[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 1.  Assembly of Congress]
[B. Procedure]
[Â§ 10. Adoption of Rules; Applicability]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 59-68]
 
                               CHAPTER 1
 
                          Assembly of Congress
 
                              B. PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 10. Adoption of Rules; Applicability

    Under the Constitution of the United States, ``Each House may 
determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . . .''(17) The 
Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that the House 
possesses nearly absolute power to adopt its own procedural rules. In 
United States v Ballin,(18) judicial inquiry into the 
validity of a House rule was limited to the question of whether the 
House possessed the power to adopt the rule. The Court determined the 
only limitations on that power to be that the rule must not violate 
constitutional rights, and the method of proceeding must be reasonably 
related to the desired result. The wisdom or folly of the rule was held 
not to be subject to judicial scrutiny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2.
18. 144 U.S. 5 (1892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House, through the rulings of the Speaker, has interpreted its 
constitutional power to determine its own procedural rules very 
broadly. Since the late 1800s,(19) the rulings of the 
Speaker on the subject have consistently embodied the principle that 
such power must be exercised by each Congress. The procedural rules of 
the preceding Congress are no longer in effect at the opening session 
of the new Congress,(20) and the House proceeds under 
general parliamentary law until the rules are adopted.(1) 
Similarly, Congress may not, by rule or statute, provide that the House 
is to be governed by certain procedural rules during a future 
Congress.(2) Such 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6743-6755.
20. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3383; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6002.
 1. See Sec. 1, supra, and Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.2, infra; see also 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3383-3386; 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 6758-6763.
 2. See Sec. 1, supra, and Sec. 10.1, infra; see also 1 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 187, 210. At one time, the theory that a 
        House might make its rules binding on the succeeding House was 
        much discussed, and even followed in practice. See 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 6743-6755.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         
[[Page 60]]

provisions must be incorporated into the standing rules by the current 
House if they are to be in effect.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3383; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The House traditionally exercises its constitutional power to adopt 
the rules at the opening session of each Congress.(4) The 
resolution adopting the rules, which is usually offered by the former 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules,(5) at the direction of 
the majority party caucus, generally provides that the rules of the 
preceding House, with amendments, if any, shall be the rules of the 
current House.(6) Thus despite the fact that the rules are 
adopted de novo at the beginning of each Congress, in actual practice, 
a system of permanent standing rules has been developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 10.3, infra. For the sequence of the adoption of rules in 
        relation to other organizational business, see Sec. 7, supra.
 5. See Sec. 10.4, infra.
 6. See Sec. 10.5, infra. The resolution incorporates applicable 
        provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Acts of 1946 and 
        1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution adopting the rules is one of several resolutions 
considered under general parliamentary law each Congress, before 
standing rules are adopted. This body of general parliamentary law, 
which is further defined by each new ruling on the subject by the 
Speaker, has traditionally been construed to embrace those rules of 
procedure which embody practices of long established 
custom.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus the Speaker follows as closely as practicable the customs and 
practices of the House under former rules,(8) and gives 
weight to the precedents of the House in interpreting general 
parliamentary law.(9) It is important to note, however, that 
general parliamentary law may differ substantially from the rules 
adopted by the House in the preceding Congress, in which case the rules 
may be deemed inapplicable.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3386.
 9. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3384. For a general discussion of the 
        parliamentary law applied in the House, see Sec. 1, supra. For 
        general procedure before rules adoption, see Sec. 8, supra, and 
        for motions practice before rules adoption, see Sec. 9, supra.
10. For example, on Jan. 7, 1959, Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.), when the 
        previous question was moved without debate, ruled that the 
        House rule, as adopted by the previous Congress, which 
        prescribed 40 minutes of debate in such situations, was not 
        applicable. 105 Cong. Rec. 14, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 61]]

    On a number of occasions the Speaker has been called upon to 
interpret general parliamentary law in connection with the adoption of 
the rules.(11) It has been ruled, for example, that 
amendments to the resolution may be offered only when the Member in control 
of it yields for that purpose or when the previous question is 
rejected,(12) and that 
clerical errors may be corrected in the engrossment of the resolution 
after adoption.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 10.1, and 10.2, infra. For general parliamentary law 
        relating to action on resolutions, see Sec. 12, infra.
12. See Sec. 10.9, infra.
13. See Sec. 10.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right of Each House To Determine Its Procedural Rules

Sec. 10.1 Congress may not, by rule or statute, prescribe rules of 
    procedure for a future House.

