[House Report 104-5]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                      104-5
_______________________________________________________________________


 
 AMENDING HOUSE RULES TO PERMIT COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN TO SCHEDULE HEARINGS

                                _______


  January 27, 1995.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. Solomon, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                       [To accompany H. Res. 43]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Rules, to whom was referred the resolution 
(H. Res. 43) to amend clause 2(G)(3) of House Rule XI to permit 
committee chairmen to schedule hearings, having considered the 
same, report the resolution favorably thereon and recommend 
that the resolution be adopted.

                         Purpose of Resolution

    The purpose of House Resolution 43 is to amend House Rule 
XI, clause 2(g)(3) to permit committee chairmen, without a vote 
of the committee, to announce hearings at least a week in 
advance, and to schedule hearings sooner if for good cause.

                        Committee Consideration

    House Resolution 43 was introduced on January 23, 1995, by 
Chairman Solomon and referred to the Committee. On January 26, 
1995, the Committee met to consider the resolution as a matter 
of original jurisdiction, and, after discussion, the Committee 
ordered the resolution reported to the House by voice vote.

                               Background

    Clause 2(g)93) of House Rule XI was initially adopted as 
part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 
1140) and became a part of the House Rules in the 92nd Congress 
on January 22, 1971, (H. Res. 5, Congressional Record, p. 144).
    The subparagraph requires that each Committee of the House 
(except the Committee on Rules) shall make a public 
announcement of the date, place and subject matter of any 
hearing at least one week in advance unless the committee 
determines there is good cause to begin a hearing sooner, in 
which case the announcement is to be made at the earliest 
possible date.
    There is no indication in the Rules Committee's report on 
the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act (H.R. 17654, H. Rept. 
91-1215) as to why the word ``committee'' was used in the new 
requirement as opposed to the committee chairman. It should be 
noted that clause 2(c)(1) of rule XI, which dates back to 1931, 
authorizes each committee chairman to call and convene such 
meetings in addition to the regular meeting days, ``as he or 
she considers necessary * * * for the consideration of any bill 
or resolution pending before the committee or for the conduct 
of other committee business.''
    The 1970 Act also included several other hearing procedures 
for committees such as the prohibition on committees sitting 
while the House is considering legislation for amendment under 
the five-minute rule (clause 2(i)), and the right of the 
minority to ask for an additional day of hearings to call its 
own witnesses (clause 2(j)(1)).
    Another House rules change added by the 1970 Act is clause 
2(g)(5) of rule XI that provides that no point of order will 
lie in the House against a measure on grounds that hearings 
were not conducted in accordance with the provisions of clause 
2 or rule XI unless a point of order is timely made in 
committee and improperly overruled or not properly considered.
    It has generally been assumed and accepted that it is the 
chairman's prerogative to determine the subject and timing of 
hearings on behalf of that committee or subcommittee. That has 
been the standard practice and operating procedure for years in 
the House.
    And yet, clause 2(g)(3) was literally invoked in the 
Judiciary Committee on January 5, 1995 in the form of a point 
of order against the chairman's announcement of a hearing on 
the balanced budget amendment on January 9. The point of order 
was made on the grounds that a determination had not been made 
by the committee to schedule the hearing. The chairman 
overruled the point of order on grounds that it was sufficient 
for the chair to announce the hearing acting on behalf of the 
committee.
    On January 6, 1995, Representative Frank of Massachusetts 
and Representative Becerra of California wrote to the 
Parliamentarian requesting an interpretation of what is 
required under House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(3), and the 
comparable Judiciary Committee rule with respect to scheduling 
hearings.
    On January 10, 1995, the Parliamentarian responded that in 
his experience, ``committees and subcommittees often deferred 
to their chairmen for the purpose of establishing hearing 
dates.'' However, the letter went on, ``Where the question is 
raised in a proper manner * * * I would conclude that the 
committee or subcommittee as a collegial body must ratify the 
call and scheduling of hearings.'' (Letter from Parliamentarian 
Charles W. Johnson to Reps. Becerra and Frank, January 10, 
1995). In other words, literal compliance with the rule 
requires that a committee formally convene and vote on 
announcing a hearing.
    Because the chairman of the Judiciary Committee was not 
aware of any interpretation of the rule as requiring a 
committee determination on such an announcement, the point of 
order was improperly overruled. Under clause 2(g)(5) of rule 
XI, as mentioned above, if a point of order is timely made and 
improperly overruled on a hearing procedure, it may be raised 
on the House floor against the consideration of the measure 
that was the subject of that hearing.
    Consequently, it was necessary for the Rules Committee to 
recommend a waiver of clause 2(g)(3) in its rule (H. Res. 44) 
providing for the consideration of the balanced budget 
amendment (H.J. Res. 1) by the House.

