[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[D. Jurisdiction of Committees]
[Â§ 41. Committee on Internal Security]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2919-2924]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 41. Committee on Internal Security

    On Feb. 18, 1969,(15) the Committee on Internal Security 
became a standing committee of the House, replacing the Committee on 
Un-American Activities which, itself, had been a standing committee 
since 1945. Several special committees with a similar investigative 
jurisdiction but without legislative jurisdiction existed prior to that 
date, including a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 3746, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2920]]

Special Committee to Investigate Communist Activities (1930), a Special 
Committee to Investigate Un-American Activities (1934), a Committee on 
Un-American Activities (1935), and a Special Committee to Investigate 
Un-American Propaganda Activities (1938).

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Internal Security pursuant to 
the 1973 rules (16) read as I follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XI clause 11, House Rules and Manual Sec. 703 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Communist and other subversive activities affecting the 
    internal security of the United States.
        (b) The Committee on Internal Security, acting as a whole or by 
    subcommittee, is authorized to make investigations from time to 
    time of (1) the extent, character, objectives, and activities 
    within the United States of organizations or groups, whether of 
    foreign or domestic origin, their members, agents, and affiliates, 
    which seek to establish, or assist in the establishment of, a 
    totalitarian dictatorship within the United States, or to overthrow 
    or alter, or assist in the overthrow or alteration of, the form of 
    government of the United States or of any State thereof, by force, 
    violence, treachery, espionage, sabotage, insurrection, or any 
    unlawful means, (2) the extent, character, objectives, and 
    activities within the United States of organizations or groups, 
    their members, agents, and affiliates, which incite or employ acts 
    of force, violence, terrorism, or any unlawful means, to obstruct 
    or oppose the lawful authority of the Government of the United 
    States in the execution of any law or policy affecting the internal 
    security of the United States, and (3) all other questions, 
    including the administration and execution of any law of the United 
    States, or any portion of law, relating to the foregoing that would 
    aid the Congress or any committee of the House in any necessary 
    remedial legislation.
        The Committee on Internal Security shall report to the House 
    (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the 
    results of any such investigation, together with such 
    recommendations as it deems advisable.
        For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on 
    Internal Security, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to 
    sit and act at such times and places within the United States, 
    whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, to 
    hold such hearings, and to require, by subpena or otherwise, the 
    attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of 
    such books, records, correspondence, memorandums, papers, and 
    documents, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the 
    signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or 
    by any member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by 
    any person designated by any such chairman or member.

    As the precedents indicate, the jurisdiction of the committee's 
precursor, the Committee on Un-American Activities extended to such 
matters as a resolution to

[[Page 2921]]

define ``Communism,'' (17) and a bill to regulate and 
control the operation of foreign agencies acting within the United 
States or its I territories or dependencies.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sec. 41.2, infra.
18. Sec. 41.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee regarded its oversight jurisdiction as applying 
``across the board to the internal security activities of all Executive 
departments.'' (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dennis J. Taylor, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee did not ordinarily employ subcommittees. However, 
where hearings on a particular subject were anticipated to be lengthy, 
a special subcommittee was sometimes created.
    In the 94th Congress, the Committee on Internal Security was 
abolished, its jurisdiction was transferred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and records and staff of the Committee on Internal Security 
were transferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-22, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 
        1975.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Redefining Jurisdiction; Name Change

Sec. 41.1 The rules were amended to change the name of the Committee on 
    Un-American Activities to the Committee on Internal Security and to 
    redefine its jurisdiction.

    On Feb. 18, 1969,(1) William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 89 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 3723, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is amended--
        (1) by striking out clause 19; (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. At the time, this clause [H. Jour. 1317, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. 
        (1968)] identified the committee's jurisdiction as follows: 
        ``19. Committee on un-American Activities. (a) un-American 
        activities. (b) The Committee on un-American Activities, as a 
        whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to 
        time investigations of (1) the extent, character, and objects 
        of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (2) 
        the diffusion within the United States, of subversive and Un-
        American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries 
        or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form 
        of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (3) all 
        other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in 
        any necessary remedial legislation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (2) by renumbering clauses 11 through 18 as clauses 12 through 
    19, respectively; and

[[Page 2922]]

        (3) by inserting immediately after clause 10 the following new 
    clause:
        ``11. Committee on Internal Security.
        ``(a) Communist and other subversive activities affecting the 
    internal security of the United States.
        ``(b) The Committee on Internal Security, acting as a whole or 
    by subcommittee, is authorized to make investigations from time to 
    time of (1) the extent, character, objectives, and activities 
    within the United States of organizations or groups, whether of 
    foreign or domestic origin, their members, agents, and affiliates, 
    which seek to establish, or assist in the establishment of, a 
    totalitarian dictatorship within the United States, or to overthrow 
    or alter, or assist in the overthrow or alteration of, the form of 
    government of the United States or of any State thereof, by force, 
    violence, treachery, espionage, sabotage, insurrection, or any 
    unlawful means, (2) the extent, character, objectives, and 
    activities within the United States of organizations or groups, 
    their members, agents, and affiliates, which incite or employ acts 
    of force, violence, terrorism, or any unlawful means, to obstruct 
    or oppose the lawful authority of the Government of the United 
    States in the execution of any law or policy affecting the internal 
    security of the United States, and (3) all other questions, 
    including the administration and execution of any law of the United 
    States, or any portion of law, relating to the foregoing that would 
    aid the Congress or any committee of the House in any necessary 
    remedial legislation.
        ``The Committee on Internal Security shall report to the House 
    (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the 
    results of any such investigation, together with such 
    recommendations as it deems advisable. . . .''
        (b) Clause 31 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is amended by striking out ``Un-American 
    Activities'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Internal Security''. . 
    . .(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. This clause then stated [H. Jour. 1319, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968)] 
        that: ``31. No committee of the House, except the Committees on 
        Government Operations, Rules, on Standards of Official Conduct, 
        and Un-American Activities, shall sit, without special leave, 
        while the House is in session.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 4. Nothing in this resolution shall affect (1) the 
    validity of any action or proceeding of the Committee on Un-
    American Activities or of the House of Representatives before the 
    date of adoption of this resolution, or (2) the validity of any 
    action or proceeding by any officer or agency of the executive 
    branch of the Government, or by any court of competent 
    jurisdiction, based on any action or proceeding referred to in 
    clause (1) of this sentence. Any action or proceeding referred to 
    in clause (2) of the preceding sentence and pending on the date of 
    adoption of this resolution shall be continued by the officer, 
    agency, or court concerned in the same manner and to the same 
    extent as if this resolution had not been adopted.

    After lengthy debate,(4) the previous question was 
moved, the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. For discussion of the problems in overlapping jurisdiction which 
        the resolution brought about, see Sec. 29.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2923]]

motion carried, and the resolution, itself, was agreed 
to.(~5~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 3745, 3746, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defining Communism

Sec. 41.2 The Committee on Un-American Activities (later the Committee 
    on Internal Security), and not the Committee on the Judiciary had 
    jurisdiction of a resolution to ``define communism.''

    On Mar. 20, 1947,(6) Mr. Gordon L. McDonough, of 
California, obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on the 
Judiciary discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. 
Res. 99), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Un-American 
Activities (7) (later the Committee on Internal Security).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 2315, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The abolition of the Committee on Un-American Activities and the 
        creation of the Committee on Internal Security were 
        simultaneous actions but were not solely the result of a name 
        change. The jurisdiction of the successor committee was also 
        changed. See Sec. 29.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulating Foreign Agencies Within the United States

Sec. 41.3 The Committee on Un-American Activities (later the Committee 
    on Internal Security), and not the Committee on the Judiciary had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to regulate and control the operation of 
    foreign agencies acting within the United States or its territories 
    or dependencies.

    On Feb. 5, 1948,(8) Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, asked unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2948), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Un-American 
Activities (later the Committee on Internal Security). In so doing, Mr. 
Michener stated that he had conferred with the author of the bill as 
well as the acting chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
and observed that it was ``agreeable to them that I submit this 
request.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 94 Cong. Rec. 1150, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Sec. 41.4 The Committee on Un-American Activities (later the Committee 
    on Internal Security), had jurisdiction of a bill to protect the 
    United States against certain Un-

[[Page 2924]]

    American and subversive activities by requiring registration of 
    Communist organizations.

    On Aug. 22, 1950,(9) the Committee on Un-American 
Activities reported the bill (H.R. 9490), which was then referred to 
the Union Calendar. This measure became the Subversive Activities 
Control Act of 1950.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 96 Cong. Rec. 13062, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
10. 64 Stat. 987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-43]                         

[Page 2924-2939]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 42. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

    The House first established a Committee on Commerce and 
Manufactures in 1795.(11) The committee was split in 1819, 
and one of the offspring of that split, the Committee on Commerce, was 
renamed in 1892--becoming the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4096.
12. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the course of its history, the committee has undergone a 
number of jurisdictional changes. Until 1883, it had reported the 
rivers and harbors appropriation bill.(13) In 1935, 
jurisdiction over measures dealing with water transportation, the Coast 
Guard, lifesaving service, lighthouses, lightships, ocean derelicts, 
the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Panama Canal was transferred to 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.(14) At the 
same time, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce received 
exclusive jurisdiction over measures pertaining to radio.(1) 
In 1947, by virtue of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the 
committee's jurisdiction was expanded to include most of its current 
responsibilities. In 1958, however, matters relating to the Bureau of 
Standards, standardization of weights and measures, and the metric 
system became the responsibility of the Committee on Science and 
Astronautics.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4096.
14. Rule XI clause 12, House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(l), House Rules and Manual Sec. 681 (1979).
 1. Rule XI clause 12, House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(l), House Rules and Manual Sec. 681 (1979).
 2. 104 Cong. Rec. 14513, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., July 21, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce pursuant to the 1973 rules read as follows: (3~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XI clause 12, House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(l), House Rules and Manual 681 (1979).

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

[[Page 2925]]

        (a) Interstate and foreign commerce generally.
        (b) Civil aeronautics.
        (c) Inland waterways.
        (d) Interstate oil compacts and petroleum and natural gas, 
    except on the public lands.
        (e) Public health and quarantine.
        (f) Railroad labor and railroad retirement and unemployment, 
    except revenue measures relating thereto.
        (g) Regulation of interstate and foreign communications.
        (h) Regulation of interstate and foreign transportation, except 
    transportation by water not subject to the jurisdiction of the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission.
        (i) Regulation of interstate transmission of power, except the 
    installation of connections between Government water-power 
    projects.
        (j) Securities and exchanges.
        (k) Weather Bureau.

    Among the major pieces of legislation which the committee has 
reported out and which require periodic legislative activity are the 
following:

        (1) Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970.
        (2) Clean Air Act.
        (3) Communications Act of 1934.
        (4) Campaign Contributions Reform Act (Title I, Federal 
    Elections Campaign Act of 1971).
        (5) Communications Satellite Act of 1962.
        (6) Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
        (7) Community Mental Health Centers Act.
        (8) Emergency Rail Services Act of 1970.
        (9) Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.
        (10) Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
        (11) Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
        (12) Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
        (13) Federal Hazardous Substances Act.
        (14) Federal Power Act.
        (15) Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970.
        (16) Federal Trade Commission Act.
        (17) Flammable Fabrics Act.
        (18) National Emissions Standards Act.
        (19) Natural Gas Act.
        (20) National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.
        (21) Public Health Service Act.
        (22) Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970.
        (23) Railroad Retirement Act of 1935.
        (24) Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
        (25) Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970.
        (26) War Claims Act of 1948.

    In addition to its nonlegislative Subcommittee on Investigations, 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, in 1973, consisted of 
four legislative subcommittees with the following responsibilities:

                      Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance

        (a) Interstate and foreign commerce generally (including 
    Federal Trade Commission and labeling);

[[Page 2926]]

        (b) Securities and exchanges;
        (c) Motor vehicle safety;
        (d) Newsprint, pulp and paper, and brand names;
        (e) Trading With the Enemy and War Claims Acts; and
        (f) Travel and tourism.

