[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 16. Introduction]
[Â§ 3. Reference]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2480-2492]
 
                               CHAPTER 16
 
          Introduction and Reference of Bills and Resolutions
 
Sec. 3. Reference

    Bills, petitions, and other matters are referred to committees of 
the House in accordance with the House rule (14) 
establishing the jurisdiction of committees over particular 
subjects.(15) Petitions, memorials and bills of a private 
nature are delivered to the Clerk, endorsed with the sponsors names and 
the reference or disposition to be made thereof.(16) The 
referral of public bills, memorials and resolutions is the 
responsibility of the Speaker.(17) Bills and messages from 
the Senate are referred to committees in the same manner as public 
bills presented by the Members.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 675-724 (1973).
            For a discussion of rule changes in the 94th Congress 
        affecting referral of bills to standing committees, see 
        supplements to this edition as they appear.
15. For a discussion of jurisdiction of committees, generally, see Ch. 
        17, infra.
16. Rule XXII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 849 (1973).
17. Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1973). See 
        Sec. Sec. 3.2-3.5, infra, for further discussion.
18. Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Referral of bills and resolutions generally occurs on the same day 
as their introduction. Due to the large number of bills introduced on a 
session's opening day, however, the referral of all such bills may not 
be completed until the following day.(19) Bills so 
introduced which are referred only as of the following day are neverthe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 3.6, 3.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2481]]

less printed in the Record of the following day with the date of their 
original introduction.

    Occasionally, of course, errors in reference of bills to committees 
may occur. In the case of private bills, errors may be corrected 
without action by the House at the suggestion of the committee having 
possession of the bill.(20) Similarly, a House rule 
(1) provides for procedures to be followed in case of an 
error in reference of a public bill. The House pursuant to the rule has 
rereferred erroneously referenced public bills both by unanimous 
consent (2) and by agreement to rereferral motions of the 
committees claiming or relinquishing jurisdiction over the matters in 
question.(3) Rereferral either on motion or by unanimous 
consent is determined without debate.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule XXII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 853 (1973).
 1. Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1973).
 2. See Sec. Sec. 3.14, 3.15, infra.
 3. See Sec. Sec. 3.10-3.13, infra.
 4. See Sec. 3.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that once a bill has been reported for floor 
action from a committee, points of order against its reference and 
motions for its rereferral may not be entertained.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 3.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On rare occasions a bill is called up for consideration by 
unanimous consent without being referred to a committee.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 3.1, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration Without Reference

Sec. 3.1 On rare occasions a private bill is introduced from the floor 
    and called up for consideration by unanimous consent without being 
    referred to a committee.

    On Apr. 16, 1969,(7) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked 
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of a bill 
(8) to provide mail service for the widow of a former 
President. No objection being heard to the request of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma, the bill was read to the House, was ordered to be 
engrossed and read a third time, was read a third time and passed. A 
motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 9258, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 10158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The proposal was transmitted to the 
Congress as Executive Communication No. 686 and was received in the 
Speaker's Rooms at 11:30 a.m., April 16. The Parliamen

[[Page 2482]]

tarian called it to the attention of the Speaker who then directed the 
Majority Leader to clear it for immediate consideration by unanimous 
consent.

Speaker's Responsibilities

Sec. 3.2 The referral of a public bill to the proper committee, under 
    the rules of the House, is the responsibility of the Speaker, who, 
    on occasion, has taken the floor to explain his reference of a 
    bill.

    On Mar. 2, 1966,(9) during debate in Committee of the 
Whole concerning a bill (10) providing for the participation 
of the United States in the 1967 Alaska Centennial, the Chair 
(11) recognized Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
who delivered the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 4579, 4580, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. See Rule XXII clause 
        4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1973).
10. H.R. 9963.
11. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: . . . Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks made 
    by the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Cleveland] about the 
    reference of this bill, and overhearing them and confining myself 
    to that aspect of his remarks, I simply want to advise the Members 
    of the House that in my judgment as the Speaker, this bill was 
    properly referred to the Committee on Public Works.
        In the original bill, the bill calls for the participation in 
    the 1967 exposition, jointly with the State of Alaska through 
    economic development projects such as industrial, agricultural, 
    educational, research, or commercial facilities, and so forth.
        Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly respect the views of my friend, the 
    gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Cleveland], but I cannot be on 
    the floor and listen to one challenge the reference of a bill that 
    I made. I realize that I might make mistakes occasionally, but I 
    will always make the reference of a bill that the rules call for. 
    In my clear judgment this bill was properly referred to the 
    Committee on Public Works.

