[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[C. Committee Procedure]
[Â§ 24. Point of Order Based on Lack of Committee Quorum - Timing]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2748-2756]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 24. Point of Order Based on Lack of Committee Quorum--Timing

Effect of Failure to Raise in Committee

Sec. 24.1 Failure to raise a point of no quorum upon the taking of a 
    committee vote to report a privileged resolution does not bar the 
    subsequent raising of such a point of order when the measure is 
    reported as privileged to the House.

    On May 11, 1950,(10) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mary T. Norton, of New Jersey, 
Chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration, who, acting by 
direction of that committee, offered and asked for the immediate 
consideration of a privileged resolution (H. Res. 495), providing for 
the payment of certain investigatory expenses of the Committee on the 
District of Columbia. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of 
Ohio, made a point of order against the resolution on the ground that a 
quorum was not present when it was reported out of committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 6920, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before the Chair was able to conclusively determine whether or

[[Page 2749]]

not a quorum had been present, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
raised a point of order against the point of order, prompting the 
following exchange:

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a further point of order. This is a 
    very serious proposition that really affects the orderly procedure 
    of the House. I make the point of order that it is too late to 
    raise a point of order that there was no quorum present in the 
    committee unless that point of order was made in the committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the point of 
    order can be made in the House when the report is made. A point of 
    order that a quorum was not present when the resolution was 
    reported out can be made when the resolution is reported to the 
    House. For that reason the Chair rules that the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. Hays] is within his rights at this particular time in making 
    the point of order that he has.

Against Resolution Providing for Consideration of Bill

Sec. 24.2 A point of order that a bill may not be reported from 
    committee in the absence of a quorum is properly raised when the 
    bill is called up for consideration--and such a point of order will 
    not lie against a resolution providing for the consideration of the 
    bill.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(~11) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, called up House Resolution 1256 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution provided that 
upon its adoption, it would be in order to move that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill 
(S. 2511), to maintain and improve the income of producers of crude 
pine gum, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 30738, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the Clerk read the resolution, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, 
who raised the following point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the consideration 
    of House Resolution 1256 on the grounds that the Committee on 
    Agriculture acted without a quorum being present when it ordered S. 
    2511 reported to the House on July 2, 1968.
        Rule XI, clause 26(e), of the rules of the House 
    (12) states as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Mr. Findley was referring to clause 27(e) [H. Jour. 1318, 90th 
        Cong. 2d Sess. (1968)]; see Rule XI clause 2(1)(2)(A), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            (e) No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.

[[Page 2750]]

        I have personally checked with the staff of the Committee on 
    Agriculture and have been informed that on July 2, 1968, there were 
    only 14 members of the committee present and that the vote to 
    report S. 2511 to the House was 11 to 0 in favor of such action. 
    Since the total membership of that committee is 35, there obviously 
    was not a majority actually present as required by rule XI, clause 
    26(e).
        Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order at this time in order 
    to have it presented to the Chair in a timely fashion. . . . [T]he 
    Chair stated in a response to a parliamentary inquiry by the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hall] on Monday of this week--October 
    7, page 29764 that any point of order under rule XI, clause 26(e), 
    would have to be made when the bill is called up.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Note, however, that such a point of order would not lie where a 
        bill was being considered under suspension of the rules; see 
        Sec. 24.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Since House Resolution 1256 is the rule which calls up S. 2511 
    for consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union, I therefore insist on my point of order at this time.

    The Speaker replied, as follows:

        The Chair states, in response to the inquiry of the gentleman 
    from Illinois, that the point of order at this time would be 
    premature.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Such a point of order will lie, however, pending a vote on a motion 
        that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
        for the consideration of the bill; see Sec. 24.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following Discharge of Committee of the Whole

Sec. 24.3 Following the discharge of the Committee of the Whole from 
    further consideration of a bill, a Member was permitted, pending 
    consideration of the bill, to make the point of order that the 
    measure had been reported from committee in the absence of a 
    quorum.

    The following proceedings were reported in the House Journal of 
Oct. 11, 1968: ~(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Jour. 1292, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On motion of Mr. [Thaddeus J.] Dulski [N.Y.], by unanimous 
    consent, the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
    was discharged from further consideration of the bill of the Senate 
    (S. 1507) to include firefighters within the provisions of section 
    8336(c) of title 5, United States Code, relating to the retirement 
    of Government employees engaged in certain hazardous occupations.
        Pending consideration of said bill, Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook 
    [Ohio], made a point of order against the bill and said:
        ``I make a point of order that report No. 1945 violates rule 
    XI, clause 26, and that a quorum was not present when the bill was 
    passed by the Post Office and Civil Service Committee.''
        The Speaker (16) sustained the point of order and 
    said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``The Chair sustains the point of order and the bill is 
    recommitted to

[[Page 2751]]

    the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.''
        The bill (S. 1507) was recommitted to the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service.