                    Subcommittee on Communications and Power

        (a) Interstate and foreign communications;
        (b) Weather Bureau;
        (c) Petroleum and natural gas (including interstate oil 
    compacts); and
        (d) Interstate electric power.

                 Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment

        (a) Public health and quarantine;
        (b) Food and drugs;
        (c) Hospital construction;
        (d) Mental health and research; and
        (e) Air pollution.

                 Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics

        (a) Interstate and Foreign Transportation;
        (b) Civil aeronautics (including Federal Aviation 
    Administration and Civil Aeronautics Board);
        (c) Inland waterways;
        (d) Railroad retirement and unemployment; and
        (e) Railroad labor.

    The committee's jurisdiction also extends to bills authorizing the 
construction of marine hospitals and the acquisition of sites therefor, 
the establishment of quarantine stations, the spread of leprosy and 
other contagious diseases, measures declaring whether or not streams 
are navigable and for preventing or regulating hindrances to navigation 
(except bridges and dams that are part of river improvements), bills 
regulating railroads in their interstate commerce relations, bills 
relating to commercial travelers as agents of interstate commerce, the 
branding of articles going into such commerce, the prevention of the 
carriage of indecent and harmful pictures or literature, the protection 
of game through prohibition of interstate transportation, and to a 
certain extent, the regulation of the export of livestock, meat, and 
other agricultural products.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. All of the foregoing are cited in the House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 705, 706 (1973). See also Rule X clause 1(l), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 681 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as the precedents reveal, the jurisdiction of the 
committee and its predecessors has included such other legislative 
matters as creating civil remedies in federal courts for certain 
violations of commercial ethics,(5) providing aid to 
engineering and industrial research,(6) authorizing loan 
guarantees to institutions of higher education for development of 
telecommunications systems,(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sec. 42.3, infra.
 6. Sec. 42.4, infra.
 7. Sec. 42.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2927]]

assisting in the financing of the arctic winter games in 
Alaska,(8) constructing hospitals in Indian 
communities,(~9~) imposing safety standards on government-
purchased vehicles,(10) dealing with war claims of American 
nationals against foreign countries,(11) and foreign 
nationals' war claims against the United States.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sec. 42.1, infra.
 9. Sec. 42.7, infra.
10. Sec. 42.10, infra.
11. Sec. Sec. 42.12, 42.13, infra.
12. Sec. 42.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 vested in the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce jurisdiction over consumer affairs and 
consumer protection, health and health facilities except those 
supported by payroll deductions, and biomedical research and 
development; the committee lost jurisdiction over civil aeronautics (to 
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation), civil aviation 
research and development and the National Weather Service (to the 
Committee on Science and Technology), and trading with the enemy (to 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs).(~13~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 95th Congress, the committee obtained ``the same 
jurisdiction with respect to regulation of nuclear facilities and of 
use of nuclear energy as it has with respect to regulation of 
nonnuclear facilities and of use of nonnuclear energy,'' and obtained 
the special oversight function of reviewing and studying all laws, 
programs, and government activities relating to nuclear energy. See the 
``Memorandum of Understanding'' relating to this jurisdiction and to 
that of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs inserted by Mr. 
Jonathan B. Bingham, of New York, during debate on the adoption of the 
rules in the 95th Congress.(l4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 64, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arctic Winter Games--Financing

Sec. 42.1 In the 92d Congress, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, and not the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 
    was given jurisdiction of a bill to assist in financing by the 
    Secretary of Commerce of the arctic winter games in Alaska in 1974.

    On June 7, 1972,(15) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 19935, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2928]]

the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (S. 2988), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Civil Aeronautics

Sec. 42.2 In the 91st Congress, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, with the concurrence of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    was given jurisdiction over legislative proposals providing for the 
    expansion and improvement of airports and related facilities, even 
    where such proposals included amendments to the Internal Revenue 
    Code and the imposition of user charges on passengers and property 
    transported by air; but the Committee on Ways and Means reserved 
    the right to consider the tax features of such legislative 
    proposals separately.

    On June 18, 1969,(16) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, Chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, who made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 16301, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Executive 
    Communication No. 863, received from the Secretary of 
    Transportation on June 17, relating to the future of air 
    transportation, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, be 
    referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    because the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means 
    understand that the tax provisions contained in that message will 
    be handled by the Committee on Ways and Means.

    Immediately thereafter, unanimous consent was granted.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Executive Communication No. 863, which 
proposed the enactment of an Aviation Facilities Expansion Act and 
included extensive amendments to the Internal Revenue Code was 
initially referred to the Committee on Ways and Means because of the 
tax features contained therein. Following discussions between the 
Chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the communication was rereferred to 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. After the 
rereference, the Chairman of that committee, Harley O. Staggers, of 
West Virginia, introduced a bill

[[Page 2929]]

(H.R. 12374), on June 24, 1969,(17) embodying the proposals 
contained in the draft bill submitted with Executive Communication No. 
863. H.R. 12374 was referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce. A precedent for this agreement between the two committees was 
a similar arrangement which had been worked out with respect to the 
Federal Aid Highway Act of 1959,(18) where title II was 
considered by the Committee on Ways and Means although the primary 
jurisdiction over the program fell within the Committee on Public 
Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 17138, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See Sec. 29.4 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfair Trade Practices

Sec. 42.3 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, and not the Committee on the Judiciary, had jurisdiction 
    of bills creating civil remedies (including injunctions), in the 
    federal courts for misleading or false advertising, dilution of 
    trademark or trade name distinctiveness, or violation of commercial 
    ethics.

    On June 4, 1962,(19) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Emanuel Celler, of New York, Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, who made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 9601, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 10038, to 
    provide civil remedies to persons damaged by unfair commercial 
    activities in or affecting commerce, and H.R. 10124, be referred to 
    the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. They were 
    improperly referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The subject 
    matter of these bills should be properly before the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        A previous bill, H.R. 4590, which is superseded by H.R. 10038, 
    had been referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, and the present bill should likewise fall within that 
    category.

    Shortly thereafter, the House agreed by unanimous consent to Mr. 
Celler's request.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 10038 and H.R. 10124 were identical 
bills based on language in H.R. 4590, which as Mr. Celler indicated, 
had been originally referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce.

Engineering and Industrial Research

Sec. 42.4 In the 75th Congress, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce and not the Committee on Education (now the Committee on 
    Edu

[[Page 2930]]

    cation and Labor), had jurisdiction of a bill to aid engineering 
    and industrial research in connection with colleges and schools of 
    engineering in the several state and territorial universities and 
    colleges.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(20) Mr. Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, a 
member of the Committee on Education (now the Committee on Education 
and Labor), obtained unanimous consent to have his committee discharged 
from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5531), and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 3090, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Alcohol Administration Act

Sec. 42.5 The Committee on interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction of a bill to amend the 
    Federal Alcohol Administration Act to regulate commerce in 
    distilled spirits.

    On June 18, 1948,(21) Mr. Daniel A. Reed, of New York, a 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent 
to have that committee discharged from further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 5849), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 94 Cong. Rec. 8918, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holding Companies

Sec. 42.6 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has 
    jurisdiction of a concurrent resolution directing the Federal Trade 
    Commission to investigate and report back to the Congress on 
    propaganda regarding federal legislation on the subject of holding 
    companies.

    On Mar. 14, 1935,(1) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, recognized Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, a member of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, who asked unanimous 
consent that the House immediately consider Senate Concurrent 
Resolution No. 12, which read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 79 Cong. Rec. 3623, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the Federal Trade Commission be, and it is 
    hereby, directed to make an investigation and report its 
    conclusions to the Congress as to the propaganda which is now going 
    on over the Nation re

[[Page 2931]]

    garding Federal legislation on the subject of holding companies, 
    and to inform the Congress the origin, magnitude, purpose, methods, 
    and expense of said propaganda.

    Reserving the right to object, Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, 
initiated the following exchange:

        . . . [H]as the gentleman [Mr. Rayburn] taken up this 
    resolution with the members of his committee?
        Mr. Rayburn: The resolution would not have gone to the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in my opinion. I think 
    it would have gone to the Rules Committee.
        Mr. Snell: Has it been taken up with the Rules Committee?
        Mr. Rayburn: No.
        Mr. Snell: It seems to me a matter as important as this ought 
    to be taken up with some committee and should have some little 
    consideration. I do not know that I shall object, but I really 
    think if it is a matter that should go to the Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce Committee that the ranking minority member of that 
    committee should have an opportunity to be here, or at least have 
    been notified before it was brought out on the floor.
        Mr. Rayburn: It is my impression it would not go to that 
    committee.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snell: What committee would this resolution naturally go 
    to?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

    Mr. Rayburn's unanimous-consent request was objected 
to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 3626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And, on the following day,(3) the Speaker referred the 
measure to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 3776, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 15, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hospital Construction in Indian Communities

Sec. 42.7 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has jurisdiction of a 
    bill to provide for the construction of Indian hospitals and to 
    provide for grants to assist in the construction of community 
    hospitals which will serve Indians and non-Indians jointly.

    On Feb. 6, 1957,(4) Clair Engle, of California, Chairman 
of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from the further consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 2021) and for its rereference to the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 1585, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 2932]]

Loan Guarantees to Educational Institutions Developing 
    Telecommunications Systems

Sec. 42.8 While the Committee on Education and Labor has reported 
    legislation of this type, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, having consistently handled legislation relating to 
    noncommercial educational broadcasting facilities pursuant to its 
    jurisdiction under the rules over interstate communications, was 
    held to have jurisdiction of a proposal adding a new section to the 
    Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 authorizing loan guarantees 
    to institutions of higher education for development and use of 
    educational delivery (telecommunications) systems on and off 
    campus.

    On Oct. 28, 1971,(5) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
7248), to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other 
acts dealing with higher education. In the course of that consideration 
a jurisdictional question arose over part C of title VII of a proposed 
committee [Committee on Education and Labor] amendment to H.R. 7248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 38036, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The relevant sections pertained to the governmental guarantee of 
certain loans to institutions of higher education for the purpose of 
encouraging the development and use of educational delivery (i.e., 
telecommunications) systems. Of particular pertinence were the 
following provisions: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 38076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Part C--Guarantee of Loans for Educational Delivery Systems

        Sec. 721. Title III of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 
    1963 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    section:

             ``guarantee of loans for educational delivery systems

        ``Sec. 310. (a) To encourage institutions of higher education 
    to develop and use educational delivery systems which, through 
    technological means, permit carrying on educational programs of the 
    institution in locations away from the campus and out of the 
    presence of the institution's instructional personnel, the 
    Secretary may guarantee, in accordance with the provisions of this 
    section, the payment of the principal and accrued interest on loans 
    made to eligible borrowers (as defined in subsection (k)) to 
    acquire, install, and operate such systems. . . .
        ``(k) For purposes of this section--
        ``(1) The term `eligible borrower' means an institution of 
    higher edu

[[Page 2933]]

    cation or a nonprofit organization established and operated with 
    the active participation of one or more institutions of higher 
    education for the sole purpose of acquiring, installing, or 
    operating an educational delivery system.

        ``(2) The terms `acquiring' and `installing' mean the 
    procurement and placement in position for service (including 
    planning therefor) of the technological facilities and equipment 
    needed for the operation of the educational delivery system, 
    including any new or remodeled facilities and equipment required by 
    the system for the production, processing, and transmission of 
    electronic signals. Such terms include the construction or repair 
    of facilities needed to house equipment, and space, facilities, and 
    equipment at receiving installations, except where such receiving 
    installations are equipped and operated by an eligible borrower as 
    a part of a `remote' campus, distributing, or displaying 
    educational materials (whether in an electronic manner, or 
    otherwise).
        ``(3) The term `operating' means the use of services of staff 
    and technical personnel, the acquisition of necessary supplies, the 
    maintenance of a debt service reserve, and other activities 
    necessary to operate the educational delivery system, but does not 
    include the provision of educational services.
        ``(4) The term `educational delivery system' includes any 
    system which by technological means, enables a teaching classroom 
    to be extended to reach students in remote locations, and, 
    specifically, includes a telecommunication system which provides a 
    network of communications via electronic means over distance, 
    including radio and television in broadcast, closed-circuit, or 
    point-to-point service, data transmission, computers, and other 
    electronic devices involving the use of the electromagnetic 
    spectrum and including apparatus necessary for the production and 
    processing of such electronic transmissions such as audio or video 
    recording equipment, cameras, microphones, control consoles, 
    microwave equipment, transmitters, towers, translators and 
    repeaters, but does not include the apparatus required for 
    reception, distribution at the receiving installation, or display 
    of signals so transmitted.''

    Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, raised a jurisdictional point of 
order, as follows: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 38077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman,(8) part C of title VII would provide 
    for loan guarantees for educational delivery systems. To show the 
    nature of those systems, I would refer the Members to section 
    310(b)(3)--page 175, beginning at line 19--which refers to 
    instances where these delivery systems may require licenses issued 
    by the Federal Communications Commission and to the definition of 
    ``educational delivery system'' in section 310(k)(4)--appearing at 
    page 180, beginning line 23--where these systems are defined to 
    include telecommunications systems, and radio and television 
    broadcasting systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I would also point out to the Members that the 
    jurisdiction of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, 
    insofar as edu

[[Page 2934]]

    cational broadcasting facilities are concerned, has not laid 
    fallow. In support of this statement I would point to the 
    provisions of subpart A of part IV of title III of the 
    Communications Act of 1934 which provides for grants for 
    educational radio and television broadcasting facilities.
        These provisions were originally enacted in 1962 and have been 
    amended at least twice since that time. Since enactment of the 
    Educational Radio and Television Broadcasting Facilities Act of 
    1962, over $100 million has been authorized to be appropriated for 
    the construction of such facilities.
        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think that the point of 
    order lies on this portion.

    Responding to the point of order, Mr. John R. Dellenback, of 
Oregon, noted that: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 117 Cong. Rec. 38077, 38078, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]here is no attempt in part C to amend any statute 
    which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce. There is reference on the bottom of page 175, as 
    my good friend has made clear, to the Federal Communications 
    Commission. But if you look at the language of that reference there 
    is no attempt there to change the powers of the Commission, and 
    there is no attempt here to amend any law whatsoever; there is 
    merely a reference to a situation which might possibly exist. It 
    makes clear that where the system requires the use of the frequency 
    spectrum under jurisdiction of the FCC, that Commission will issue 
    the required license, and so on.
        So far as that is concerned, of course, any laws that affect 
    the powers of the FCC and any laws that affect the licenses are not 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor, 
    but there is no attempt to deal with such laws.
        The basic sweep of this particular part C does not go, as you 
    see, to the amendment of any such statutes, and it does not deal 
    with just such a subject as television, but where they are talking 
    about the possible use of tape recorders or talking about the 
    possible use of computer hookups, or talking about a television 
    license, but not dealing with the control of those licenses, but 
    merely dealing with the utilization of telephone lines. And we have 
    hosts of bills which deal with the utilization of equipment that is 
    affected by other statutes than the statute before this body, that 
    provide them, or before another committee.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we are not here dealing with 
    the amendment of any statute within the control of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, that we are merely striving to 
    make available to educational institutions throughout the country 
    the broad sweep of potential equipment and assistance which will 
    aid in the educational processes with which the institutions 
    applying for loans are properly concerned, and with which this 
    committee is properly concerned. And that is all that part C deals 
    with.

    The Chairman explained his ruling, as follows:

        The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) has raised a 
    point of

[[Page 2935]]

    order against section 721 of title VII beginning on page 174, line 
    3, through page 181, line 13, on the ground that the subject matter 
    of this section is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not that of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor.
        Section 721 in the present bill would add a new section to 
    title III of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 to 
    authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to 
    guarantee loans to institutions of higher education and related 
    nonprofit corporations for development and use of educational 
    delivery systems to transmit what takes place in a classroom and on 
    the campus to remote locations on or off the campus.
        The Chair observes that on pages 180 and 181 the educational 
    delivery system is so designed as to include a telecommunication 
    system which provides a network of communications via electronic 
    means over distances, and includes radio and television and other 
    electronic devices.

        The Chair notes that while the Higher Education Facilities Act 
    of 1963, and amendments thereto, have been reported by the 
    Committee on Education and Labor, that committee in section 721 of 
    the present bill is attempting to add a completely new section to 
    that act to incorporate therein a subject which has heretofore been 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce--that subject being the approval, installation, and 
    operation of broadcasting facilities.
        Clause 12(g) of rule XI (10) confers upon the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce jurisdiction over the 
    regulation of interstate and foreign communications. Under that 
    clause, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has 
    considered legislation authorizing grants for noncommercial 
    educational broadcasting facilities to public institutions of 
    higher education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Rule X clause 1(l) (5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 681 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the gentleman from West Virginia has stated, the original 
    legislation enacted in 1962, and subsequent amendments thereto, 
    were reported by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        Therefore, the Chair holds that the subject of Federal loans 
    for television facilities on and off campus for institutions of 
    higher education is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order and the 
    language identified in the point of order is stricken from the 
    committee amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This bill was being considered under a 
special rule permitting jurisdictional points of order to be raised 
against portions of the Committee on Education and Labor's amendment in 
the nature of a substitute within the jurisdiction of other House 
committees.

Physical Fitness and Training Programs as Public Health Measures

Sec. 42.9 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on

[[Page 2936]]

    Armed Services has jurisdiction of a concurrent resolution 
    expressing the sense of the Congress that a civilian physical 
    fitness and training program should be established in the interest 
    of national security.

    On June 27, 1951,(11) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent to have 
his committee discharged from further consideration of the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 19), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 97 Cong Rec. 7254, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safety Standards on Government-purchased Vehicles

Sec. 42.10 In the 86th Congress, the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce and not the Committee on Government Operations had 
    rereferred to it a bill to require passenger-carrying motor 
    vehicles purchased for use by the federal government to meet 
    certain safety standards.

    On Feb. 16, 1959,(12) Mr. Kenneth A. Roberts, of 
Alabama, obtained unanimous consent to have the bill (H.R. 1341), 
rereferred from the Committee on Government Operations to the Committee 
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 2420, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 1341 was reported by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
        Commerce on July 27, 1959 (H. Rept. No. 715).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Travel Data

Sec. 42.11 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill authorizing an annual appropriation to enable the Secretary of 
    Commerce to compile and make available information and statistical 
    data relating to travel within the United States.

    On Feb. 14, 1951,(14) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1898), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 1255, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 2937]]

War Claims

Sec. 42.12 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill creating a 
    commission to examine and render final decisions on all claims by 
    American nationals who were members of the Armed Forces of the 
    United States and who were prisoners of war of Germany, Italy, or 
    Japan, for payment of awards.

    On Mar. 21, 1947,(15) ``after conferring with the 
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs as well as the chairman of 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,'' Mr. James E. Van 
Zandt, of Pennsylvania, sought unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 
1000), which had been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
``be transferred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.'' 
Immediately thereafter, the House granted this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 93 Cong. Rec. 2417, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The War Claims Act of 1948 (50 USC App. 
Sec. Sec. 2001 et seq.) permits claims by U.S. nationals for loss of 
property located in foreign countries during war. Such claims are 
adjudicated by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and are 
satisfied out of the War Claims Fund which consists of sums covered 
into the Treasury pursuant to section 39 of the Trading with the Enemy 
Act (50 USC App. Sec. 39). These are proceeds from properties of 
Germany or Japan or their nationals retained by the United States after 
World War II. While the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 transferred 
jurisdiction over the Trading with the Enemy Act from the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
including claims under that act (50 USC App. Sec. Sec. 1-44) by persons 
(not only U.S. nationals) for property in the custody of the alien 
property custodian seized from an enemy or an ally thereof under the 
provisions of that act, there was no indication that the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce has been stripped of jurisdiction over 
the War Claims Act.

Sec. 42.13 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction of a bill to change 
    the order of priority for payment out of the German special deposit 
    account

[[Page 2938]]

    [amending the Settlement of War Claims Act].

    On July 16, 1947,(16) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Daniel A. Reed, of New York, who stated 
that he had introduced the bill (H.R. 4213), on the previous day and 
that ``Through error it was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means.'' Accordingly, Mr. Reed asked unanimous consent that the latter 
committee be discharged from further consideration of the bill and that 
it be rereferred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 93 Cong. Rec. 9049, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent to 
effect this rereferral.

Sec. 42.14 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs has jurisdiction of House joint 
    resolutions authorizing the Secretary of State to repay German and 
    Japanese citizens, subjects, corporations, or associations whose 
    property was taken by the United States since Dec. 18, 1941.

    On July 13, 1955,(17) by direction of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, James P. Richards, of South Carolina, Chairman of that 
committee, asked unanimous consent that House Joint Resolutions 264, 
265, 268, and 272, which had been referred to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs be rereferred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce. The joint resolutions all entitled ``to improve the relations 
of the United States with Western Germany and Japan'' (18) 
were identical. Each authorized the Secretary of State ``following as 
nearly as . . . feasible those [procedures] used as a result of the 
Treaty of Peace with Italy, to pay amounts equal in value to all 
property and interest taken by the United States since Dec. 18, 1941, 
from Germany or Japan, or any citizen or subject thereof, or any 
corporation or association organized under the laws thereof.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 101 Cong. Rec. 10440, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 4093, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 30, 1955; 101 Cong. 
        Rec. 3892, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Mar. 28, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In advancing this request, Mr. Richards noted that:

        . . . Preliminary hearings by an ad hoc subcommittee of the 
    Foreign Affairs Committee developed that these resolutions are 
    similar in purpose to H.R. 6730,(19) a measure sponsored 
    by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. ``A bill to amend the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended, and 
        the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended''; 101 Cong. Rec. 7932, 
        84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2939]]

    the administration which was introduced June 8, 1955, and referred 
    to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

    The House granted the request.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-44]                         

[Page 2939-2957]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 43. Committee on the Judiciary

    The Committee on the Judiciary has been a standing committee of the 
House since 1813, when it was concerned exclusively with matters 
pertaining to judicial proceedings. The breadth of its jurisdiction 
grew considerably in the 20th century. In 1947,(1) the 
committee annexed most of the jurisdiction of the former Committees on 
Claims, Immigration and Naturalization, Patents, Revision of the Laws, 
and War Claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. This change in jurisdiction was the result of the Legislative 
        Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to the 
1973 rules read as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XI clause 13, House Rules and Manual Sec. 707 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(m), House Rules and Manual Sec. 682 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Judicial proceedings, civil and criminal generally.
        (b) Apportionment of Representatives.
        (c) Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting.
        (d) Civil liberties.
        (e) Constitutional amendments.
        (f) Federal courts and judges.
        (g) Holidays and celebrations.
        (h) Immigration and naturalization.
        (i) Interstate compacts generally.
        (j) Local courts in the Territories and possessions.
        (k) Measures relating to claims against the United States.
        (l) Meetings of Congress, attendance of Members and their 
    acceptance of incompatible offices.
        (m) National penitentiaries.
        (n) Patent Office.
        (o) Patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
        (p) Presidential succession.
        (q) Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful 
    restraints and monopolies.
        (r) Revision and codification of the Statutes of the United 
    States.

        (s) State and Territorial boundary lines.

    There were seven subcommittees in 1973, and the jurisdiction of 
each was specified in the committee's own Rule VIII:

        Rule VIII. Jurisdiction of Subcommittees.--The jurisdiction of 
    the seven standing Subcommittees shall, subject to alteration as 
    other Subcommittees are created, be as follows:

               Subcommittee on International Law and Citizenship

        (a) Immigration and naturalization.
        (b) Deportation, extradition, and crimes committed outside the 
    United States.

[[Page 2940]]

        (c) Passports, travel, and international compacts and 
    organizations.
        (d) Admiralty matters.
        (e) Amnesty.
        (f) Internal security matters, espionage, and mutiny.
        (g) Treaties.
        (h) Offshore mineral rights.
        (i) Other related matters.

