Rutherford's student James Chadwick was interned in Germany for the duration of the war, 1914-1918.[27] In Berlin, Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn's work on determining the radioactive decay chains of radium and uranium by precise chemical separation was interrupted.[9]:§4 Meitner spent much of the war working as a radiologist and medical X-ray technician near the Austrian front, while Hahn, a chemist, worked on research in poison gas warfare.

text: Rutherford atom[edit]

text: In 1920 Rutherford gave a Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society entitled the "Nuclear Constitution of Atoms", a summary of what was then known about the nucleus of the atom.[28][8]:23 By 1920, the existence of electrons within the atomic nucleus was widely assumed. It was assumed the nucleus consisted of hydrogen nuclei in number equal to the atomic mass. But since each hydrogen had charge +1, the nucleus required a smaller number of "internal electrons" each of charge -1 to give the nucleus its correct total charge. The mass of protons is about 1800 times greater than that of electrons, so the mass of the electrons is incidental in this computation. Such a model was consistent with the scattering of alpha particles from heavy nuclei, as well as the charge and mass of the many isotopes that had been identified. There were other motivations for the proton–electron model. As noted by Rutherford at the time, "We have strong reason for believing that the nuclei of atoms contain electrons as well as positively charged bodies...",[28] namely, it was known that beta radiation was electrons emitted from the nucleus.[8]:21

text: In that lecture, Rutherford conjectured the existence of new particles. The alpha particle was known to be very stable, and it was assumed to retain its identity within the nucleus. The alpha particle was presumed to consist of four protons and two closely bound electrons to give it +2 charge and mass 4. In a 1919 paper,[29] Rutherford had reported the apparent discovery of a new doubly charged particle of mass 3, denoted the X++, interpreted to consist of three protons and a closely bound electron. This result suggested to Rutherford the likely existence of two new particles, one of two protons with a closely bound electron, and another of one proton and a closely bound electron. The X++ particle was later determined to have mass 4 and to be just a low-energy alpha particle.[8]:25 Nevertheless, Rutherford had conjectured[28] the existence of the neutron, a neutral particle of mass 1, and the deuteron, a +1 charge particle of mass 2. The latter is the nucleus of deuterium, discovered in 1931 by Harold Urey.[30] The mass of the hypothetical neutral particle would be little different from that of the proton. Rutherford determined that such a zero-charge particle would be difficult to detect by available techniques.

text: By 1921 Rutherford had named the uncharged particle the neutron,[31] while about that same time the word proton was adopted for the hydrogen nucleus.[32] Neutron was apparently constructed from the Latin root for neutral and the Greek ending -on (by imitation of electron and proton).[33][34] References to the word neutron in connection with the atom can be found in the literature as early as 1899, however.[35]

text: Rutherford and Chadwick immediately began an experimental program to search for the neutron at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge.[31][8]:27 The experiments continued throughout the 1920s without success.[6]

text: Rutherford's conjecture was not widely accepted. In his 1931 textbook on the Constitution of Atomic Nuclei and Radioactivity, George Gamow, then at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen, did not mention the neutron.[36] At the time of their 1932 measurements in Paris that would lead to the discovery of the neutron, Irène Joliot-Curie and Frédéric Joliot were unaware of the conjecture.[37]

text: Problems of the nuclear electrons hypothesis[edit]

text: Throughout the 1920s, physicists assumed that the atomic nucleus was composed of protons and "nuclear electrons".[8]:29–32[38][39] Under this hypothesis, the nitrogen-14 (14N) nucleus would be composed of 14 protons and 7 electrons, so that it would have a net charge of +7 elementary charge units and a mass of 14 atomic mass units. The nucleus was also orbited by another 7 electrons, termed "external electrons" by Rutherford,[28] to complete the 14N atom. Obvious problems with the hypothesis became apparent, however.

text: Ralph Kronig pointed out in 1926 that the observed hyperfine structure of atomic spectra was inconsistent with the proton–electron hypothesis. This structure is caused by the influence of the nucleus on the dynamics of orbiting electrons. The magnetic moments of supposed "nuclear electrons" should produce hyperfine spectral line splittings similar to the Zeeman effect, but no such effects were observed.[40][8]:34 It appeared as if the magnetic moment of the electron disappeared when it was within the nucleus.