    On Jan. 22, 1971,(14) during the debate on the 
resolution adopting the rules, the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 132, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall:(15) Mr. Speaker, I do desire to make a 
    point of order against consideration of Resolution 5 [the 
    resolution adopting the rules], inasmuch as it is against the law 
    of the land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Mr. Durward G. Hall (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(16) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
    1970 is in fact now the law of the land, Public Law No. 91-510, and 
    section 601 (6) thereof states that the effective date of the act 
    is January 1, 1971. . . .
        Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri full well 
    realizes the precedents of the House, the fact that we operate 
    until such time as rules are adopted, under ``general parliamentary 
    procedure,'' and that this is subject to wide interpretation.
        On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is lodged on 
    the fact that the law of the land, first, says that any committee 
    report or legislation, resolution, must be available to Members for 
    3 calendar days prior to consideration--section 108(b)(4); and, 
    second that any minority has 3 calendar days to file views with the 
    clerk of any subcommittee--section 107(b). . . .
        . . . I pray that, based on the precedents, based on 
    Jefferson's Rules of Procedure, which a former Speaker has ruled 
    are indeed the greater bulk of existing parliamentary procedure, 
    that we do not go forward with consideration of this resolution at 
    this time until we have had due process, the Members have had the 
    resolution in their hands for a minimum of 3 days, that minority 
    reports have had an opportunity for preparation and distribution, 
    and so that true compliance of the law of the land be accomplished.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
                         
[[Page 62]]

        The Constitution is, of course, superior to any public statute 
    and the Constitution in article I, section 5, gives each House the 
    authority to determine the rules of its proceedings, and it has 
    been repeatedly held that the power of each new House to make its 
    own rules may not be impaired or controlled by the rules or actions 
    of a preceding House.

        These principles are, in fact, recognized and enunciated in 
    Public Law 91-510, the Legislative Reorganization
    Act. Section 101 of the act states in part that the rules changes 
    recommended therein are enacted ``as an exercise of the rule-making 
    power of the House subject to and with full recognition of the 
    power of the House to enact or change any rule of the House at any 
    time in its exercise of its constitutional right to determine the 
    rules of its proceedings.''
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 10.2 The House proceeds under general parliamentary law before 
    rules are adopted at the beginning of each Congress.

    On Jan. 3, 1953, after the previous question was moved on the 
resolution adopting the rules for the 83d Congress, the following 
parliamentary inquiry was raised:

        Mr. Eberharter:(17) Mr. Speaker, are we proceeding 
    now under the rules we are going to adopt later, and which have not 
    yet been adopted? Under what rules is the House proceeding, or is 
    it proceeding under any rules?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Mr. Herman P. Eberharter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(18) The House is proceeding under the 
    general parliamentary rules we have had for many years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, if the rules are not adopted today 
    and the question goes over until next week, would we still proceed 
    under some other rules that have not yet been adopted by the 
    Eighty-third Congress?
        The Speaker: If the rules were not adopted today, we would 
    proceed as we are this very moment, under general parliamentary 
    law.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 99 Cong. Rec. 24, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1953. For a more 
        recent statement, by Speaker Carl Albert (Okla.), that the 
        House proceeds under general parliamentary law prior to the 
        adoption of the rules, see 117 Cong. Rec. 132, 92d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction of Resolution Adopting the Rules

Sec. 10.3 Traditionally the resolution adopting the rules is offered at 
    the opening session of the new Congress after the adoption of the 
    resolution authorizing the Clerk to inform the President of the 
    election of the Speaker and the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives.