            Subcommittee on Courts and the Administration of Justice

        (a) Oversight of the Department of Justice, except as otherwise 
    assigned by these rules.
        (b) Oversight of United States Attorneys and United States 
    Marshals.
        (c) Administrative Conference and administrative procedure 
    matters.
        (d) Judicial ethics and recompense.
        (e) The courts--their non-criminal rules; non-criminal 
    procedures; operation; number.
        (f) Jury matters.
        (g) Other related matters.

                Subcommittee on Claims and Government Relations

        (a) Claims against the United States.
        (b) Governmental relations, including boundaries, interstate 
    compacts, and state taxation of interstate commerce.
        (c) Conflicts of interest and conflicts of laws.
        (d) Compensation for individuals or groups.
        (e) Federal holidays and celebrations, and charters for non-
    business corporations.
        (f) Apportionment of Representatives, meetings of Congress, 
    attendance of Members and their acceptance of incompatible offices.
        (g) Contracts.
        (h) Revision and codification of the statutes of the United 
    States. excet tor the Federal Criminal Laws.
        (i) Other related matters.

              Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments and Rights

        (a) Constitutional amendments-1. Presidential succession.
        (b) Civil liberties.
        (c) Privacy matters, including oversight; consideration of 
    wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping.
        (d) Civil rights and equal rights.
        (e) Separation of powers.
        (f) District of Columbia home rule.
        (g) Other related matters.

                        Subcommittee on Criminal Justice

        (a) Revision of the United States Criminal Code.
        (b) Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
        (c) Oversight of the Department of Justice in criminal matters.
        (d) Criminal justice, including Federal Rules of Criminal 
    Procedure, bail, Criminal Justice Act of 1964.
        (e) Firearms legislation, counterfeiting, and other criminal 
    matters not otherwise specifically assigned by these rules.
        (f) Other related matters.

                     Subcommittee on Crime and Corrections

        (a) Oversight and investigation of criminal activities, 
    including organized crime, street crime, and crimes associated with 
    narcotics.
        (b) Corrections, including probation matters and pre- and post-
    release problems of criminal offenders.

[[Page 2941]]

        (c) National Penitentiaries.
        (d) Juvenile delinquency.
        (e) Other related matters.

                        Subcommittee on Economic Matters

        (a) Antitrust.
        (b) Monopolies.
        (c) Bankruptcy.
        (d) Patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
        (e) Insurance.
        (f) Federal chartering of business corporations.
        (g) Other related matters.

    The committee has exercised jurisdictional authority over related 
subjects. These include bills relating to local courts in the District 
of Columbia, Alaska, and the territories, the establishment of a court 
of patent appeals, claims of states against the United States, bills 
relating to the Office of President, to the flag, removal of political 
disabilities, and the prohibition of traffic in intoxicating liquors. 
Moreover, the committee also reports on important subjects of law 
relating to questions within the jurisdiction of other 
committees.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. All of the foregoing are cited in House Rules and Manual Sec. 708 
        (1973). See Rule X clause 1(m), House Rules and Manual Sec. 682 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents reveal, the public jurisdiction of the committee 
and of those committees whose responsibilities it assumed has also 
extended to such subjects as authorization to modify a trust of which 
the Library of Congress is a contingent beneficiary,(4) 
establishment of a national motto, (5) provision of a legal 
defense for Members and employees sued for duty related 
action,(6) elimination of renewed oaths of office by 
civilians,(7) and the establishment of panels to encourage 
inventions.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sec. 43.10, infra.
 5. Sec. 43.18, infra.
 6. Sec. 43.17, infra.
 7. Sec. 43.19, infra.
 8. Sec. Sec. 43.15, 43.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of private jurisdiction, the committee has dealt with such 
matters as conferring or extending veterans' survivor,(9) 
medical,(10) educational,(11) or insurance 
(12) benefits, adjusting the annual leave account of a civil 
service employee,(13) exempting a certain annuity fund from 
taxation,(14) and providing tax relief to a charitable 
foundation and its contributors.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sec. Sec. 43.24, 43.25, infra.
10. Sec. Sec. 43.26, 43.27, infra.
11. Sec. 43.28, infra.
12. Sec. 43.29, infra.
13. Sec. 43.20, infra.
14. Sec. 43.22, infra.
15. Sec. 43.23, infra. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Celebration Proclamations

Sec. 43.1 Measures calling on the President to issue proclama

[[Page 2942]]

    tions establishing periods of celebration or commemoration were 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

    On Apr. 27, 1967,(16~) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, who made 
the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 11062, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that House Joint 
    Resolution 117 authorizing and requesting the President to extend 
    through 1967 his proclamation of a period to ``See the United 
    States,'' and for other purposes, be rereferred to the Committee on 
    the Judiciary instead of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce. The Committee on the Judiciary has handled this matter 
    before.

    Immediately thereafter, the House agreed to the rereferral by 
unanimous consent.(1~7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Effective Jan. 3, 1975, the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 
        transferred jurisdiction over holidays and celebrations from 
        the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on Post Office 
        and Civil Service. See Rule X clause 1(o)(7), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 684 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Liberties; Sex Discrimination

Sec. 43.2 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Education and Labor has jurist diction of proposals amending the 
    Civil Rights Act of 1957 [42 USC Sec. 1975c(a)], to include 
    discrimination on the basis of sex among the several forms of 
    discrimination to be investigated by the Civil Rights Commission.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(1~8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
7248), to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other 
acts dealing with higher education. As Chairman pro tempore Edmond 
Edmondson, of Oklahoma, noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 117 Cong. Rec. 39248, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When the Committee rose on yesterday, it was agreed 
    (19) that title X, ending on page 202, line 8, of the 
    committee substitute amendment would be considered as read and open 
    to amendment at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 117 Cong. Rec. 39099, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 3, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Emanuel Cellar, of New 
York, made the following point of order: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 39248, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 4, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order with reference to section 
    1007 of

[[Page 2943]]

    the committee substitute,(21) the contents of which are 
    exclusively within the purview of the House Judiciary Committee. It 
    concerns the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and there are a number of 
    bills pending in our committee concerning that act. For that reason 
    a point of order made (22) to the provisions and a 
    motion is made to strike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Section 1007 was actually part of an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor 
        [see 117 Cong. Rec. 39099, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 3, 1971]. 
        It read as follows: ``Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of 
        section 104 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 USC 
        Sec. 1975c(a)) is amended by inserting immediately after 
        `religion,' the following: `sex,' and paragraphs (2), (3), and 
        (4) of subsection (a) of such section 104 are each amended by 
        inserting immediately after `religion' the following: `, 
        sex'.''
22. H. Res. 661, agreed to on Oct. 27, 1971 [117 Cong. Rec. 37769, 92d 
        Cong. 1st Sess.], prescribed the special rule by which H.R. 
        7248 was to be considered, and provided among other things [id. 
        at p. 37765], that ``all titles, parts, or sections of 
        [amendment in the nature of a substitute] the subject matter of 
        which is properly within the jurisdiction of any other standing 
        committee of the House of Representatives, shall be subject to 
        a point of order for such reason if such point of order is 
        properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 7248.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair then recognized Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, a member 
of the Committee on Education and Labor, who was managing the Bill in 
the Committee of the whole. The following exchange took place:

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentlewoman from Oregon wish 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded. The 
    Chair sustains the point of order and the language in section 1007 
    is stricken.

Claims Against the United States; Compensating Flood Victims

Sec. 43.3 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Public Works has jurisdiction of a bill to provide for determining 
    the compensation of certain persons whose lands have been flooded 
    and damaged by reasons of fluctuations in the water level of the 
    Lake of the Woods, Minnesota.

    On Mar. 17, 1954,(23) George A. Dondero, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(S. 215), and to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 100 Cong. Rec. 3418, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2944]]

have it rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.(24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. H.R. 2098, which was identical to S. 215, was reported by the 
        Committee on the Judiciary on Aug. 4, 1954 (H. Rept. No. 2273).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compensating Nonfederal Firemen for Civil Disorder Injuries

Sec. 43.4 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Education and Labor has jurisdiction of a bill providing for 
    compensation of firemen, not employed by the United States, who are 
    killed or injured in the performance of duty during a civil 
    disorder.

    On May 6, 1968,(1) Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, obtained unanimous 
consent to have the bill (H.R. 16898), rereferred from that committee 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 11798, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compensating Certain U.S. Employees for Newly Assigned Duties

Sec. 43.5 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a bill to provide for 
    a claim for the payment of extra compensation for certain work 
    heretofore performed by customs officers and employees.

    On Mar. 23, 1950,(2) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bil1 (H.R. 7767), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 3989, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increasing Pensions for Certain Class of Persons

Sec. 43.6 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a private bill amending an 
    omnibus pension act to increase the amount of pension granted a 
    certain class of persons.

    On Feb. 15, 1960,(3) Olin E. Teague, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 10380), and to have it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 106 Cong. Rec. 2523, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2945]]

rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Use of Contingent Fund as Reimbursement for Lost Cameras Entrusted to 
    the Capitol Police

Sec. 43.7 The Committee on Claims (now the Committee on the Judiciary), 
    and not the Committee on Accounts (now the Committee on House 
    Administration), had jurisdiction of a private resolution 
    appropriating money out of the contingent fund of the House to 
    reimburse visitors to the Capitol for cameras checked with the 
    Capitol Police and subsequently lost or stolen.

    On Dec. 10, 1943,(4) John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
Chairman of the Committee on House Accounts (now the Committee on House 
Administration), obtained unanimous consent to have his committee 
discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 194), 
and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Claims (now the Committee 
on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 89 Cong. Rec. 10553, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Validating Additional Sea Duty Payments for Naval Personnel

Sec. 43.8 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Government Operations has jurisdiction of a bill to provide for 
    validation of additional sea duty payments to certain naval 
    personnel who served on vessels operating on the Great Lakes.

    On May 29, 1956,(5) William L. Dawson, of Illinois, 
Chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 11125), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 9253, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal Justice Training and Research

Sec. 43.9 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Un-
    American Activities had jurisdiction of a bill establishing an 
    academy of criminal justice and providing for training and research 
    in the administration of criminal justice.

[[Page 2946]]

    On Apr. 5, 1965,(6) Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana, 
Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 6071), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. As Mr. Willis pointed out in making his request, the 
original referral was inadvertent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 6822, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Library of Congress Trust Fund

Sec. 43.10 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    House Administration has jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the 
    Attorney General to consent, on behalf of the Library of Congress 
    Trust Fund Board, to a modification of a certain trust of which the 
    Library is a contingent beneficiary.

    On Aug. 17, 1959,(7) Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, 
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, obtained unanimous 
consent to have that committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 7415), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. In so doing, Mr. Burleson noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 16051, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [I]f I may advise the Speaker,(8) the 
    gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Meyer] who introduced the bill and the 
    chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Celler], have agreed to accept the bill in the Judiciary 
    Committee. The reason the request is made is that the other body 
    has referred the companion bill to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.), Speaker pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conflicts of Interest in the Executive Branch

Sec. 43.11 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a bill establishing 
    standards to govern possible conflicts of interest of employees of 
    the executive branch of the government, providing the Attorney 
    General with civil remedies for violations of these standards, and 
    supplementing and revising the criminal law (Title 18, United 
    States Code), prescribing restrictions against conflicts of 
    interest.

    On Feb. 25, 1960,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 3484, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2947]]

nized Emanuel Celler, of New York, Chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, who sought unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 10575), be 
rereferred from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. In presenting his request, Mr. Celler 
stated ``I have already arranged with the chairman of the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service [Thomas J. Murray (Tenn.) ] and there is 
no objection to the rereference of the bill.''

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

D.C. Code of Laws

Sec. 43.12 The Committee on Revision of the Laws (now the Committee on 
    the Judiciary), and not the Committee on the District of Columbia 
    had jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the appointment of a 
    commission to prepare a new Code of Laws for the District of 
    Columbia.

    On Mar. 13, 1940,(10) Jennings Randolph, of West 
Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, 
obtained unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from 
further consideration of the bill (H. R. 8891), and to have it referred 
to the Committee on Revision of the Laws (now the Committee on the 
Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 2808, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.C. Judges' Retirement Pay

Sec. 43.13 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia had jurisdiction of bills providing retirement 
    pay for the judges of the police court, the municipal court, and 
    the juvenile court of the District of Columbia.