Sec. 3.3 The referral of a Senate bill on the Speaker's table to the 
    proper committee is within the discretion of the Speaker.

    On June 6, 1949,(12) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 7255, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. For further illustrations, 
        see 80 Cong. Rec. 4547, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 27, 1936; and 
        72 Cong. Rec. 7236, 7237, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 17, 1930. 
        And see Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 2483]]

        Mr. Patman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the status of the bill S. 
    1008, which, I understand, was messaged over from the Senate on 
    Friday last?
        The Speaker: The Chair understands it is on the Speaker's 
    table.
        Mr. Patman: Will it be referred to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary?
        The Speaker: The Chair does not know about that.
        Mr. Patman: What action will be necessary in order to get it 
    referred to the committee?
        The Speaker: It is the duty and the privilege of the Chair to 
    refer bills to whatever committee he desires, after consultation 
    with the Parliamentarian, of course. The Chair will not recognize 
    any motion in that regard at this time.

Sec. 3.4 On one occasion a Senate bill which had been held at the 
    Speaker's table pending disposition of a similar House measure was 
    referred by the Speaker to the same House committee to which the 
    House bill had been recommitted.

    On June 22, 1962,(14) the Speaker (15) 
referred to the Committee on Agriculture a Senate bill,(16) 
following the recommittal on the previous day of a similar House bill 
(17) to the same committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 11433, 11434, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
16. S. 3225.
17. H.R. 11222, food and agricultural bill of 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.5 The Chair does not indicate in advance the committee to which 
    he will refer public bills subsequently introduced.

    On Jan. 24, 1944,(18) during House debate relating to a 
motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration 
of a resolution,(19) a parliamentary inquiry was propounded 
by Mr. Pete Jarman, of Alabama, questioning whether the discharge of 
the committee and the adoption of the resolution would result in the 
reference of certain proposed legislation to the Committee on World War 
Veterans' Legislation. Responding to the inquiry, the Speaker 
(20) remarked as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 90 Cong. Rec. 629, 631-33, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. For a further 
        example of the Speaker's refusal to speculate on the 
        referencing of future bills, see 112 Cong. Rec. 1716, 89th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 1, 1966.
19. H. Res. 29, amending Rule XI clause 40.
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair . . . is compelled to say to the 
    gentleman from Alabama that as bills are submitted reference would 
    have to be made under the rules of the House.

        The Chair does not want to decide at this time that he would be 
    compelled to refer all legislation of that kind and character to 
    this committee. A great many times bills are introduced having 
    three or four subjects in them and

[[Page 2484]]

    there may be a choice of which committee should have jurisdiction.

Reference on Opening Day

Sec. 3.6 Bills placed in the hopper on the opening day of a new 
    Congress are not referred until after the adoption of the rules. 
    The titles of bills that are not referred on the opening day are 
    sometimes printed in the next day's Record with a date 
    corresponding to the date on which the rules were adopted.

    On Jan. 21, 1971,(1) the Speaker (2) made the 
following announcement to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 16, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair would like to make a statement 
    concerning the introduction and reference of bills.
        Heretofore on the opening day of a new Congress, several 
    thousand bills have been introduced under adopted rules permitting 
    their introduction by Members and reference by the Speaker. On 
    those occasions, the Speaker announced his intention to examine and 
    refer as many bills as possible, and he asked the indulgence of 
    Members if he was unable to refer all introduced bills.
        Since the rules of the 92d Congress have not yet been adopted, 
    the right of Members to introduce bills, and the authority of the 
    Speaker to refer them, is technically delayed. The Chair will state 
    that bills dropped in the hopper will be held until the adoption of 
    the rules, at which time they will be referred as expeditiously as 
    possible to the appropriate committee. At that time, the bills 
    which are not referred and do not appear in the Record as of that 
    day will be included in the next day's Record and printed with a 
    date as of the time the rules were adopted.