[[Page 63]]

    At the opening session of the 91st Congress,(1) 
following the adoption of a resolution authorizing the appointment of a 
committee to notify the President of the
assembly of Congress (H. Res. 5), the House adopted a resolution 
instructing the Clerk to inform the President that the House had 
elected John W. McCormack, Speaker, and W. Pat Jennings, Clerk (H. Res. 
6). Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, then introduced the 
resolution providing for the adoption of the rules for the 91st 
Congress (H. Res. 7), which was agreed to without debate.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 35, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969. For other 
        recent examples of this order of proceedings see 117 Cong. Rec. 
        13, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971; 113 Cong. Rec. 28, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967.
 2. While this order of proceeding is generally followed, several 
        deviations are noted in Hinds' Precedents. In one instance the 
        rules were adopted immediately after the election of the 
        Speaker (1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 93), and in another the rules 
        were adopted before the election of the Clerk (1 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 245).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On occasion, the resolution adopting the rules has been immediately 
preceded by a unanimous-consent request,(3) or by another 
resolution.(4) And in the 73d Congress,(5) the 
House passed a bill of major importance before the adoption of the 
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See 84 Cong. Rec. 13, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1939; 79 Cong. 
        Rec. 13, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1935 (unanimous consent 
        requested for permission for the House to recess).
 4. See 111 Cong. Rec. 20, 21, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965 
        (resolution on clerk-hire).
 5. 77 Cong. Rec. 83, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 9, 1933 (see Sec. 12.8, 
        infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.4 Generally, the resolution adopting the rules is offered by 
    the former Chairman of the Committee on Rules at the direction of 
    the majority caucus.

    In the 92d Congress, Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, 
introduced the resolution adopting the rules,(6) and later 
during the debate thereon remarked that he was presenting the 
resolution by direction of the Democratic Caucus, but was opposed to 
one of the provisions contained therein.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 117 Cong. Rec. 13, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971. For other 
        recent examples, see 115 Cong. Rec. 35, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Jan. 3, 1969; 107 Cong. Rec. 25, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 
        1961; 105 Cong. Rec. 15, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 7, 1959.
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 132, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: When the former Chairman of the Com
                         
[[Page 64]]

mittee on Rules is opposed to key provisions of the resolution adopting 
the rules, the resolution may be offered by the Majority Leader.

    In the 88th,(8) 89th,(9) and 90th 
Congresses,(10) the resolution was introduced by Majority 
Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, at the
direction of the Democratic Caucus.(11) The debate over the 
adoption of the rules for the 88th Congress was focused on the merits 
of a provision which would increase the size of the Committee on Rules 
from 12 to 15 members.(12) Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, the 
former Chairman of the Committee on Rules, indicated his opposition to 
that provision as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 14, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963.
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 21, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965.
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 28, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967.
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 23, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965 (remarks of 
        Mr. Albert).
12. 109 Cong. Rec. 14, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If this resolution passes, you all know what it means, and it 
    will happen again, and that is to say whenever the President wants 
    a bill passed or the Speaker wants a bill submitted to the floor, 
    he gets it. Now, I think that there ought to be some discretion 
    about this matter so that the Committee on Rules could do now like 
    they have done in the past, at least give the matter some looking 
    over, give it some consideration and a little time, so that the 
    country might know what some of these measures are about. I hope 
    none of my southern friends are going to be complaining around here 
    when certain measures come up that are going to come up, and come 
    up quite promptly, if the Committee on Rules is packed again. And, 
    I hope that when they go to vote on this resolution that they will 
    remember that there are some things involved in this that will 
    greatly and adversely affect their States; not just how many people 
    should be on the Committee on Rules or who shall govern the 
    Committee on Rules.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 18, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 89th and 90th Congresses, the resolution adopting the rules 
incorporated the 21-day rule, providing for the discharge of the 
Committee on Rules from the consideration of a special order by a 
majority vote of the House. On both occasions, the former Chairman of 
the Committee on Rules demonstrated his opposition to the resolution by 
voting against the motion on the previous question.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 24, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965 (Howard W. 
        Smith, [Va.], former Chairman of the Committee on Rules); 113 
        Cong. Rec. 31, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967 (William M. 
        Colmer, [Miss.], former Chairman of the Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form of Resolution