    On June 26, 1939,(11) Mr. Jennings Randolph, of West 
Virginia, obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on the 
District of Columbia discharged from further consideration of H.R. 
6651, and to have the bill referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 
Unanimous consent had been obtained by Mr. Randolph for the similar 
rereferral of an identical bill (H. R. 6504), two weeks 
earlier.(1~2~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 7904, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 7050, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12,1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2948]]

Interstate Racketeering in Cigarette Distribution; Cigarette Taxes

Sec. 43.14 The Committee on the Judiciary, and not the Committee on 
    Ways and Means, has jurisdiction of bills to eliminate racketeering 
    in the interstate sale and distribution of cigarettes and to assist 
    state and local governments in the enforcement of cigarette taxes.

    On Feb. 9, 1972,(13) Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent 
to have that committee discharged from further consideration of the 
bills (H.R. 7050, H.R. 12184, H.R. 12688, H.R. 12689), and to have them 
rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 3429, 3430, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Invention Panels of the Military

Sec. 43.15 The Committee on Patents (now the Committee on the 
    Judiciary), and not the Committee on Military Affairs (now the 
    Committee on Armed Services), had jurisdiction of a bill to create 
    a National Defense Commission on Inventions.

    On Apr. 21, 1941,(14) Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs (now the Committee on 
Armed Services), obtained unanimous consent to have his committee 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3153), and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on Patents (now the Committee on 
the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 3206, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 43.16 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill to authorize the 
    establishment of an Inventive Contributions Awards Board within the 
    Department of Defense.

    On June 25, 1953,(~15) Chauncey W. Reed, of Illinois, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have the Committee on Armed Services discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 5889), and to have it rereferred to his 
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 99 Cong. Rec. 7328, 7329, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Defense for Personnel of House Committees Where Official Duties 
    Prompt Lawsuits

Sec. 43.17 A resolution has been referred to and reported by

[[Page 2949]]

    the Committee on the Judiciary (and subsequently adopted on the 
    Consent Calendar) directing that committee to file general and 
    special appearances on behalf of, and to arrange for the defense 
    of, Members, former Members, and employees of the Committee on Un-
    American Activities with respect to any lawsuits brought against 
    such persons growing out of actions undertaken in the performance 
    of duties and obligations imposed upon them by the laws of Congress 
    and the rules and resolutions of the House of Representatives.

    On Sept. 6, 1961,(16) the House considered on the 
Consent Calendar House Resolution 417 which read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 18240, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That effective from January 3, 1961, the provisions 
    of H. Res. 190, Eighty-third Congress, agreed to March 26, 1953, 
    and H. Res. 386, Eighty-third Congress, agreed to August 1, 1953, 
    are continued in effect.

    The first resolution (H. Res. 190),(17) referred to 
above, was a response to the service of subpenas upon six Members and 
two employees of the House, all of whom were commanded to testify and 
give depositions in the case of Michael Wilson et al. v Loew's 
Incorporated et al., an action pending in the Superior Court in and for 
the county of Los Angeles. The Members in question belonged to the 
Committee on Un-American Activities and the two employees had performed 
investigative work for that committee. The resolution noted that the 
complaint was directed, in part, at actions undertaken by the 
defendants ``both in their official capacity with relation to [the] 
House Committee on Un-American Activities and individually in 
nonofficial capacities.'' It further noted that the service of such 
process upon Members of the House while Congress remained in session 
``might deprive the district which each respectively represents of his 
voice and vote;'' that such service of process upon staff employees 
``will hamper and delay if not completely obstruct the work of such 
committee,'' and ``by reason of the said processes . . . the rights and 
privileges of the House of Representatives may be infringed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 99 Cong. Rec. 2356, 2357, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, House Resolution 190 authorized and directed the 
Committee on the Judiciary to investigate and consider whether the 
service of aforementioned

[[Page 2950]]

processes constituted an invasion of ``the rights and privileges of the 
House'' and whether allegations contained in the case complaint 
``reflected upon Members, former Members, and employees of the House 
and their actions in their representative and official capacities'' 
thereby constituting an invasion of ``the rights and privileges of the 
House of Representatives.'' (18) To this end, the committee 
or any subcommittee thereof was authorized to sit and act at any time 
or place, to hold hearings, to require the attendance of witnesses, the 
production of documents, and the taking of whatever testimony deemed 
necessary. The committee was granted subpena power and authorized to 
incur all necessary expenses for the purposes described including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For further information on questions of privilege, see Ch. 11, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [E]mploy counsel to represent any and all of the Members, 
    former Members, and employees of the House of Representatives named 
    as parties defendant in the aforementioned action of Michael Wilson 
    et al. v. Loew's Inc. et al., and such expenses shall be paid from 
    the Contingent Fund of the House of Representatives on vouchers 
    authorized by said committee and signed by the chairman thereof and 
    approved by the Committee on House Administration. . . .

    The other resolution (H. Res. 386), incorporated by reference in 
House Resolution 417 was agreed to on Aug. 1, 1953,(1) and 
provided, in pertinent part, as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 99 Cong. Rec. 10950, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Id. at pp. 10949, 10950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a 
    whole or by subcommittee, is hereby authorized to direct the filing 
    in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et 
    al. of such special or general appearances on behalf of any of the 
    Members, former Members, or employees of the House of 
    Representatives named as defendants therein, and to direct such 
    other or further action with respect to the aforementioned 
    defendants in such manner as will, in the judgment of the Committee 
    on the Judiciary, be consistent with the rights and privileges of 
    the House of Representatives; and be it further
        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is also 
    authorized and directed to arrange for the defense of the Members, 
    former Members, and employees of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities in any suit hereafter brought against such Members, 
    former Members, and employees, or any one or more of them, growing 
    out of the actions of such Members, former Members, and employees 
    while performing such duties and obligations imposed upon them by 
    the laws of the Congress and the rules and resolutions of the House 
    of Representatives. The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to 
    incur all expenses necessary for the purposes hereof, including but 
    not limited to expenses of travel and subsist

[[Page 2951]]

    ence, employment of counsel and other persons to assist the 
    committee or subcommittee, and if deemed advisable by the committee 
    or subcommittee, to employ counsel to represent any and all of the 
    Members, former Members, and employees of the Committee on Un-
    American Activities who may be named as parties defendant in any 
    such action or actions; and such expenses shall be paid from the 
    contingent fund of the House of Representatives on vouchers 
    authorized by the Committee on the Judiciary and signed by the 
    chairman thereof and approved by the Committee on House 
    Administration.

    Immediately after the Clerk read House Resolution 417, it was 
agreed to.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 107 Cong. Rec. 18240, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 6, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: While in this instance the Committee on the 
Judiciary reported a resolution referred to it by the Speaker, 
authorizing that committee to continue legal actions initially 
authorized by resolutions adopted in a prior Congress, such a 
resolution conferring such authority on a standing committee would 
ordinarily be referred to the Committee on Rules or to the Committee on 
House Administration where use of the contingent fund is involved.

National Motto

Sec. 43.18 The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction of a joint 
    resolution to establish a national motto of the United States.

    On July 21, 1955,(4) after Mr. Charles E. Bennett, of 
Florida, introduced House Joint Resolution 396, it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 101 Cong. Rec. 11193, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oaths of Office by Executive Branch Civilians--Dispensing With Renewals

Sec. 43.19 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Expenditures in the Executive Departments (now the Committee on 
    Government Operations), had jurisdiction of a bill to dispense with 
    unnecessary renewals of oaths of office by civilian employees of 
    the executive departments and independent establishments.

    On Apr. 22, 1937,(5) by direction of the Committee on 
Expenditures the Executive Departments (now the Committee on Government 
Operations), Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, obtained unanimous 
consent to have that committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 6295), and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 3740, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2952]]

to have it rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. In so doing, 
Mr. Cochran noted that a similar bill had been reported by the 
Committee on the Judiciary in the previous Congress.

Private Bill Adjusting Federal Employee's Annual Leave

Sec. 43.20 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a private bill to 
    adjust the ``annual-leave account'' of an employee under the 
    Federal Civil Service.

    On Mar. 21, 1960,(~~6) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the private bill (H. R. 10432), and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 106 Cong. Rec. 6131, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excluding Employee From United States Code Section Affecting 
    Compensation

Sec. 43.21 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a private bill waiving 
    the applicability to an individual of section 3(b) of the Act 
    entitled ``An act to provide a method for payment in certain 
    Government establishments of overtime, leave, and holiday 
    compensation on the basis of night rates pursuant to certain 
    decisions of the Comptroller General, and for other purposes,'' 
    approved July 31, 1946 [5 USC Sec. 951(b)].

    On Oct. 11, 1949,(7) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 6284), and to have it referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 95 Cong. Rec. 14258, 14259, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Providing Tax Relief

Sec. 43.22 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Ways 
    and Means has jurisdiction over a private bill specifying that a 
    certain annuity fund is exempt from taxation under provisions of 
    the Internal Revenue Code.

[[Page 2953]]

    On Sept. 1, 1959,(8) Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 7854), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 105 Cong. Rec. 17612, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (H.R. 7854 was intended to provide tax relief to the annuity fund 
of the electrical switchboard and panelboard manufacturing industry of 
New York and the contributors thereto.)

Sec. 43.23 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Ways 
    and Means has jurisdiction of private bills to provide tax relief 
    to a charitable foundation and the contributors thereto.

    On Aug. 1, 1955,(9) Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, Chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent to have 
his committee discharged from further consideration of two identical 
bills (H.R. 7746, H.R. 7747), and to have the measures rereferred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 12655, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relating to Veterans' Survivor Benefits

Sec. 43.24 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs had jurisdiction of a private bill entitling the 
    parents of a serviceman who died in France to those veterans' 
    benefits to which they would have been entitled had their son's 
    application not been misplaced by the veterans' agency to which 
    delivered.

    On Apr. 8, 1948,(10) Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts, Chairwoman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
obtained unanimous consent to have her committee discharged from 
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5515), and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. In so doing, Mrs. Rogers 
noted that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs did not handle claims, 
and that the rereferral was satisfactory to the Chairman 
(11) of the Committee on the Judiciary as well as the author 
of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 4272, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 43.25 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs

[[Page 2954]]

    has jurisdiction of a private bill providing that a certain person 
    shall be considered the lawful widow of a World War I veteran and 
    authorizing the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to pay such 
    benefits to which she is entitled as the lawful widow of such 
    veteran.

    On Apr. 5, 1950,(12) John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (13) (H.R. 743), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 4884, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
13. An identical bill (H.R. 3276), pertaining to the same person was 
        similarly rereferred in a later Congress; see 99 Cong. Rec. 
        1566, 1567, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 3, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Bill Entitling Veteran to Medical Care

Sec. 43.26 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a private bill entitling an 
    American citizen who served in the Royal Canadian Air Force during 
    World War II to receive medical, hospital, and domiciliary care to 
    the same extent as those who served an equivalent period of time in 
    the U.S. Armed Forces and who were honorably discharged therefrom.

    On Mar. 3, 1953,(14) Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts, Chairwoman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
obtained unanimous consent to have her committee discharged from 
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3350), and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 99 Cong. Rec. 1566, 1567, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 3350 was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on July 1, 
        1953 (H. Rept. No. 699).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 43.27 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a private bill authorizing 
    and directing the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to furnish 
    domiciliary or hospital care in an appropriate Veterans' 
    Administration facility to a veteran of military engagements in the 
    Philippine Islands.

    On Mar. 9, 1953,(16) Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 99 Cong. Rec. 1759, 1760, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2955]]

Chairwoman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have her committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3723), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

Private Bill Extending Certain Veterans' Benefits

Sec. 43.28 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has considered private bills extending the time 
    within which an educational program under veterans' benefits might 
    be initiated.

    On Apr. 29, 1959,(17) Olin E. Teague, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous consent that 
his committee be discharged from further consideration of two private 
bills (H.R. 3244, H.R. 3991), and that they be rereferred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 105 Cong. Rec. 7028, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 43.29 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a private bill directing the 
    Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to renew a veteran's insurance 
    policy.