text: Observations of the energy levels of molecules by Franco Rasetti in 1929 were inconsistent with the nuclear spin expected from proton–electron hypothesis.[8]:35[41] Molecular Raman spectroscopy of dinitrogen (14N2) showed that transitions originating from even-numbered rotational levels are more intense than those from odd levels, hence the even levels are more populated.[1] According to quantum mechanics and the Pauli exclusion principle, the spin of the 14N nucleus is therefore an integer multiple of ħ (the reduced Planck constant).[42][43] Yet both protons and electrons carry an intrinsic spin of ½ ħ, and there is no way to arrange an odd number (14 protons + 7 electrons = 21) of spins ±½ ħ to give a spin that is an integer multiple of ħ.

text: The Klein paradox,[44] discovered by Oskar Klein in 1928, presented further quantum mechanical objections to the notion of an electron confined within a nucleus.[40] Derived from the Dirac equation, this clear and precise paradox showed that a high-energy electron approaching a potential barrier has a high probability of passing through the barrier, or escaping, by transforming to a particle of negative mass. Apparently, an electron could not be confined within a nucleus by any potential well. The meaning of this paradox was intensely debated at the time.[40]

text: By about 1930 it was generally recognized that it was difficult to reconcile the proton–electron model for nuclei with the Heisenberg uncertainty relation of quantum mechanics.[40][1]:299 This relation, Δx⋅Δp ≥ ½ħ, implies that an electron confined to a region the size of an atomic nucleus has an expected kinetic energy of 10–100 MeV.[1][45][46] This energy is larger than the observed energy of beta particles emitted from the nucleus.[1] The expected electron energy is also larger than the binding energy of nucleons, which Aston and others had shown to be less than 9 MeV per nucleon.[47]

text: While all these considerations did not "prove" an electron could not exist in the nucleus, they were challenging for physicists to interpret. In his 1931 textbook, Gamow summarized all these contradictions. Adding to the confusion in interpretation, the continuous energy distribution of beta decay electrons seemed to indicate that energy was not conserved by this "nuclear electrons" process. Indeed, Bohr, Gamow, Heisenberg and others considered the possibility that the laws of quantum mechanics were not applicable inside the nucleus.[8]:40[36] Such considerations were apparently reasonable, inasmuch as the laws of quantum mechanics had so recently overturned the laws of classical mechanics. The contradictions were mysterious and troublesome,[38] until it was realized that there are no electrons in the nucleus.

text: Discovery of the neutron[edit]

text:
In 1930, Walther Bothe and Herbert Becker in Giessen, Germany found that if the energetic alpha particles emitted from polonium fell on certain light elements, specifically beryllium (9
4Be), boron (11
5B), or lithium (7
3Li), an unusually penetrating radiation was produced. Beryllium produced the most intense such radiation. Polonium is highly radioactive, producing energetic alpha radiation. Polonium was commonly used for such scattering experiments at the time.[36]:99–110 Since the observed radiation was not influenced by an electric field (neutrons have no charge), it was thought to be gamma radiation. The radiation was more penetrating than any gamma rays known, and the details of experimental results were difficult to interpret.[48][49][36]

text: Two years later Irène Joliot-Curie and Frédéric Joliot in Paris showed that if this unknown radiation fell on paraffin wax, or any other hydrogen-containing compound, it ejected protons of very high energy (5 MeV).[50] This observation was not in itself inconsistent with the assumed gamma ray nature of the new radiation, but that interpretation (Compton scattering) had a logical problem. From energy and momentum considerations, a gamma ray would have to have impossibly high energy (50 MeV) to scatter a massive proton.[5]:§1.3.1 In Rome, the young physicist Ettore Majorana declared that the manner in which the new radiation interacted with protons required a new neutral particle.[51]

text: On hearing of the Paris results, neither Rutherford nor James Chadwick at the Cavendish Laboratory believed the gamma ray hypothesis.[52] Assisted by Norman Feather,[53] Chadwick quickly performed a series of experiments showing that the gamma ray hypothesis was untenable. The previous year, Chadwick, J.E.R. Constable, and E.C. Pollard had already conducted experiments on disintegrating light elements using alpha radiation from polonium.[54] They had also developed more accurate and efficient methods for detecting, counting, and recording the ejected protons. Chadwick repeated the creation of the radiation using beryllium and aimed the radiation at paraffin following the Paris experiment. Paraffin wax is a hydrocarbon high in hydrogen content, hence offers a target dense with protons; since neutrons and protons have almost equal mass, protons scatter energetically from neutrons. Chadwick measured the range of these protons, and also measured how the new radiation impacted the atoms of various gases.[55] He found that the new radiation consisted of not gamma rays, but uncharged particles with about the same mass as the proton. These particles were neutrons.[56][6][57][15] Chadwick won the Nobel Prize in Physics for this discovery in 1935.[58]

text: The year 1932 was later referred to as the "annus mirabilis" for nuclear physics in the Cavendish Laboratory,[55] with discoveries of the neutron, artificial nuclear disintegration by the Cockcroft–Walton particle accelerator, and the positron.