Sec. 3.7 As a result of the large number of bills introduced on opening 
    day, the Speaker has on that occasion announced his intention to 
    examine and refer as many bills as possible and to ask the 
    indulgence of the Members if he was unable to refer all introduced 
    bills.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(3) the Speaker (4) made the 
following announcement to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 37, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. For further illustrations, 
        see 113 Cong. Rec. 34, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967; 111 
        Cong. Rec. 26, 27, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965; and 109 
        Cong. Rec. 23, 24, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963.
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair would like to make a statement 
    concerning the introduction and reference of bills today.
        As Members are aware, they have the privilege today of 
    introducing bills. Heretofore on the opening day of a new Congress, 
    several thousand bills have been introduced. It will be readily ap

[[Page 2485]]

    parent to all Members that it may be a physical impossibility for 
    the Speaker to examine each bill for reference today. The Chair 
    will do his best to refer as many bills as possible, but he will 
    ask the indulgence of Members if he is unable to refer all the 
    bills that may be introduced. Those bills which are not referred 
    and do not appear in the Record as of today will be included in the 
    next day's Record and printed with a date as of today.

Sec. 3.8 A Senate bill, messaged to the House following sine die 
    adjournment, is referred to committee on opening day of the next 
    session of the same Congress.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See the proceedings discussed in Sec. 1.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correcting Date of Reference

Sec. 3.9 On one occasion two bills delivered to the Parliamentarian for 
    reference after adjournment, when it was too late to process them 
    for inclusion in the Record of that day, were held for reference on 
    the following day; subsequently, upon assurances by the sponsor 
    that the bills had been placed in the hopper before adjournment on 
    the preceding day, they were printed as having been introduced on 
    the preceding day and notations of the date, as corrected, of 
    introduction were made in both the Record and the Journal.

    On Jan. 26, 1970,(6) the announcement of the Jan. 22 
introduction and referral of two bills, introduced Jan. 22 but omitted 
from the Record of that date, was made as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Public Bills and Resolutions

        Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were 
    introduced and severally referred as follows:

                   [Omitted from the Record of Jan. 22, 1970]
            By Mr. Bennett (for himself, Mr. Brock, Mr. Broomfield, Mr. 
                Chappell, Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Daddario, Mr. Dulski, Mr. 
                Edmondson, Mr. Foley, Mr. Helstoski, Mr. Hull, Mr. Kee, 
                Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Mikva, Mrs. Mink, 
                Mr. Olsen, Mr. Pryor of Arkansas, Mr. Purcell, Mr. 
                Rarick, Mr. Reifel, Mr. Ruppe, Mr. Saylor, Mr. Scherle, 
                and Mr. Skubitz):

            H.R. 15521. A bill to amend the act of June 27, 1960 (74 
        Stat. 220), relating to the preservation of historical and 
        archaeological data; to the Committee on Interior and Insular 
        Affairs.
            By Mr. Bennett (for himself, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Tiernan, Mr. 
                Tunney, Mr. Udall, Mr. Waldie, and Mr. Vanik):

        H.R. 15522. A bill to amend the act of June 27, 1960 (74 Stat. 
    220), relat

[[Page 2486]]

    ing to the preservation of historical and archaeological data; to 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

    The Record was corrected accordingly.

Rereferral by Motion

Sec. 3.10 On occasion, the House has rejected a motion for the 
    rereferral of a bill, offered in accordance with Rule XXII clause 4 
    by a Member at the direction of the committee claiming 
    jurisdiction.

    On May 4, 1939,(7) Mr. William T. Schulte, of Indiana, 
by direction of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 
submitted a motion that a bill (8) be rereferred from the 
Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on Immigration and 
Naturalization. The motion was subsequently rejected on a division--
ayes 17, noes 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 5119, 5120, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 5138, relating to unlawful attempts to overthrow the 
        government of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.11 The rule providing for rereference of bills on motion of a 
    committee claiming jurisdiction is construed to require that the 
    motion be made before any business has been transacted; but the 
    motion may be made after one-minute speeches.