    On May 16, 1956,(18) Laurence Curtis, of Massachusetts, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 10890), and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. In so doing, he 
noted that the matter had been cleared with the chairmen of both 
committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 102 Cong. Rec. 8268, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salary Claim Due Former Member's Estate

Sec. 43.30 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    House Administration has jurisdiction of a resolution authorizing 
    the Speaker to certify the proper salary certificates and enabling 
    the Comptroller General to certify for payment the claim of a 
    former Member's estate for salary due that Member.

    On Aug. 5, 1954,(1) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa, who noted that 
the resolution (H. Res. 301), ``seems to have the elements of a 
claim,'' and that the Committee on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 100 Cong. Rec. 13469, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2956]]

House Administration, which he chaired, voted to request that the 
measure be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary ``which has 
jurisdiction of claims.'' Mr. LeCompte added that such action was 
agreeable to the Chairman (2) of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chauncey W. Reed (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the resolution was rereferred by unanimous 
consent.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. A similar rereferral was obtained with respect to a resolution (H. 
        Res. 269), regarding the same subject in the next Congress; 101 
        Cong. Rec. 8757, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 20, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Taxation Prohibition

Sec. 43.31 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Ways 
    and Means has jurisdiction of bills ``to provide that the several 
    States shall not impose taxes'' in respect of income derived from 
    certain interstate activities.

    On June 18, 1959,(4) Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent 
to have the bill (H.R. 7715), rereferred from that committee to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.(5) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 105 Cong. Rec. 11317, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. For an instance where a bill adding a new section to the Internal 
        Revenue Code prohibiting states from taxing individual income 
        earned by persons not domiciled in that state or earned from 
        sources outside that state was rereferred from the Committee on 
        the Judiciary to the Committee on Ways and Means, see 120 Cong. 
        Rec. 29006, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 19, 1974. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Election Law Penalties

Sec. 43.32 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on the 
    Election of the President, Vice President, and Representatives in 
    Congress (now the Committee on House Administration), had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to amend 2 USC Sec. 251 in force Jan. 3, 
    1935, also adding thereto sections 251A and 251B, relating to 
    offenses in elections and providing penalties therefor.

    On Feb. 19, 1936,(6) Mr. Thomas Brooks Fletcher, of 
Ohio, obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on the Election 
of the President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress (now 
the Committee on House Administration), discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 9481), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Fletcher noted that he had
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 80 Cong. Rec. 2360, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2957]]

spoken to the chairmen of both committees.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-45]                         

[Page 2957-2970]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 44. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

    The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries was established on 
Dec. 21, 1887,(7) to take the place of the old Select 
Committee on Shipbuilding and Shipowning Interests. The committee was 
primarily ocean-oriented, and because of the importance of wireless 
telegraphy (i.e., radio) in maritime commerce, sea disasters, and naval 
operations,(8) the committee was given jurisdiction over 
matters relating to radio services in 1919.(9) In 1932, the 
committee's name changed to become the Committee on Merchant Marine, 
Radio, and Fisheries; however, the new name lasted only briefly as the 
committee was divested of radio services jurisdiction by House 
resolution (~10) in 1935. The same resolution also increased 
the jurisdictional breadth of the committee by transferring to it 
subject matters formerly within the realm of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce.(~11) The Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (12) further enhanced the 
committee's jurisdiction. Under the 1973 rules (~13) the 
committee's jurisdiction read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4129.
 8. See Walter J. Oleszek, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House 
        of Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 110.
 9. The committee had reported on measures pertaining to radio 
        communication before that, however; see 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 1853.
10. H. Res. 126, 79 Cong. Rec. 2631, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 26, 
        1935.
11. The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce forfeited its 
        jurisdiction over all transportation by water, the Coast Guard, 
        lifesaving service, lighthouses, lightships, ocean derelicts, 
        the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Panama Canal. See 
        Sec. 44.19, infra.
12. 60 Stat. 812.
13. Rule XI clause 14, House Rules and Manual Sec. 709 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(n), House Rules and Manual Sec. 683 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Merchant marine generally.
        (b) Coast and Geodetic Survey.
        (c) Coast Guard, including lifesaving service, lighthouses, 
    lightships, and ocean derelicts.
        (d) Fisheries and wildlife, including research, restoration, 
    refuges, and conservation.
        (e) Measures relating to the regulation of common carriers by 
    water (except matters subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate 
    Commerce Commission) and to the inspection of merchant marine 
    vessels, lights and signals, lifesaving equipment, and fire 
    protection on such vessels.

[[Page 2958]]

        (f) Merchant marine officers and seamen.
        (g) Navigation and the laws relating thereto, including 
    pilotage.
        (h) Panama Canal and the maintenance and operation of the 
    Panama Canal, including the administration, sanitation, and 
    government of the Canal Zone; and interoceanic canals generally.
        (i) Registering and licensing of vessels and small boats.
        (j) Rules and international arrangements to prevent collisions 
    at sea.
        (k) United States Coast Guard and Merchant Marine Academies.

    As noted in the House Rules and Manual,(14) the 
jurisdiction of this committee includes the general subjects of 
shipbuilding, admission of foreign-built ships, registering and 
licensing of vessels,(15) including pleasure 
yachts,(16) tonnage taxes and fines and penalties on 
vessels,(17) the extension and increase of the merchant 
marine,(l8) navigation and the laws relating 
thereto,(19) pilotage,(20) the naming and 
measuring of vessels,(1) rules, and international 
arrangements to prevent collisions at sea,(2) and the 
shipping, wages, treatment,(3) and health of 
sailors.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XI clause 14, House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(n), House Rules and Manual Sec. 683 (1979).
15. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4134.
16. Id. at Sec. 4143.
17. Id. at Sec. 4131, and 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1856.
18. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4138.
19. Id. at Sec. 4130.
20. Id. at Sec. 4136.
 1. Id. at Sec. 4132.
 2. Id. at Sec. 4135.
 3. Id. at Sec. 4140.
 4. Id. at Sec. 4141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee has also exercised a general jurisdiction over 
subjects relating to inspection of steam vessels as to hulls and 
boilers (5) lights and signals,(6) and protection 
from fire on vessels,(7) collisions, coasting districts, 
marine schools, etc.,(8) regulation of small vessels 
propelled by naphtha, etc., and transportation of inflammable 
substances on passenger vessels,(9) the titles, conduct, and 
licensing of officers of vessels,(10) and regulation of 
shipping in Hawaii.(11) The committee exercises jurisdiction 
as to the seal herds and other revenue-producing animals of 
Alaska.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at Sec. 4133, and 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1854.
 6. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4135.
 7. Id. at Sec. 4141.
 8. Id. at Sec. 4146, and 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1857.
 9. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4142.
10. Id. at Sec. 4139.
11. Id. at Sec. 4130.
12. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1725, 1851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents reveal, the committee's jurisdiction has also 
extended to such matters as regulating the hours and pay of cer

[[Page 2959]]

tain civilian employees of the Coast Guard,(13) authorizing 
construction of a geomagnetic station for the Department of 
Commerce,(14) authorizing construction of a saltwater 
marine-life research lab,(15) licensing commercial boat 
personnel,(16) promoting foreign commerce through use of 
mobile (seagoing) trade fairs,(17) and controlling the 
shipment overseas of gasoline and petroleum products from the United 
States.(18) The committee has also had jurisdiction over 
measures relating to marine resources of the Continental Shelf and the 
establishment of a Marine Exploration and Development 
Commission,(19) the importation and interstate shipment of 
endangered wildlife species,(20) and the use of radios on 
shipboard.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sec. 44.3, infra.
14. Sec. 44.8, infra.
15. Sec. 44.7, infra.
16. Sec. 44.9, infra.
17. Sec. 44.12, infra.
18. Sec. 44.14, infra.
19. Sec. 44.10, infra.
20. Sec. 44.21, infra.
21. Sec. 44.18, infra. The committee's jurisdiction over this subject 
        was with the consent of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
        Commerce although the legislation in question called for 
        amendment of the Communications Act of 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973, the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries maintained 
five subcommittees, as follows:

        1. Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation;
        2. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the 
    Environment;
        3. Subcommittee on Merchant Marine;
        4. Subcommittee on Oceanography; and
        5. Subcommittee on Panama Canal.

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 broadened the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries over Coast and 
Geodetic Survey to include the entire subject of oceanography and 
marine affairs, including coastal zone management; the amendments also 
granted the committee jurisdiction over state maritime academies and 
international fishing 
agreements.                          -------------------

Canadian Registered Ship--Permitting Travel Between American Ports

Sec. 44.1 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has jurisdiction of a 
    joint resolution to permit travel by ship of Canadian registry 
    between American ports.

[[Page 2960]]

    On May 5, 1941,(22) Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, obtained 
unanimous consent that the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 166), which was 
referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, be 
rereferred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so 
doing Mr. Bland noted that both the author of the resolution and the 
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce were in 
agreement with such action.(23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 87 Cong. Rec. 3596, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
23. H.J. Res. 166 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on June 6, 1941 (H. Rept. No. 744).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canal Zone Code and Postage Stamp Designs

Sec. 44.2 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill amending the Canal Zone Code to prescribe the design of 
    postage stamps to be used in the Canal Zone postal service.

    On July 2, 1963,(24) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 6081), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 109 Cong. Rec. 12120, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civilian Employees of Coast Guard--Duties and Pay

Sec. 44.3 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill and an executive communication pertaining thereto, to regulate 
    the hours of duty and the pay of civilian keepers of lighthouses 
    and civilians employed on lightships and other vessels of the Coast 
    Guard.

    On Mar. 21, 1949,(25) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have the bill (H. R. 3294), and a letter from the 
Acting Secretary of the Treasury pertaining thereto (Exec. Comm. No. 
289), rereferred from his committee to the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries. In so
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 95 Cong. Rec. 2868, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2961]]

doing, Mr. Murray noted that he had made his request at the suggestion 
of the Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

Coast and Geodetic Survey Officers

Sec. 44.4 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill to extend to 
    commissioned officers of the Coast and Geodetic Survey the 
    provisions of the Armed Forces Leave Act of 1946.

    On Mar. 11, 1949,(26) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services obtained unanimous consent to have 
his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2572), and to have it referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries.(27)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. 95 Cong. Rec. 2277, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
27. H.R. 2572 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on June 29, 1949 (H. Rept. No. 950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fisheries Research--Aiding Fish Restoration and Management Projects

Sec. 44.5 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction of a bill to provide 
    that the United States shall aid the states in fish restoration and 
    management projects.

    On Feb. 25, 1941,(28) by direction of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, Mr. Frank H. Buck, of California, obtained unanimous 
consent to have that committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3361), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. 87 Cong. Rec. 1389, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conveyance of Land Formerly Operated as Federal Fish Cultural Station

Sec. 44.6 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Public Lands (now the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs), had jurisdiction of a bill to grant a certain 
    parcel of land in St. Louis County, Minnesota (formerly operated as 
    a federal fish cultural station), to the University of Minnesota.

    On May 13, 1948,(29) Mr. Fred L. Crawford, of Michigan, 
ob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. 94 Cong. Rec. 5823, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2962]]

tained unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 6446), which was 
previously referred to the Committee on Public Lands (now the Committee 
on Interior and Insular Affairs), be rereferred to the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.In so doing, Mr. Aspinall noted that ``It 
is the sense of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that this 
bill properly comes within the scope and jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.''

Construction of Saltwater Marine-life Research Laboratory

Sec. 44.7 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had jurisdiction in the 
    86th Congress of a bill to provide for construction of a saltwater 
    marine-life research laboratory.

    On Feb. 16, 1959,(1) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, requested 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4402), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so doing, Mr. Aspinall 
noted that ``It is the sense of the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs that this bill properly comes within the scope and jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 105 Cong. Rec. 2382, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Geomagnetic Station for Department of Commerce

Sec. 44.8 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has jurisdiction of an 
    executive communication transmitting a draft of a bill entitled 
    ``To authorize the construction and equipment of a geomagnetic 
    station for the Department of Commerce.''