text: Proton–neutron model of the nucleus[edit]

text: Given the problems of the proton–electron model,[38][39] it was quickly accepted that the atomic nucleus is composed of protons and neutrons, although the precise nature of the neutron was initially unclear. Within months after the discovery of the neutron, Werner Heisenberg[59][60][61][15] and Dmitri Ivanenko[62] had proposed proton–neutron models for the nucleus.[63] Heisenberg's landmark papers approached the description of protons and neutrons in the nucleus through quantum mechanics. While Heisenberg's theory for protons and neutrons in the nucleus was a "major step toward understanding the nucleus as a quantum mechanical system,"[64] he still assumed the presence of nuclear electrons. In particular, Heisenberg assumed the neutron was a proton–electron composite, for which there is no quantum mechanical explanation. Heisenberg had no explanation for how lightweight electrons could be bound within the nucleus. Heisenberg introduced the first theory of nuclear exchange forces that bind the nucleons. He considered protons and neutrons to be different quantum states of the same particle, i.e., nucleons distinguished by the value of their nuclear isospin quantum numbers.

text: The proton–neutron model explained the puzzle of dinitrogen. When 14N was proposed to consist of 3 pairs each of protons and neutrons, with an additional unpaired neutron and proton each contributing a spin of 1⁄2 ħ in the same direction for a total spin of 1 ħ, the model became viable.[65][66][67] Soon, neutrons were used to naturally explain spin differences in many different nuclides in the same way.

text: If the proton–neutron model for the nucleus resolved many issues, it highlighted the problem of explaining the origins of beta radiation. No existing theory could account for how electrons, or positrons,[68] could emanate from the nucleus. In 1934, Enrico Fermi published his classic paper describing the process of beta decay, in which the neutron decays to a proton by creating an electron and a (as yet undiscovered) neutrino.[69] The paper employed the analogy that photons, or electromagnetic radiation, were similarly created and destroyed in atomic processes. Ivanenko had suggested a similar analogy in 1932.[65][70] Fermi's theory requires the neutron to be a spin-½ particle. The theory preserved the principle of conservation of energy, which had been thrown into question by the continuous energy distribution of beta particles. The basic theory for beta decay proposed by Fermi was the first to show how particles could be created and destroyed. It established a general, basic theory for the interaction of particles by weak or strong forces.[69] While this influential paper has stood the test of time, the ideas within it were so new that when it was first submitted to the journal Nature in 1933 it was rejected as being too speculative.[64]

text: The nature of the neutron[edit]

text: The question of whether the neutron was a composite particle of a proton and an electron persisted for a few years after its discovery.[71][72] In 1932 Harrie Massey explored a model for a composite neutron to account for its great penetrating power through matter and its electrical neutrality,[73] for example. The issue was a legacy of the prevailing view from the 1920s that the only elementary particles were the proton and electron. The nature of the neutron was a primary topic of discussion at the 7th Solvay Conference held in October 1933, attended by Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, Lise Meitner, Ernest Lawrence, Fermi, Chadwick, and others.[64][74] As posed by Chadwick in his Bakerian Lecture in 1933, the primary question was the mass of the neutron relative to the proton. If the neutron's mass was less than the combined masses of a proton and an electron (7000100780000000000♠1.0078 u), then the neutron could be a proton-electron composite because of the mass defect from the binding energy. If greater than the combined masses, then the neutron was elementary like the proton.[57] The question was challenging to answer because the electron's mass is only 0.05% of the proton's, hence exceptionally precise measurements were required.