Pending Vote on Motion to Resolve Into Committee of the Whole

Sec. 24.4 A point of order that a bill was reported from committee in 
    the absence of a quorum is in order pending a vote on the motion 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
    the consideration of the bill.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(17) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, called up House Resolution 1256 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution provided that 
upon its adoption, it would be in order to move that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill 
(S. 2511), to maintain and improve the income of producers of crude 
pine gum, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 30738, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the Clerk read the resolution, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, 
who raised the point of order (1~8) that a quorum of the 
Committee on Agriculture was not present when that committee voted to 
report S. 2511 to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For more details, see Sec. 24.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker's reply was, as follows:

        The Chair states, in response to the inquiry of the gentleman 
    from Illinois, that the point of order at this time would be 
    premature.
        The Chair might state that the appropriate time to make the 
    point of order would be at the time the motion is made to go in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    After a brief discussion, House Resolution 1256 was agreed 
to,(19) whereupon William R. Poage, of Texas, Chairman of 
the Committee on Agriculture, moved that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of S. 2511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 30739, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of S. 2511 on the grounds that the Committee on 
    Agriculture acted without a quorum being present when it ordered S. 
    2511 reported to the House on July 2, 1968.
        Rule XI, clause [27(e)], of the rules of the House 
    (1) states as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).

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

[[Page 2752]]

            (e) No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.

        I have personally checked with the staff of the Committee on 
    Agriculture and have been informed that on July 2, 1968, there were 
    only 14 members of the committee present and that the vote to 
    report S. 2511 to the House was 11 to 0 in favor of such action. 
    Since the total membership of that committee is 35, there obviously 
    was not a majority actually present as required by Rule XI clause 
    [27(e)].

    Mr. Findley having raised his point of order at the appropriate 
moment, the Speaker interrogated Mr. Poage and sustained the point of 
order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For more details on the Chair's ruling, see Sec. 25.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 24.5 A point of order against a bill on the ground that a quorum 
    of the committee was not present when the bill was ordered reported 
    should be made in the House and such points come too late after the 
    House has resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
    consideration of the measure.

    On June 14, 1946,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, who immediately moved that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of a bill (S. 524), to provide for one national cemetery 
in every state and for certain other national cemeteries. The motion 
was agreed to, and, after the first reading of the bill was dispensed 
with by unanimous consent, debate ensued in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 92 Cong. Rec. 6955, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The discussion had proceeded at some length when Chairman John W. 
Flannagan, Jr., of Virginia, recognized Mr. Forest A. Harness, of 
Indiana, for a parliamentary inquiry: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 6961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: At what time would a point of order lie 
    against the bill on the ground that the committee reporting it was 
    without jurisdiction because at the time it reported the bill there 
    was not a quorum present?
        The Chairman: Answering the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry 
    the Chair will state that such a point of order would be too late 
    now that the House is in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union. Such a point of order should be made in the 
    House before consideration of the bill.

After Debate on Measure Has Commenced

Sec. 24.6 The point of order that a bill was reported from a com

[[Page 2753]]

    mittee without a formal meeting and a quorum present is made too 
    late if debate has started on the bill in the House.

    On Feb. 24, 1947,(5) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, who, by 
direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia, called up a 
bill (H.R. 1700), to provide for daylight saving time in that city and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The Chair recognized Mr. Dirksen 
for one hour, and debate on the matter commenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 1368, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After much discussion on the subject, the Chair recognized Mr. 
Daniel A. Reed, of New York,(6) for a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 1374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I believe the Reorganization Act provides that no bill shall 
    come to the floor unless it is reported out of committee when a 
    quorum is present. As I understand the statement of the gentleman 
    from Illinois, there was no meeting of the committee.
        The Speaker: The point of order comes too late. It should have 
    been made before debate started on the bill.

After Adoption of Measure

Sec.  24.7 After the adoption of a resolution by the House, it is too 
    late to attack the validity of the action taken by the committee 
    reporting the resolution on the ground that a quorum was not 
    present when it was ordered reported.

    On Feb. 28, 1968,(7) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, 
by direction of the Committee on House Administration, submitted 12 
privileged reports on assorted resolutions providing funds for 
investigations, studies, and various expenses of certain standing and 
select committees. Each of the accompanying resolutions was agreed to. 
Mr. Friedel then submitted and then called up (8) a 
privileged report (H. Rept. No. 1127), on a resolution (H. Res. 1042), 
authorizing the expenditure of funds for expenses of the Committee on 
Un-American Activities, but withdrew the resolution (9) 
after Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York, made the point of order that a 
quorum was not present when the Committee on House Administration 
considered the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 4445-49, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Id. at p. 4449.
 9. See Sec. 25.3, infra, for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Edwin E.

[[Page 2754]]

Willis, of Louisiana, Chairman of the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, who initiated the following exchange:

        Mr. Speaker, the last resolution sought to be called up was a 
    resolution relative to the House Committee on Un-American 
    Activities, and it was withdrawn.
        Now, however, the gentleman from Maryland states, no, it is not 
    so, that there was no more a quorum present for all the other 
    resolutions than there was a quorum present to consider our 
    resolution.
        I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all the other 
    resolutions be withdrawn also.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that if a quorum was not 
    present--and the Chair is not saying that there was not a quorum 
    present--but if a quorum was not present then the point of order 
    should have been made by any Member at the time a particular 
    resolution was called up.