    On Apr. 21, 1942,(9) subsequent to the submission by Mr. 
Samuel Dickstein, of New York (at the direction of the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization) of a motion to rerefer a bill 
(10) from the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization, a point of order was raised by Mr. John 
E. Rankin, of Mississippi, asserting that the motion had been made too 
late. In overruling the point of order, the Speaker (11) 
said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 3571, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. For an additional example, 
        see 79 Cong. Rec. 4878, 4879, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 2, 
        1935, where a motion to rerefer a bill was made and considered 
        subsequent to the House's entertainment of unanimous-consent 
        requests.
10. H.R. 6915.
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On the point that the motion comes too late in that business 
    has been transacted in the House today, the Chair may say that 
    since the reading of the Journal the only business that has been 
    transacted has been 1-minute speeches. The Chair is constrained to 
    overrule the point of order of the gentleman from Mississippi on 
    the ground that he thinks it involves too technical a construction 
    of the rule.

Sec. 3.12 The House has granted unanimous consent that it

[[Page 2487]]

    may be in order for a Member to move the rereference of a bill at 
    any time during the day notwithstanding the rule requiring that 
    such motions be made immediately after the reading of the Journal.

    On June 18, 1952,(12) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 98 Cong. Rec. 7532, 7542-44, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order for me to make a motion today to 
    rerefer a bill.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 8130, to promote economy and efficiency through certain 
        reorganizations and the integration of supply and service 
        activities within and among the military departments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (14) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William C.] Lantaff [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, what is the bill?
        Mr. Vinson: Mr. Speaker, I am simply trying to preserve my 
    right so that the chairman of the committee may be here.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, if this unanimous-consent request is granted 
    the gentleman proposes to make such motion later today?
        Mr. Vinson: Yes; I am asking unanimous consent that later on 
    during the day I may have the right to propound a unanimous-consent 
    request or to move to rerefer a bill. I am doing this to preserve 
    my rights and to give the chairman of the Expenditures Committee an 
    opportunity to be here. He is just leaving his office.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, do I understand the gentleman to say that he is 
    asking unanimous consent that he may make the same request later 
    on?
        Mr. Vinson: That is right exactly, because under the rules of 
    the House this is the time it has to be made and I propound a 
    unanimous-consent request now to be permitted during today to offer 
    a motion to rerefer a bill.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Why does not the gentleman ask it now?
        Mr. Vinson: I am withholding the motion pending the arrival of 
    the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Dawson].
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, if that is the only 
    purpose, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Georgia?
        There was no objection.

    Later in the day, Mr. Vinson asked for and was granted unanimous 
consent to rerefer the bill from the Committee on Expenditures in the 
Executive Departments to the Committee on Armed Services.

Sec. 3.13 A motion made pursuant to Rule XXII clause 4 to rerefer a 
    bill to a committee claiming jurisdiction is not debatable.

[[Page 2488]]

    On Apr. 2, 1935,(15) during consideration of a motion 
submitted by Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to rerefer a bill 
(16) to the Committee on the Judiciary, a parliamentary 
inquiry was raised by Mr. Sam D. McReynolds, of Tennessee, asking if 
the Chair had recognized the gentleman from New York for that purpose. 
Responding in the affirmative, the Speaker (17) stated as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 4878, 4879, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. For further example, 
        see 87 Cong. Rec. 127, 128, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 13, 
        1941, where an objection based on the nondebatability of 
        motions to rerefer bills was made when the Speaker sought to 
        state, in reply to a parliamentary inquiry, his reasons for 
        referring the bill to a certain committee.
16. H.R. 6547, authorizing the appointment of a Commissioner for the 
        United States Court for China.
17. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman has the floor and has made a motion that is in 
    order at this time. The gentleman from New York moves that the bill 
    H.R. 6547 be rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
    Chair may state to the gentleman from Tennessee that the motion is 
    not debatable.

Rereferral by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 3.14 Rereferral of a bill has been permitted by unanimous consent.