    On Sept. 13, 1950,(2) Mr. Lindley Beckworth, of Texas, 
obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce be discharged from further consideration of a letter from the 
Acting Secretary of Commerce (Exec. Comm. No.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 14746, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2963]]

1652), and that the communication be referred to the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

Licensing of Commercial Boat Personnel

Sec. 44.9 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction of a bill relating to 
    the licensing of personnel on tug boats, towing boats, and freight 
    boats [amending 46 USC Sec. 405].

    On Oct. 7, 1969,(3) Mr. James A. Burke, of 
Massachusetts, on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means,(4) obtained unanimous consent to have that committee 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H. R. 14186), and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 28798, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: There was no jurisdictional conflict with 
respect to H.R. 14186. The bill was inadvertently referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means when it was introduced on Oct. 3, 1969.

Marine Resources of the Continental Shelf; Marine Exploration and 
    Development

Sec. 44.10 In the 89th Congress, the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries and not the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had 
    jurisdiction of a bill relating to marine resources of the 
    Continental Shelf and establishment of a Marine Exploration and 
    Development Commission.

    On Mar. 15, 1965,(5) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 6009), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 5001, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 17, 1965,(6) Mr. Aspinall similarly obtained 
unanimous consent to have an identical bill (H.R. 5884), rereferred 
from his committee to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 5285, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Both bills were initially referred to the

[[Page 2964]]

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs because they dealt with the 
development of the land mass beneath the sea. The rereferrals were at 
the instigation of the chairman, who declined jurisdiction.

Merchant Marine Act

Sec. 44.11 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction of a bill to amend 
    title V of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.

    On Feb. 2, 1959,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, who made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 1606, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on January 12, last, H.R. 2181, to amend title V 
    of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, to promote the 
    maintenance of the American fishing fleet under competitive 
    conditions and in the interest of sustained fish food supplies in 
    case of emergency, and for other purposes, was referred to the 
    Committee on Ways and Means. The bill proposes to amend an act that 
    comes within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Merchant Marine 
    and Fisheries.
        I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that the bill be referred 
    to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

    Immediately thereafter, unanimous consent was granted.

Mobile (Seagoing) Trade Fairs

Sec. 44.12 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries and not the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    had jurisdiction of a bill designed to promote foreign commerce 
    abroad through use of mobile [seagoing] trade fairs.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(8) Oren Harris, of Arkansas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (S. 3389), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 17706, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the text of the bill (S. 3389), did 
not disclose the fact, the trade fair contemplated by this bill would 
have involved U.S. naval or merchant vessels outfitted for this special 
purpose.(9~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. S. 3389 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on Sept. 21, 1962 (H. Rept. No. 2463).

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

[[Page 2965]]

Private Bill Conveying Land to Utility Company

Sec. 44.13 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries and not the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had 
    jurisdiction of a private bill to provide for the conveyance of 
    certain land under the control of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries to 
    a utility company.

    On Feb. 28, 1961,(10) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, requested 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the private bill (H.R. 3840), and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so 
doing, Mr. Aspinall noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 2858, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It is the sense of the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs that this bill properly comes within the scope and 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.
    Parliamentanian's Note: The land to be conveyed was under the 
control of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and was used for 
conservation and wildlife refuge purposes.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3840 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on Aug. 23, 1961 (H. Rept. No. 1019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petroleum Shipment Overseas

Sec. 44.14 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill to control 
    the shipment to foreign countries of gasoline and petroleum 
    products from the United States.

    On July 17, 1947,(12) Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4042), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 9205, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 4042 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on July 21, 1947 (H. Rept. No. 1018).

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

[[Page 2966]]

Retirement Benefits of Lighthouse Service Employees

Sec. 44.15 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill to provide benefits for the widows of certain persons who were 
    retired or are eligible for retirement under section 6 of the act 
    entitled ``An act to authorize aids to navigation and for other 
    works in the Lighthouse Service, and for other purposes'' [approved 
    June 20, 1918, as amended].

    On Feb. 20, 1950,(14) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 7192), and to have it referred to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 1983, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 7192 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on June 26, 1950 (H. Rept. No. 2328).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.16 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill to increase the retirement pay of certain employees of the 
    former Lighthouse Service.

    On Mar. 21, 1949,(16) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have the bill (H.R. 2986), rereferred from his 
committee to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so 
doing, Mr. Murray noted that he had made his request at the suggestion 
of the Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 2868, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retirement Pay of Members of Life Saving Service

Sec. 44.17 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill to amend the Act of Apr. 14, 1930, to provide increased 
    retirement pay for certain members of the former life saving 
    service.

    On Feb. 5, 1947,(17) Mr. T. Millet Hand, of New Jersey, 
obtained
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 800, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2967]]

unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 70), which was originally 
referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, be 
rereferred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so 
doing, he noted that the chairmen of both committees had no objection 
to the rereference.

Shipboard Radios

Sec. 44.18 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has jurisdiction of a 
    bill relating entirely to the use of radios on shipboard.

    On June 8, 1936,(18) Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, requested 
unanimous consent that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
be discharged from further consideration of a bill (S. 4619), to amend 
the Communications Act of 1934, approved June 19, 1934, for the purpose 
of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and 
radio communications and for other purposes, and that the bill be 
referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so 
doing, he noted that ``This bill relates entirely to radios on 
shipboard, and for that reason the chairman of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce agrees that it should be referred to 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 80 Cong. Rec. 9244, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Water Transportation; Rate Regulation on Inland Waterways

Sec. 44.19 The House having effected a transfer of jurisdiction by 
    unanimous consent and by amendment of the rules, the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce obtained jurisdiction over all water 
    transportation except the regulation of rates on inland waterways.

    On Feb. 26, 1935,(19) Sam Rayburn, of Texas, Chairman of 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, asked unanimous 
consent that a bill (H.R. 5379), to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, 
as amended, by providing for the regulation of the transpor

[[Page 2968]]

tation of passengers and property by water carriers operating in 
interstate and foreign commerce, be rereferred from the committee he 
chaired to [what was then] the Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and 
Fisheries. He additionally asked unanimous consent that thereafter all 
bills relating to or affecting transportation by water carriers, 
regardless of the fact that they may amend an act which was originally 
considered by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, be 
referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 2623, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under reservation of objection, several Members initiated a series 
of exchanges relating to the unanimous-consent request. In an effort to 
explain the situation, Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, noted 
that:(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 2624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This unanimous-consent request is to be immediately followed by 
    the presentation of a rule coming from the Rules Committee which 
    further deals with the subject matter of jurisdiction. It does not 
    in any way bring about a conflict of jurisdiction. Insofar as 
    cooperation and coordination with respect to rates of competing 
    water, highway, and railroad carriers are concerned, that is with 
    the Interstate Commerce Committee, but all shipping matters 
    concerning vessels on the rivers and on the coast and in overseas 
    transportation have always belonged to the Merchant Marine 
    Committee.

    At another juncture, the chairmen of the two committees involved 
were queried as follows:

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right to 
    object, I should like to ask the Chairman of the Interstate 
    Commerce Committee if the regulation of rates will still be under 
    the jurisdiction of his committee?
        Mr. Rayburn: Yes.
        Mr. [Francis D.] Culkin [of New York]: Reserving the right to 
    object, I should like to ask the distinguished Chairman of the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and Fisheries, on which I 
    happen to serve, if this resolution or proposition proposes that 
    all maritime matters go to the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries? Is that the understanding?
        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Not as to inland 
    waters.

    Mr. Lehlbach then stated:

        The fact is at the present time inland navigation with respect 
    to its physical aspect is now with the Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries Committee. Insofar as the rate structure is concerned 
    relative to the various means of transportation in interstate 
    commerce, particularly where it competes with railroads, that 
    remains with the Interstate Commerce Committee, and there is no 
    conflict at all.

    Shortly thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.
    A few moments after that,(1) John J. O'Connor, of New 
York,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 2627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2969]]

Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 126, 
which had been previously alluded to by Mr. Lehlbach as he initially 
explained the unanimous-consent request. House Resolution 126 read as 
follows:

        Resolved, That the rules of the House of Representatives are 
    amended in the following manner:
        ``Rule X, clause 9. On the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to 
    consist of 21 Members.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The only change to be affected by this clause was to remove the 
        word, ``Radio'' from the name of the Committee on Merchant 
        Marine, Radio, and Fisheries, thus renaming the committee. See 
        H. Jour. 875, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. (1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``Rule XI, clause 7. To commerce--to the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. At the time, this clause provided that legislative subject matters 
        relating ``to commerce, life-saving service, and lighthouses, 
        other than appropriations for life-saving service and 
        lighthouses'' were to be referred to the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce; see H. Jour. 875, 73d Cong. 2d 
        Sess. (1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``Rule XI, clause 9. To the merchant marine, including all 
    transportation by water, Coast Guard, life-saving service, 
    lighthouses, lightships, ocean derelicts, Coast and Geodetic 
    Survey, Panama Canal, and fisheries--to the Committee on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries.''(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. At the time, this clause provided that legislative subject matters 
        relating ``to merchant marine, radio, and fisheries'' were to 
        be referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and 
        Fisheries; see H. Jour. 875, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. (1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of discussing the resolution, Mr. O'Connor noted 
that:

        . . . Both committees have agreed entirely to the resolution 
    and the question of their respective jurisdiction. . . .
        . . . The Rules Committee came to the determination that you 
    could not properly divide communications, and that radio, 
    telegraph, telephone, and cable inevitably went together, and, the 
    Interstate Commerce Committee having jurisdiction of most of those 
    subjects and for a longer time than the Merchant Marine Committee 
    had jurisdiction over radio, it was thought best and fairest to put 
    radio in the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. On the 
    other hand the Merchant Marine Committee reestablishes and reclaims 
    its jurisdiction over the merchant marine and over many matters 
    which were under the jurisdiction of the Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce Committee.

    Discussion of the measure continued, after which the resolution was 
agreed to by voice vote.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 2631, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 26, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wildlife Conservation Through Land-use Practices

Sec. 44.20 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

[[Page 2970]]

    and not the Committee on Agriculture has jurisdiction of a bill to 
    provide expert assistance and to cooperate with federal, state, and 
    other suitable agencies in promoting the conservation of wildlife 
    by promoting sound land-use practices.

    On May 21, 1947,(6) Mr. Raymond H. Burke, of Ohio, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Agriculture 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2472), and to 
have it referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 5615, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wildlife; Importing and Shipping Endangered Species

Sec. 44.21 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction of bills regulating the 
    importation and interstate shipment of wildlife species threatened 
    with extinction, even though such proposals include amendments to 
    title 18, United States Code, ``Crimes and Criminal Procedure''.

    On Apr. 27, 1967,(7) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of two 
bills (H.R. 6138, H.R. 8693), and to have them rereferred to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 11060, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Title 18 of the United States Code encompasses federal criminal law 
        and criminal procedure. Accordingly, the Committee on the 
        Judiciary normally deals with amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-46]                         

[Page 2970-2982]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 45. Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

    The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service was created Jan. 2, 
1947, as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946,(9) and combined the former Committees on Post-Office 
and Post Roads (created in 1808),(10) the Civil Service 
(created in 1893 as the Committee on Reform in the Civil 
Service),(11) and the Census (created in 
1901).(12) At the same time, jurisdiction over post-roads
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 60 Stat. 812.
10. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4190.
11. Id. at Sec. 4296.
12. Id. at Sec. 4351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2971]]

was transferred to the Committee on Public Works, and the newly created 
committee was accorded jurisdiction over the National Archives 
(formerly within the jurisdiction of a Committee on the Library).

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service 
pursuant to the 1973 rules (1) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule XI clause 15, House Rules and Manual Sec. 711 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(o), House Rules and Manual Sec. 684 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Census and the collection of statistics generally.
        (b) Federal Civil Service generally.
        (c) National Archives.
        (d) Postal-savings banks.
        (e) Postal service generally, including the railway mail 
    service, and measures relating to ocean mail and pneumatic-tube 
    service; but excluding post roads.
        (f) Status of officers and employees of the United States, 
    including their compensation, classification, and retirement.