    Mr. Willis then obtained unanimous consent to address the House for 
one minute, and proceeded to examine the issue further:

        . . . I have asked for permission to proceed and ask these two 
    questions; that is all.
        Mr. Friedel: We considered your resolution in the committee.
        Mr. Willis: Was there a quorum present?
        Mr. Friedel: No quorum was present.
        Mr. Willis: Was there a quorum present for any other committee 
    appropriation?
        Mr. Friedel: That point was never raised.
        Mr. Willis: Well I just want to clarify the record and show 
    that probably no quorum was present in the House Administration 
    Committee for any of the resolutions approved today.

Bill Considered Under Suspension of the Rules

Sec.  24.8 Where a bill is being considered under suspension of the 
    rules, a point of order will not lie against the bill on the ground 
    that a quorum was not present when the bill was reported from 
    committee.

    On Oct. 7, 1968,(10) the program for the day entailed a 
number of bills scheduled to be considered under a suspension of the 
rules.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 114 Cong. Rec. 29764, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. The essential criteria to suspend the rules are set forth in the 
        following clause [Rule XXVII clause 1, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 902 (1973)]: ``No rule shall be suspended except by a vote 
        of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present; 
        nor shall the Speaker entertain a motion to suspend the rules 
        except on the first and third Mondays of each month, and on the 
        Tuesdays immediately following those days, and during the last 
        six days of a session.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the bills' consideration, Speaker John W. McCormack, of

[[Page 2755]]

Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, who 
initiated the following exchange:

        Mr. Speaker . . . [t]here are four bills from the Committee on 
    Post Office and Civil Service which, from evidence I have, were 
    reported in violation of rule XI, clause [27(e)](12) 
    which states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            (e) No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.

        The evidence I have is that H.R. 17954 and H.R. 7406 were 
    ordered reported from the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
    Service in executive session on August 2, 1968, without a quorum 
    present.
        Additional evidence reveals that S. 1507 and S. 1190 were 
    ordered reported from the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
    Service in executive session on September 3, 1968, without a quorum 
    present. I further cite from Jefferson's Manual, section 408: 
    (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 408 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A bill improperly reported is not entitled to its place on 
        the calendar; but the validity of a report may not be 
        questioned after the House has voted to consider it, or after 
        actual consideration has begun.

        Mr. Speaker, I submit that the bills S. 1507, S. 1190, H.R. 
    17954, and H.R. 7406 all were improperly reported. Mr. Speaker, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is this: At what point in the proceedings 
    would it be in order to raise the question against these bills as 
    being in violation of rule XI, clause [27(e)] inasmuch as they are 
    scheduled to be considered under suspension of the rules, which 
    would obviously suspend the rule I have cited? . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that any point of order would 
    have to be made when the bill is called up.
        The Chair might also advise or convey the suggestion to the 
    gentleman from Missouri that the bills will be considered under 
    suspension of the rules, and that means suspension of all rules.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Would 
    it not be in order, prior to the House going into the Consent 
    Calendar or suspension of the rules, to lodge the point of order 
    against the bills at this time?
        The Speaker: The point of order could be directed against such 
    consideration when the bills are called up under the general rules 
    of the House. The rules we are operating under today as far as 
    these bills are concerned concerns suspension of the rules, and 
    that motion will suspend all rules.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, if I may inquire further, is it not true 
    that, until such time as we go into that period of suspension of 
    the rules, a point of order would logically lie against such bills 
    which violate the prerogatives of the House and of the individual 
    Members thereof, to say nothing of the committee rules? My belief 
    that a point of order should be sustained is based on improper 
    committee procedure and addresses itself to the fact that the bills 
    are improperly scheduled, listed, or programed on the calendar, or 
    rule of suspension, and so forth.

[[Page 2756]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will state, as to points of order, at 
    the time the Chair answered the specific inquiry of the gentleman 
    from Missouri, a point of order would not lie until the bill is 
    reached and brought up for construction.

    At this juncture, Mr. Hall requested that the Speaker protect his 
rights by enabling him to raise the point of order at the appropriate 
time. The Speaker responded that ``The Chair will always protect the 
rights of any Member,'' but noted that a suspension of the rules 
procedure ``suspends all rules.''
    The Chair then recognized Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, who 
clarified the issue in the following manner:

        Do I correctly understand the ruling of the Chair that 
    suspending all the rules pertains to more than just the House; it 
    pertains to the rules of committee action likewise?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Two of the bills which were allegedly 
reported in the absence of a quorum, H.R. 17954 and H.R. 7406, were 
scheduled for consideration on both the Consent Calendar and under 
suspension of the rules. The Speaker did not foreclose the making of a 
point of order against a bill on the Consent Calendar. However, the two 
bills which might have been vulnerable when called on the Consent 
Calendar were passed over without prejudice by unanimous 
consent.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 29765, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------