text: The difficulty of making the measurement is illustrated by the wide-ranging values for the mass of the neutron obtained from 1932-1934. The accepted value today is 7000100865999999999♠1.00866 u. In Chadwick's 1932 paper reporting on the discovery, he estimated the mass of the neutron to be between 7000100499999999999♠1.005 u and 7000100800000000000♠1.008 u.[52] By bombarding boron with alpha particles, Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie obtained a high value of 7000101200000000000♠1.012 u, while Ernest Lawrence's team at the University of California measured the small value 7000100060000000000♠1.0006 u using their new cyclotron.[75]

text: In 1935 Chadwick and his doctoral student Maurice Goldhaber resolved the issue by reporting the first accurate measurement of the mass of the neutron. They used the 2.6 MeV gamma rays of Thallium-208 (208Tl) (then known as thorium C") to photodisintegrate the deuteron[76]

text:
2
1D
+
γ
→
1
1H
+
n

text: In this reaction, the resulting proton and neutron have about equal kinetic energy, since their masses are about equal. The kinetic energy of the resulting proton could be measured (0.24 MeV), and therefore the deuteron's binding energy could be determined (2.6 MeV - 2(0.24 MeV) = 2.1 MeV, or 6997230000000000000♠0.0023 u). The neutron's mass could then be determined by the simple mass balance

text:
md
+
b.e.
=
mp
+
mn

text: where md,p,n refer to the deuteron, proton, or neutron mass, and "b.e." is the binding energy. The masses of the deuteron and proton were known; Chadwick and Goldhaber used values 2.0142 u and 1.0081 u, respectively. They found that the neutron's mass was slightly greater than the mass of the proton 7000100840000000000♠1.0084 u or 7000100899999999999♠1.0090 u, depending on the precise value used for the deuteron mass.[7] The mass of the neutron was too large to be a proton-electron composite, and the neutron was therefore identified as an elementary particle.[52] Ironically, in support of Fermi's theory, Chadwick and Goldhaber predicted that a free neutron would be able to decay into a proton, electron, and neutrino (beta decay).

text: Neutron physics in the 1930s[edit]

text: Soon after the discovery of the neutron, indirect evidence suggested the neutron had an unexpected non-zero value for its magnetic moment. Attempts to measure the neutron's magnetic moment originated with the discovery by Otto Stern in 1933 in Hamburg that the proton had an anomalously large magnetic moment.[77][78] By 1934 groups led by Stern, now in Pittsburgh, and I. I. Rabi in New York had independently deduced that the magnetic moment of the neutron was negative and unexpectedly large by measuring the magnetic moments of the proton and deuteron.[72][79][80][81][82] Values for the magnetic moment of the neutron were also determined by Robert Bacher[83] (1933) at Ann Arbor and I.Y. Tamm and S.A. Altshuler[72][84] (1934) in the Soviet Union from studies of the hyperfine structure of atomic spectra. By the late 1930s accurate values for the magnetic moment of the neutron had been deduced by the Rabi group using measurements employing newly developed nuclear magnetic resonance techniques.[82] The large value for the proton's magnetic moment and the inferred negative value for the neutron's magnetic moment were unexpected and raised many questions.[72]

text: The discovery of the neutron immediately gave scientists a new tool for probing the properties of atomic nuclei. Alpha particles had been used over the previous decades in scattering experiments, but such particles, which are helium nuclei, have +2 charge. This charge makes it difficult for alpha particles to overcome the Coulomb repulsive force and interact directly with the nuclei of atoms. Since neutrons have no electric charge, they do not have to overcome this force to interact with nuclei. Almost coincident with its discovery, neutrons were used by Norman Feather, Chadwick's colleague and protege, in scattering experiments with nitrogen.[85] Feather was able to show that neutrons interacting with nitrogen nuclei scattered to protons or induced nitrogen to disintegrate to form boron with the emission of an alpha particle. Feather was therefore the first to show that neutrons produce nuclear disintegrations.

text: In Rome, Enrico Fermi bombarded heavier elements with neutrons and found the products to be radioactive. By 1934 Fermi had used neutrons to induce radioactivity in 22 different elements, many of these elements of high atomic number. Noticing that other experiments with neutrons at his laboratory seemed to work better on a wooden table than a marble table, Fermi suspected that the protons of the wood were slowing the neutrons and so increasing the chance for the neutron to interact with nuclei. Fermi therefore passed neutrons through paraffin wax to slow them and found that the radioactivity of bombarded elements increased by a hundredfold. The cross section for interaction with nuclei is much larger for slow neutrons than for fast neutrons. In 1938 Fermi received the Nobel Prize in Physics "for his demonstrations of the existence of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation, and for his related discovery of nuclear reactions brought about by slow neutrons".[86][87]