[[Page 65]]

Sec. 10.5 The resolution adopting the rules usually provides that the 
    rules of the preceding House, with or without amendments shall be 
    the rules of the current House.

    The following proceedings in the 87th Congress(15) 
illustrate the practice whereby the House
adopts the rules of the preceding Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 25, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1961. For similar 
        examples, see 113 Cong. Rec. 28, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 
        1967; 105 Cong. Rec. 15, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 7, 1959; 
        103 Cong. Rec. 47, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of 
        the 86th Congress, together with all applicable provisions of 
        the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, be, and 
        they are hereby, adopted as the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives of the 87th Congress.

    In recent Congresses,(16) the resolution adopting the 
rules of the previous Congress frequently has provided for amendments 
to those rules. Such a resolution(17) routinely contains 
language substantially similar to the resolution adopting the rules of 
the previous Congress intact, with the following addition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See, e.g., 117 Cong. Rec. 13, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971; 
        115 Cong. Rec. 35, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969; 111 
        Cong. Rec. 21, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965.
17. See, e.g., 109 Cong. Rec. 14, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The rules of the preceding Congress are adopted], with the 
    following amendment therein as a part thereof, to wit: . . .

    Although a resolution adopting the rules usually takes the above 
form, the entire set of standing rules may be drafted as part of the 
resolution. In the 83d Congress(18) the resolution adopting 
the rules provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 99 Cong. Rec. 15-24, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the following be, and they are hereby, adopted 
    as the rules of the Eighty-third Congress. . . .

Withdrawing or Postponing the Resolution to Adopt Rules

Sec. 10.6 The resolution adopting the rules may be withdrawn at any 
    time before action is taken thereon.

    In the 92d Congress(19) the reading of the resolution 
adopting the rules by the Clerk was interrupted by the following 
proceedings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 117 Cong. Rec. 13, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(20) The Clerk will suspend the reading 
    of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66]]

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    William M. Colmer).
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that an error was made in 
    the haste here and that the wrong resolution was submitted. 
    Therefore, I ask unanimous consent----
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi can withdraw the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the resolution.
        Mr. Gross:(1) Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
    object----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Mr. Harold R. Gross (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker: The reservation of objection is not in order.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, did not the gentleman from Mississippi 
    offer a resolution to the House?
        The Speaker: Yes, he did; but he has withdrawn it; and he has 
    that right to withdraw it.

Sec. 10.7 Consideration of the resolution adopting the rules may be 
    postponed, on motion, until the following day.

    At the opening session of the 92d Congress,(2) after the 
resolution adopting the rules was read and a point of order was 
reserved against it, the following motion was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 15, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Colmer:(3) Mr. Speaker, I move that further 
    consideration of the resolution be put over until tomorrow, and 
    that the resolution be printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Mr. William M. Colmer (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(4) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Mississippi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to.

Non-Divisibility of the Resolution

Sec. 10.8 The Speaker indicated, in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry, that a resolution adopting the rules of the preceding 
    Congress with three amendments was not subject to a demand for a 
    division of the question.

    A question as to the divisibility of the vote on the resolution 
arose in the 89th Congress(5) in the form of a parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 21, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965. In Hinds' 
        Precedents, a similar situation is noted in which the Speaker, 
        David B. Henderson (Iowa), ruled that it was not in order to 
        demand a separate vote on each rule. 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 6159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith:(6). . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Mr. Howard W. Smith (Va.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is another question I want to ask, and I think maybe the 
    gentleman might yield. There are three distinct changes of existing 
    rules of the House which have been in effect for a long time. . . .