                      Arguments for a Rule Change

    The current interpretation of clause 2(g)(3) presents a 
catch-22 situation for committee and subcommittee chairmen 
since it would literally require a full committee or 
subcommittee meeting at least a week in advance to vote on 
whether to schedule a hearing.
    If such a meeting and vote is not held, then a point of 
order can be raised at the outset of the hearing when only two 
members are required for a quorum (as permitted by House Rules 
if adopted as a committee rule).
    The chairman is then left with the option of either 
cancelling the hearing or waiting until a quorum for business, 
usually one-third of the membership, appears to vote on 
scheduling an immediate hearing.
    In short, it presents a very unwieldy way of trying to 
schedule hearings in an orderly way. While the current rule is 
on the books, the fate of future hearings is dependent either 
on a return to the practice which previously existed, or the 
scheduling of meetings to schedule hearings.
    Many chairmen may find it more convenient not to hold 
hearings than to risk points of order that will stop the 
hearing in their tracks or will imperil the future 
consideration of legislation by the House.
    Since the House is better served by the information derived 
from hearings in drafting legislation, hearings should be 
encouraged and conducted to the maximum extent possible rather 
than discouraged. It is in that spirit that the Committee 
recommends a rule change to facilitate rather than curtail 
committee and subcommittee hearings.

                         Analysis of Resolution

    House Resolution 43 would amend clause 2(g)(3) or rule XI 
by substituting the committee chairman for the committee as the 
authority responsible for announcing the subject, date and 
place of hearings at least a week in advance, or to determine 
if there is good cause to schedule a hearing sooner. This is 
designed to restore what has been the standard practice in the 
House for decades.
    As with the existing rule, the new rule exempts the Rules 
Committee given this Committee's special scheduling 
responsibilities as an arms of the Leadership. And as with the 
existing rule, the new rule retains the requirement that 
hearing announcements be promptly published in the Daily Digest 
of the Congressional Record and entered into the Committee 
scheduling service of the House Information Systems.
    The authority conferred by the rule applies to subcommittee 
chairman by implication, since the rules of the committees are 
the rules of its subcommittees.
    It is the clear expectation of this Committee that 
committees will adopt appropriate committee rules, to require 
adequate prior notice of a hearing except in the most extreme, 
emergency situation. It is not the intent of the Committee that 
the rule be used by committee chairman to schedule spur-of-the-
moment hearings that catch committee members unawares and 
unprepared to participate in an informed manner.
    The current House committee meeting rule (clause 2(c)(1) of 
rule XI) already authorizes a chairman to schedule meetings 
``as he or she considers necessary,'' and contains no prior 
notice requirement. But most committees, have included prior 
notice requirements in their committee rules, except under 
emergency circumstances, in which case there is usually a 
consultation requirement with the minority before calling the 
meeting. The same latitude should be allowed for scheduling 
hearings of a urgent nature with less than a week's advance 
notice. But, the Committee advises committees to adopt a 
committee rules requiring the chairman to confer with the 
ranking minority member before scheduling any hearing with less 
than a week's notice.

                            Committee Votes

    On January 26, 1995, the Committee ordered House Resolution 
43 reported, as amended, by a nonrecord vote, a quorum being 
present.
    Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of House rule XI requires that the 
results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or motion to 
report, together with the names of those voting for and 
against, be included in the committee report on the measure. No 
rollcall votes are called on any amendment.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report 
that accompanies a measure providing new budget authority, new 
spending authority, or new credit authority or changing 
revenues or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as 
required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, as amended, when practicable, a comparison of the 
total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or 
programs) with the appropriate levels under current law.
    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII requires committees to include 
their own cost estimates in certain committee reports, which 
include, when practicable, a comparison of the total estimated 
funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the 
appropriate levels under current law.
    The Committee adopts as it own the cost estimate in the 
succeeding section of this report which was prepared by the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                 Congressional Budget Office Estimates

    Clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI requires each committee to 
include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is 
timely submitted. Below is the CBO cost estimate as required:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, January 27, 1995.
Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon,
Chairman, Committee on the Rules,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed House Resolution 43, to amend clause 2(g)(3) of House 
Rule XI to permit committee chairmen to schedule hearings, as 
ordered reported by the House Committee on Rules on January 26, 
1995. We estimate that enactment of this legislation would 
result in no significant cost to the federal government and in 
no cost to state or local governments. Enactment of House 
Resolution 43 would not affect direct spending or receipts. 
Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply to this 
resolution.
    Current rules of the House of Representatives require that 
a committee schedule hearings at least a week in advance, 
unless the committee votes to approve an earlier date. House 
Resolution 43 would allow the chairman of a committee to begin 
hearings sooner if the chairman determines that a good cause 
exists. The chairman would be required to announce the hearing 
schedule promptly. The schedule would be published in the Daily 
Digest and also would be made available through House 
Information Systems. We do not expect the cost of such 
activities to be significant.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mary 
Maginniss.
            Sincerely,
                                              Robert D. Reischauer.