text: In Berlin, the collaboration of Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn, together with their assistant Fritz Strassmann, furthered the research begun by Fermi and his team when they bombarded uranium with neutrons. Between 1934 and 1938, Hahn, Meitner, and Strassmann found a great number of radioactive transmutation products from these experiments, all of which they regarded as transuranic.[88] Transuranic nuclides are those that have an atomic number greater than uranium (92), formed by neutron absorption; such nuclides are not naturally occurring. In July 1938, Meitner was forced to escape antisemitic persecution in Nazi Germany after the Anschluss, and she was able to secure a new position in Sweden. The decisive experiment on 16–17 December 1938 (using a chemical process called "radium–barium–mesothorium fractionation") produced puzzling results: what they had understood to be three isotopes of radium were instead consistently behaving as barium.[9] Radium (atomic number 88) and barium (atomic number 56) are in the same chemical group. By January 1939 Hahn had concluded that what they had thought were transuranic nuclides were instead much lighter nuclides, such as barium, lanthanum, cerium and light platinoids. Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch immediately and correctly interpreted these observations as resulting from nuclear fission, a term coined by Frisch.[89] Hahn and his collaborators had detected the splitting of uranium nuclei, made unstable by neutron absorption, into lighter elements. Meitner and Frisch also showed that the fission of each uranium atom would release about 200 MeV of energy. The discovery of fission electrified the global community of atomic physicists and the public.[9] In their second publication on nuclear fission, Hahn and Strassmann predicted the existence and liberation of additional neutrons during the fission process.[90] Frédéric Joliot and his team proved this phenomenon to be a chain reaction in March 1939. In 1945 Hahn received the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry "for his discovery of the fission of heavy atomic nuclei."[91][92]

text: After 1939[edit]

text: The discovery of nuclear fission at the end of 1938 marked a shift in the centers of nuclear research from Europe to the United States. Large numbers of scientists were migrating to the United States to escape the troubles and antisemitism in Europe and the looming war[93]:407–410 (See Jewish scientists and the Manhattan Project). The new centers of nuclear research were the universities in the United States, particularly Columbia University in New York and the University of Chicago where Enrico Fermi had relocated,[94][95] and a secret research facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico, established in 1942, the new home of the Manhattan project.[96] This wartime project was focussed on the construction of nuclear weapons, exploiting the enormous energy released by the fission of uranium or plutonium through neutron-based chain reactions.

text: The discoveries of the neutron and positron in 1932 were the start of the discoveries of many new particles. Muons were discovered in 1936. Pions and kaons were discovered in 1947, while lambda particles were discovered in 1950. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, a large number of particles called hadrons were discovered. A classification scheme for organizing all these particles, proposed independently by Murray Gell-Mann[97] and George Zweig[98][99] in 1964, became known as the quark model. By this model, particles such as the proton and neutron were not elementary, but composed of various configurations of a small number of other truly elementary particles called partons or quarks. The quark model received experimental verification beginning in the late 1960s and finally provided an explanation for the neutron's anomalous magnetic moment.[100][10]

text: Videos[edit]

text:
Ernest Rutherford summarizes the state of nuclear physics in 1935. (7 min., Nobelprize.org)
Hans Bethe discusses Chadwick and Goldhaber's work on deuteron disintegration. (2 min., Web of Stories)


document_title: My Dream Is Yours

question_text: who sang for lee bowman in my dream is yours

text: My Dream Is Yours

text: Plot[edit]

text: The film opens in Los Angeles, where Doug Blake (Carson) is dumped as a manager by Gary Mitchell (Bowman). He goes to New York City to find a new singer to replace Gary on the Hour of Enchantment radio show. While in New York, he discovers Martha Gibson (Day) turning records in a jukebox factory. He takes her to Los Angeles and tries to introduce her to Felix Hofer (Sakall). His efforts lead to a series of communication failures.

