[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.