    On July 15, 1970,(1) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 24451, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. For a further 
        illustration see 113 Cong. Rec. 29560, 29561, 29564-67, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 20, 1967, where 68 bills and resolutions 
        dealing with veterans' cemeteries were, by unanimous consent, 
        rereferred from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 
        to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack T.] Brinkley [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged 
    from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 18365) to amend title 
    10 of the United States Code to permit actions against the United 
    States for damage to the good name and reputation of members of the 
    Armed Forces charged with committing certain crimes against 
    civilians in combat zones if such members are cleared of such 
    charges, and for other purposes, of which I am the author, and that 
    the bill be rereferred to the Committee on Armed Services.
        In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I have gotten the permission of 
    the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and of the Committee 
    on Armed Services.
        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There being no objection, the bill was rereferred.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Normally the chairman of one of the 
committees involved makes the unanimous-consent request, and not the 
sponsor of the bill.

[[Page 2489]]

Sec. 3.15 Where the chairman of a committee wishes to ask unanimous 
    consent for the rereference of a bill, it is customary to consult 
    with the chairman of the committee to which the bill is to be 
    referred; on one occasion, the Speaker declined to recognize a 
    chairman of a committee for a unanimous-consent request to rerefer 
    a bill until the chairman of the other committee was consulted.

    On Mar. 25, 1948,(3) subsequent to the unanimous-consent 
request of Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of Massachusetts, that a bill 
(4) be referred from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to 
the Committee on the Judiciary, the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 94 Cong. Rec. 3573, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. H.R. 5515, for the relief of Mr. and Mrs. Albert Chandler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (5) Has the gentlewoman conferred with 
    the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts: I have not, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: It is customary to consult with the chairman of 
    the committee to whom the bill is to be referred. No harm will come 
    if this matter is delayed until Monday.
        Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts: I withdraw the request, Mr. 
    Speaker.

Rereferral of Reported Bills

Sec. 3.16 Once a bill has been reported by the committee to which it 
    was referred, points of order against reference of the bill and 
    motions for its rereferral are not entertained.

    On May 2, 1939,(6) subsequent to the introduction of a 
resolution (7) reported from the Committee on Rules 
providing for the consideration of a bill,(8) Mr. Samuel 
Dickstein, of New York, made the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052-55, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. For further 
        illustrations, see 89 Cong. Rec. 6209, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        June 21, 1943; 84 Cong. Rec. 9532, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        19, 1939; and 83 Cong. Rec. 1142, 1143, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., 
        Jan. 26, 1938.
 7. H. Res. 175.
 8. H.R. 5643, investing the circuit courts of appeals of the United 
        States with original and exclusive jurisdiction in certain 
        cases involving alien affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order to the substance of the 
    resolution and the adoption of the resolution for consideration of 
    this bill upon the ground that this bill did not have a hearing 
    before the committee authorized by the rules of the House, and that 
    the Rules Committee had no right to hear it, because there was no 
    proper report from a committee authorized to conduct the hearings 
    on this legislation or to sanction the approval of this bill.

[[Page 2490]]

        This bill is 100 percent immigration, but was referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary; and I submit, Mr. Speaker, I should 
    like to have some time to go into the precedents and the rules of 
    the House which will establish definitely that this bill is 
    improperly before the House for consideration under a rule or under 
    any other provision of the laws of this Congress or any other 
    Congress, and that this is an immigration bill and the Immigration 
    Committee has had no consideration of this measure by hearings or 
    otherwise. . . .