                       Inflation Impact Statement

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI requires each committee report on 
a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include an 
analytical statement describing what impact enactment of the 
measure would have on prices and costs in the operation of the 
national economy. The Committee determines that H. Res. 43 will 
have no inflationary impact on the Nation's economy.

                           Oversight Findings

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. Clause 2(b)(1) of rule X 
calls on each standing committee, other than the Committee on 
Appropriations and Budget to review and study the effectiveness 
of laws and other matters within its jurisdiction. The 
Committee has no oversight findings relating to this proposed 
rules change.

 Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee on Government 
                          Reform and Oversight

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee has received 
no oversight findings or recommendations from the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.

   Changes in the Rules of the House of Representatives Made by the 
                         Resolution as Reported

    Clause 4(d) of rule XI requires that, whenever the 
Committee on Rules reports a resolution amending or repealing 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the accompanying 
report must contain a comparative print showing the changes in 
existing rules proposed to be made by the resolution. Matter to 
be stricken appears in brackets below, and new matter is 
printed in italic:

                                RULE XI

                            COMMITTEE RULES

          * * * * * * *
    2. (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (g)(1) * * *
    [(3) Each committee of the House (except the Committee on 
Rules) shall make public announcement of the date, place and 
subject matter of any committee hearing at least one week 
before the commencement of the hearing. If the committee 
determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing 
sooner, it shall make the announcement at the earliest possible 
date. Any announcement made under this subparagraph shall be 
promptly published in the Daily Digest and promptly entered 
into the committee scheduling service of the House Information 
Systems.]
          * * * * * * *
    (3) The chairman of each committee of the House (except the 
Committee on Rules) shall make public announcement of the date, 
place, and subject matter of any committee hearing at least one 
week before the commencement of the hearing. If the chairman of 
the committee determines that there is good cause to begin the 
hearing sooner, the chairman shall make the announcement at the 
earlier possible date. Any announcement made under this 
subparagraph shall be promptly published in the Daily Digest 
and promptly entered into the committee scheduling service of 
the House Information Systems.
          * * * * * * *

                       Views of Committee Members

    Clause 2(1)(5) of rule XI requires each committee, except 
the Committee on Rules, to afford a three-day opportunity for 
members of the committee to file additional, minority, or 
dissenting views and to include the views in its report. 
Although the requirement does not apply to the Rules Committee, 
the Committee always makes the maximum effort to provide its 
members with an opportunity to submit their views. The 
following views were submitted:
                             MINORITY VIEWS

    We understand the majority's desire to alter clause 2(g)(3) 
of rule XI in order to more accurately reflect current 
practices in the House. However, we do not view House 
Resolution 43 in its current form as the best reflection of 
that desire.
    Currently, the subparagraph requires each committee to 
announce hearings a week in advance unless the committee 
determines there is ``good cause'' to schedule a hearing 
sooner. The practice, it is true, has been that the Chair of 
each committee, not the entire committee, makes public 
announcements of hearings with sufficient notice. The seven-day 
notice requirement can be circumvented, however, only with the 
concurrence of the committee.
    While committees generally do not formally meet and ratify 
the scheduling of hearings with less than seven days notice, 
the threat of a point of order guarantees that the Chair 
consults with, and gets the agreement of, the committee, 
including the minority. A point of order is available in 
committee. A point of order that prohibits the House from 
considering a bill for failure by the reporting committee to 
comply with clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI is available but only if 
the point of order was timely made in committee and either 
improperly overruled or not properly considered.
    House Resolution 43 would allow the chair alone to 
determine whether there is good cause to hold a hearing sooner 
than seven days. This does not require consultation or 
concurrence of the committee. It does not give other members of 
the committee any leverage or say. This is quite a change from 
current practice. Our proposal is to amend House Resolution 43 
to read as follows:

          (3) The chairman of each committee of the House 
        (except the Committee on Rules) shall make public 
        announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of 
        any committee hearing at least one week before the 
        commencement of the hearing. If the Committee 
        determines that there is good cause to begin the 
        hearing sooner, it shall make the announcement at the 
        earliest possible date. Any announcement made under 
        this subparagraph shall be promptly published in the 
        Daily Digest and promptly entered into the committee 
        scheduling service of the House Information Systems.
    We hope that when the resolution is considered by the 
House, in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, House 
Resolution 43 can be amended to reflect current practice, not 
to enhance the power of the Chair.
                                   Joe Moakley.
                                   Anthony C. Beilenson.
                                   Martin Frost.
                                   Tony P. Hall.