        . . . Under the rules perhaps this is a parliamentary inquiry. 
    Is the oppor
                         
[[Page 67]]

    tunity for a division of the question going to be had 
    so we can vote for what we want to vote for and vote against what 
    we do not want to vote for instead of having to swallow the whole 
    dose at one time.
        The Speaker:(7) The gentleman is making a 
    parliamentary inquiry. In reply, the Chair may say this resolution 
    is not divisible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amending the Resolution

Sec. 10.9 When the Member in control of the resolution adopting the 
    rules refuses to yield for the introduction of amendments, they may 
    be offered only if the previous question on the resolution is first 
    voted down.
    At the opening session of the 83d Congress,(8) the 
Member who had offered the resolution adopting the rules indicated that 
he would not yield for the introduction of amendments. The following 
parliamentary inquiry was then raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 99 Cong. Rec. 24, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler:(9) Mr. Speaker, do I correctly 
    understand that the parliamentary situation is that if the motion 
    for the previous question is not voted down, no opportunity will be 
    given to offer an amendment by way of liberalizing the rules?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Mr. Emanuel Celler (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(10) The gentleman states the situation 
    accurately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings in connection with the adoption of the rules of the 
92d Congress are illustrative of the procedure usually followed when 
amendments to the resolution are offered. On Jan. 22, 
1971,(11) the previous question on the resolution, which 
incorporated the controversial 21-day rule for discharging the 
Committee on Rules as part of the standing rules, was rejected. An 
amendment deleting that provision was then offered, and subsequently 
agreed to by the House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 117 Cong. Rec. 140. 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 143, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.10 Although generally, an amendment may be offered only after 
    the previous question is voted down on the resolution to adopt 
    rules,(13) there are exceptions to this rule.

    In the 79th Congress,(14) an amendment to the resolution 
adopting the rules was introduced without objection even though the 
Member in charge of the resolu
                         
[[Page 68]]

tion had not yielded for that purpose, nor had he moved the previous 
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 31, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967; 97 Cong. 
        Rec. 17, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1951; 95 Cong. Rec. 10, 
        81st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1949.
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 10, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker's Participation in Debate on the Resolution

Sec. 10.11 The Speaker may participate in the debate on the resolution 
    adopting the rules.

    In the 89th Congress,(15) the Speaker, John W. 
McCormack, of
Massachusetts, took the floor in support of the resolution adopting the 
rules, and in the course of his remarks, explained his reasons for so 
doing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 23, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965. See also 109 
        Cong. Rec. 14-22, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., where Speaker McCormack 
        took the floor to debate the resolution adopting the rules and 
        increasing the membership of the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, as this resolution involves changes 
    in the rules, I feel that my views should be known to the Members 
    of the House. I strongly favor the resolution offered by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert]. I think the 21-day rule is a 
    rule that is for the benefit of the individual Member of the House 
    without regard to party affiliation in giving [him] the opportunity 
    of passing upon legislation that has been reported out of a 
    standing committee.

Correction of the Resolution

Sec. 10.12 The House, by unanimous consent, may direct the Clerk to 
    correct clerical errors in the engrossment of the resolution 
    adopting the rules.

    The resolution adopting the rules for the 90th Congress, as passed 
by the House on Jan. 10, 1967,(16) contained several errors. 
On Jan. 12, 1967,(17) Majority Leader Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma; who had introduced the resolution, asked the House for 
unanimous consent to direct the Clerk to make the following corrections 
in the engrossment of the resolution: First, to strike out ``Ninetieth 
Congress'' and insert ``Eighty-ninth Congress''; and second, to insert 
the clause ``With the following amendment, to wit:'', which was 
necessary to integrate the amendment into the resolution. There was no 
objection to the request. Mr. Albert then obtained unanimous consent 
for the resolution as corrected to be printed in the Journal and in the 
Record.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 33, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 430, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 431, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 12, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------