    Considerable debate on the point of order ensued, at the conclusion 
of which, the Speaker,(9) overruling the point of order, 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Mississippi, on behalf of the Committee on 
    Rules of the House, has offered a resolution, which has been 
    reported, providing for the consideration of H.R. 5643.
        The gentleman from New York, chairman of the Committee on 
    Immigration and Naturalization, has raised a point of order, which 
    may be stated in two different forms, possibly, that the resolution 
    now offered is out of order. Primarily, as the Chair understands, 
    the point of order is raised against consideration of the bill 
    because of the fact that the Committee on the Judiciary, to which 
    it was referred, had no jurisdiction or authority under the rules 
    of the House to consider the bill; therefore it had no legal right 
    to report the bill to the House for its consideration under the 
    rules of the House.
        The Chair has given considerable consideration to the problem, 
    because it is a matter of some importance. It is a matter of grave 
    importance, of course, to all committees, their chairmen and 
    members, affecting as it does the matter of jurisdiction of the 
    committees over important legislation. . . .
        This is not a new matter that is now raised by the gentleman 
    from New York. It may be proper here to state that the present 
    occupant of the chair nor any other Speaker who has been his 
    predecessor has had any personal interest in reference to any bill. 
    The Speaker does not participate in the deliberations by the 
    committees. His function is entirely to undertake to preserve the 
    rules and precedents of the House as its presiding officer.
        This bill now being attacked in the ordinary course was 
    referred to the Parliamentarian, and, with the consent of the 
    Speaker, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, for the 
    reasons rather admirably stated by the gentleman from Alabama. It 
    was felt at that time that the Committee on the Judiciary was the 
    proper committee to which the bill should be referred. . . .
        The defect in the position taken by the gentleman from New York 
    . . . is that under the uniform practices and precedents of the 
    House, as far as the Speaker has been able to find them, the 
    gentleman has slept upon his rights in raising this question . . . 
    although he may not have been actually advised of this bill until 
    recently called to his attention; however, constructively at least, 
    he has been guilty of parliamentary laches.
        In making this ruling, the Chair desires to refer to a decision 
    heretofore

[[Page 2491]]

    made by the present Speaker of the House on an identical question 
    involving the jurisdiction of a committee. This is found on page 
    1526 of the Congressional Record of January 26, 1938.
        On January 26, 1938, Mr. May, by direction of the Committee on 
    Military Affairs, called up the bill (H.R. 8176) providing for 
    continuing retirement pay, under certain conditions, of officers 
    and former officers of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps of the 
    United States, other than officers of the Regular Army, Navy, or 
    Marine Corps, who incurred physical disability while in the service 
    of the United States during the World War, and for other purposes.
        The gentlemen from Texas [Mr. Patman] made the point of order 
    that the bill was improperly referred to the Committee on Military 
    Affairs, the proper committee being the Committee on World War 
    Veterans' Legislation. He made the point of order that the bill was 
    not in order for consideration at that time. As the Chair 
    understands that is the principle invoked by the gentleman from New 
    York.
        The gentlemen from Kentucky [Mr. May] made the point of order 
    that the question of order raised by Mr. Patman came too late, 
    inasmuch as the bill had been reported to the House.
        The Speaker, in sustaining a point of order made by Mr. May, 
    said:

            The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] raises the point of 
        order against consideration of the bill, that it was not 
        referred under the rules of the House to the Committee on World 
        War Veterans' Legislation, to which, according to his 
        contention, it should have originally been referred.
            Pending that question the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
        May], the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, raises 
        the point of order that the point of order made by the 
        gentleman from Texas comes too late. . . .
            . . . [T]here have been a number of decisions and 
        precedents upon this particular question. The Chair refers 
        especially to a decision made by Mr. Speaker Longworth, as 
        reported in volume 7 of Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
        Representatives, section 2113.

        Then quoting Speaker Longworth's decision:

            After a public bill has been reported--

        As is the case here, the bill having been referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, whether properly or erroneously 
    referred, the quotation goes on to say:
        it is not in order to raise a question of committee 
        jurisdiction--

        And so forth. The gentleman from Michigan has cited for 
    consideration of the Chair a syllabus found on page 401, section 
    854, of the House Rules Manual which the Chair will quote:

            According to the later practice, the erroneous reference of 
        a public bill, if it remains uncorrected in effect, gives 
        jurisdiction to the committee receiving it, and it is too late 
        to move a change of reference after such committee has reported 
        the bill.

        The Chair desires particularly to direct the attention of the 
    House to a decision made by Mr. Speaker Crisp which may be found in 
    Hinds' Precedents, volume IV, section 4365. In that instance 
    Speaker Crisp delivered an elaborate opinion on a question which 
    the Chair thinks is on all fours with the one now before him.

[[Page 2492]]

        . . . [T]he Chair is clearly of the opinion that despite the 
    fact there might be considerable merit in the contention made by 
    the gentleman from New York so far as the spirit and purposes in 
    the establishment of committees are concerned, nevertheless, under 
    these precedents, which seem to be absolutely uniform, the Chair is 
    constrained to overrule the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from New York.