text: Meanwhile, Martha has begun to fall in love with Gary. Doug takes her to a party at Gary's house where Gary gets drunk and is unable to sing on his radio program. Martha replaces him and becomes successful. Gary, whose ego has driven away all of the people who once helped him, cannot find anyone who will hire or even represent him. Knowing how Martha feels about Gary, Doug helps him come back, but Gary goes back to his old ways and drives Martha away. Martha then realizes that she really loves Doug and makes up with him.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Jack Carson as Doug Blake
Doris Day as Martha Gibson
Lee Bowman as Gary Mitchell (singing voice was dubbed by Hal Derwin)
Adolphe Menjou as Thomas Hutchins
Eve Arden as Vivian Martin
S. Z. Sakall as Felix Hofer
Selena Royle as Freda Hofer
Edgar Kennedy as Uncle Charlie
Sheldon Leonard as Grimes
Franklin Pangborn as Sourpuss Manager
Ada Leonard as Herself
Frankie Carle as Himself
Iris Adrian as Peggy (uncredited)
Mel Blanc as Bugs Bunny & Tweety Bird (voice)

text: Songs[edit]

text: The film features the following songs, mostly lyricized by Ralph Blane and composed by Harry Warren:

text:
"My Dream Is Yours"[3]
"Someone Like You"[3]
"Love Finds a Way"[3]
"Tic, Tic, Tic"[3]
"(You May Not Be an Angel, but) I'll String Along With You" [4]
"Freddie, Get Ready" with lyrics by Ralph Blane and Mel Blanc[3]
"I'll String Along with You"[3] with lyrics by Al Dubin[5]
"You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby"[3]
"With Plenty of Money and You" with lyrics by Johnny Mercer[3]
"Nagasaki" with lyrics by Mort Dixon[3]
"Canadian Capers (Cuttin' Capers)" with lyrics by Blane and Warren, music by Henry Cohen, Gus Chandler, and Bert White[3]

text: "Someone like You", not to be confused with the song of the same name by Adele, has been subsequently recorded by Ella Fitzgerald in 1949[6] and Peggy Lee.[7]

text: Production[edit]

text: The film serves as a remake of Twenty Million Sweethearts (1934), in which the aspiring singer was male.[8] The film Swing Hostess (1944) also had a similar plot, in which aspiring singer Judy Alvin (Martha Titon) is spinning records in a jukebox factory, and her roommate and friend Marge (Irish Adrian) tries to help her start her career.[original research?]

text: Eve Arden has a key supporting role as Vivian "Vi" Martin, Doug Blake's co-worker in the radio show The Hour of Enchantment. She is depicted as a highly competent professional woman. She at first agrees to financially support Doug in exchange for half his business earnings. She then allows Martha and her son Freddie to move in with her. When more is needed to finance Martha's career, Vivian has to sell her own mink coat.[8]

text: The film features a love triangle among Doug Blake, Martha Gibson, and Gary Mitchell. Vivian Martin has her own romantic subplot with Thomas Hutchins, though it is limited to a few suggestive glances. This was the third and last time that Arden co-worked with Adolphe Menjou.[8]

text: According to gossip columnist Sheilah Graham, Day missed three days of shooting in May 1948, due to being sick with a fever.[8]

text: The film features the final, feature film appearance of comic actor Edgar Kennedy, who died on November 9, 1948.

text: The film is perhaps best remembered today for an extended dream sequence combining animation and live action which featured a cameo appearance by Bugs Bunny, dancing with Jack Carson and Doris Day to the tune of Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, as well as an appearance by Tweety, which was a favorite of animation director Friz Freleng. The sequence has an Easter theme and features the actors in bunny suits.[8]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Time magazine's review was not favorable, finding that the film merely reused elements from older films. "It has all been done before—frequently much better". It did, however, find some positive aspects of the film. One was Doris Day's singing, another the caustic lines of Eve Arden.[8] John L. Scot, reviewer for the Los Angeles Times, found the basic story trite. But also praised the charm of Doris Day and her ability to sell a tune, while also favoring the comedy performance of Eve Arden.[8] Richard L. Coe, reviewer of The Washington Post, called the film a "supremely dull achievement". He found Arden's character wittier and more human than that of Doris Day.[8]

text: Tom Santopietro, in a retrospective of the film, credits Arden with the best performance of the film, praising her comic timing.[8]

text: Sources[edit]

text:
Hemming, Roy (1999), "Harry Warren", The Melody Lingers on: The Great Songwriters and Their Movie Musicals, Newmarket Press, ISBN 978-1557043801
Tucker, David C. (2012), "My Dream Is Yours (1949)", Eve Arden: A Chronicle of All Film, Television, Radio and Stage Performances, McFarland & Company, ISBN 978-0786488100