    In addition to these topics, the committee also routinely considers 
federal employee-management relations, health benefits, life insurance, 
retirement, and veterans' preference legislation.
    Moreover, as the precedents reveal, the committee and its 
predecessors have dealt with such subjects as amending the District of 
Columbia Code to increase the salaries of certain District of Columbia 
judges,(2) amending the Immigration Act [of Feb. 5, 1917], 
relative to salaries of various Immigration Service 
employees,(3) and authorizing the Secretary of Defense and 
the military departments to grant return rights of employment to 
certain career and career-conditional employees.(4~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sec. 45.2, infra.
 3. Sec. 45.6, infra.
 4. Sec. 45.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service obtained jurisdiction over all federal 
civil service, including intergovernmental personnel, over the Hatch 
Act (political activity prohibitions on federal employees, formerly 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration), over 
holidays and celebrations, and over population and 
demography.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 
        1975.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advancing Civil Service Status--Private Bill

Sec. 45.1 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and not the 
    Committee on the Ju

[[Page 2972]]

    diciary had jurisdiction of a private bill providing for an 
    advancement in status in the civil service, particularly the Post 
    Office Department.

    On Aug. 15, 1950,(6) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(S. 2927), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Post Office 
and Civil Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 96 Cong. Rec. 12522, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

District of Columbia Judges' Salaries

Sec. 45.2 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, and not the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia, considered a bill amending 
    the District of Columbia Code to increase the salaries of certain 
    District of Columbia judges whose salary adjustments had been 
    omitted from the Federal Salary Act of 1968, which adjusted the pay 
    of judicial, executive, and legislative officials of the 
    government.

    On Dec. 11, 1969,(7) Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service obtained 
unanimous consent to have the Committee on the District of Columbia 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 3180), and to 
have it rereferred to his committee. In so doing, Mr. Dulski noted that 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service had received a letter 
from Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the Committee on 
the District of Columbia stating that he was in accord with the 
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 38543, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Certain judges in the District of Columbia 
had been inadvertently omitted at the time the omnibus legislation was 
passed by the two Houses. The Chairman of the Committee on the District 
of Columbia agreed to this rereference since the subject matter had 
previously been considered in the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service and was part of the comprehensive legislative scheme reported 
by that committee in 1968, notwithstanding the fact that it amended the 
District of Columbia Code.

Educational Agency--Establishing Supergrades

Sec. 45.3 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and not the 
    Committee on Education and Labor was held to

[[Page 2973]]

    have jurisdiction under the rules of proposals establishing the 
    position of Deputy Commissioner of a Bureau of Occupational 
    Education at GS-18 and prescribing the number of supergrade 
    positions which must be assigned thereto.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
7248), to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other 
acts dealing with higher education. In the course or the bill's 
consideration, a jurisdictional point of order was raised with respect 
to title XVI of a proposed committee (9~) amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 117 Cong. Rec. 39248, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. Committee on Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title XVI,(10) among other things, provided for the 
establishment of a Bureau of Occupational Education within the U.S. 
Office of Education. Pursuant to section 1612 (b) of the title, this 
Bureau was to be staffed in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 39281-84, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (b)(1) The Bureau shall be headed by a person (appointed or 
    designated by the Commissioner) who is highly qualified in the 
    fields of vocational, technical, and occupational education, who is 
    accorded the rank of Deputy Commissioner, and who is compensated at 
    the rate specified for GS-18 of the General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 
    5332).
        (2) Additional positions shall be assigned to the Bureau as 
    follows--
        (A) not less than three positions compensated at the rate 
    specified for GS-17 of the General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5332), one of 
    which shall be filled by a person with broad experience in the 
    field of community and junior college education;
        (B) not less than seven positions compensated at the rate 
    specified for GS-16 of the General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5332), at 
    least two of which shall be filled by persons with broad experience 
    in the field of postsecondary occupational education in community 
    and junior colleges, at least one of which shall be filled by a 
    person with broad experience in education in private proprietary 
    institutions, and at least one of which shall be filled by a person 
    with professional experience in occupational guidance and 
    counseling; and
        (C) not less than three positions which shall be filled by 
    persons at least one of whom is a skilled worker in a recognized 
    occupation, another is a subprofessional technician in one of the 
    branches of engineering, and the other is a subprofessional worker 
    in one of the branches of social or medical services, who shall 
    serve as senior advisers in the implementation of this title.

    Immediately after it was agreed by unanimous consent that title XVI 
be considered as open to

[[Page 2974]]

amendment, Chairman pro tempore Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. David N. Henderson, of North Carolina, a member of the 
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. The following exchange took 
place: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 39284.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against 
    section 1612 of title XVI.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will hear the gentleman on 
    his point of order.
        Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, section 1612 establishes a Bureau 
    of Occupational Education. Subsection (b) of section 1612 provides 
    that the Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau shall be compensated at 
    the rate specified for GS-18, and that the Bureau may assign not 
    less than three positions at the rate specified for GS-17, not less 
    than seven positions at the rate for GS-16, and not less than three 
    senior advisers, one of whom shall be skilled in a recognized 
    occupation, another in a branch of engineering, and a third in a 
    branch of social or medical services.
        All of these matters relate to the classification and the 
    fixing of rates of compensation for Federal employees, and are 
    matters that relate specifically to the Federal civil service.
        Under clause 15 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives, matters relating to the Federal civil service are 
    matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and 
    Civil Service.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Pursuant to the rule [Rule XI clause 15, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 711 (1973)], the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
        Service exercises jurisdiction over the following subjects, 
        among others: ``(b) Federal Civil Service generally. . . . (f) 
        Status of officers and employees of the United States, 
        including their compensation, classification, and retirement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, in view of the lateness of the hour and the 
    situation as it now exists, I should point out that Chairman Dulski 
    of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service in September 
    wrote to the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor and 
    pointed out these matters that we now make a point of order against 
    as contained in section 1612.
        Mr. Chairman, I urge that my point of order against section 
    1612 be sustained on the basis that it includes matter that is 
    clearly within the jurisdictions of the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service.

    At the conclusion of Mr. Henderson's remarks, the Chair recognized 
Mr. Roman C. Pucinski, of Illinois, who opposed the point of order:

        Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of order. The 
    provisions in question in title XVI, the Occupational Education 
    Act, create a Bureau of Occupational Education and specify that 11 
    positions with specific responsibilities be included in that 
    Bureau. Mr. Chairman, these provisions in no way impinge upon the 
    jurisdiction of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee.
        These provisions do not amend the Civil Service Act nor do they 
    create

[[Page 2975]]

    any exemptions from that act. They simply specify that in the 11 
    positions created persons must be compensated at rates specified 
    for supergrades. These provisions in no way require that these 
    supergrades must be new supergrades, rather they can be positions 
    which are presently assigned to the Office of Education by 
    Congress. If the Office does not want to reassign these supergrades 
    within the Office to this new Bureau, it will have to come before 
    the Post Office and Civil Service Committee to request additional 
    supergrades; and the decision on whether to give the office any new 
    supergrades will be the decision of the Post Office and Civil 
    Service Committee.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge you to overrule the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the last point I should like to make is that 
    these provisions are in H.R. 7429, the Occupational Education Act, 
    as it was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
        The important thing is that we are not creating new positions. 
    We are not asking the Civil Service Commission or the committee to 
    approve these positions because these are positions already 
    approved by the committee in previous allocations of supergrades to 
    the Department. All we are saying is that the Commissioner shall 
    reassign existing supergrades in his Department to this new 
    Department for the new duties spelled out in the Act.
        Therefore, I see no conflict between the jurisdictions of the 
    committees, and I hope that the point of order will be overruled.

    At this juncture, the Chair recognized Mr. Albert H. Quie, of 
Minnesota, who made the following observations:

        It is true that section 1612 establishes by law a Bureau of 
    Occupational Education within the U.S. Office of Education and 
    requires that certain supergrade positions be assigned to that 
    Bureau and that the persons who fill them have certain 
    qualifications of a general nature, such as ``highly qualified in 
    the fields of vocational, technical, and occupational education'' 
    and ``broad experience in the field of community and junior college 
    education.''
        Now I want to make three points about these provisions:
        First. They do not affect the Federal civil service generally 
    or in any way at all; they do not amend, modify, or affect either 
    directly or indirectly any act relating to the Federal civil 
    service. At most, the provisions of this section say that from the 
    supergrade resources available or made available to the Department, 
    the new Bureau will have the specified number. Incidentally, in the 
    opinion of everyone on our committee who worked on the occupational 
    education title, these provisions were absolutely necessary to 
    assure that the purposes of the Occupational Education Act were 
    realized.
        Second. While the provisions of this section mandate the 
    assignment of certain supergrade positions to the new Bureau, they 
    do not alter in any way any provision of law or civil service 
    regulations relating to the compensation or classification of such 
    positions, and of course they in no way affect the civil service 
    retirement system.
        Third. Finally--and I think this is the critical concern to the 
    members of

[[Page 2976]]

    the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service--these provisions 
    are not intended to have the effect of adding to the quota of 
    supergrade positions established under title 5, United States Code, 
    section 5108. Fixing the number of such positions is clearly a 
    matter for the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and these 
    provisions do not interfere with that. The supergrade positions 
    specified in section 1612 would have to come out of the quota 
    established by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service under 
    section 5108 of title 5 of the United States Code.
        Accordingly, I do not believe the point of order will lie 
    against section 1612.

    Announcing he was ready to rule, the Chairman stated: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 39285, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Henderson) has raised a 
    point of order against section 1612, beginning on page 235, line 
    18, through page 237, line 8, on the ground that the subject matter 
    of subsection (b) of that section is within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and not the Committee on 
    Education and Labor.
        Section 1612(a) establishes in the Office of Education a Bureau 
    of Occupational Education, which is to serve as the principal 
    agency for the administration of various occupational, vocational, 
    and manpower education and training programs. Section 1612(b) 
    establishes the position of Deputy Commissioner at GS-18 to head 
    the Bureau, and also prescribes the number of supergrade positions 
    which must be assigned to the Bureau.
        Clause 15(f), rule XI confers upon the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service jurisdiction over the status of officers and 
    employees of the United States, including their compensation, 
    classification, and retirement. Section 1612(b) of the committee 
    substitute, if considered separately, is a subject properly within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
    Service.(14) Under the precedents of the House, if a 
    point of order is sustained against a portion of a pending section 
    or paragraph, the entire section or paragraph may be ruled out of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. It should be noted that H. Res. 661, agreed to on Oct. 27, 1971 
        [117 Cong. Rec. 37769, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.] prescribed the 
        special rule by which H.R. 7248 was to be considered. This 
        resolution provided, among other things [id. at p. 37765] that 
        ``all titles, parts, or sections of the [amendment in the 
        nature of a] substitute, the subject matter of which is 
        properly within the jurisdiction of any other standing 
        committee of the House of Representatives, shall be subject to 
        a point of order for such reason if such point of order is 
        properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 7248.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order against 
    section 1612, and the language in that section is stricken from the 
    committee amendment.

Certain Educational Agencies--Waiver of Civil Service Laws Regarding 
    Employment

Sec. 45.4 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and

[[Page 2977]]

    not the Committee on Education and Labor was held to have 
    jurisdiction under the rules of proposals which would: (1) 
    authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to (a) 
    fix entrance level rates of compensation up to two grades higher 
    than prescribed under the General Schedule for officers and 
    employees of a National Institute of Education; (b) appoint up to 
    one-third of the regular, technical, or professional employees of 
    the institute without regard to civil service laws; (c) fix rates 
    of compensation up to GS-18 level for members of a National 
    Advisory Council on Educational Research and Development; and (2) 
    permit the National Advisory Council on Educational Research and 
    Development to employ personnel and fix rates of compensation 
    without regard to civil service laws.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(15) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
7248), to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other 
acts dealing with higher education. In the course of that consideration 
a jurisdictional question arose over title XIV of a proposed committee 
(16) amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 39248, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Committee on Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title XIV (17) provided for the establishment of a 
National Institute of Education within the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare, as well as a National Advisory Council on 
Educational Research and Development. The jurisdictional conflict 
pertained to those sections within the title which provided for the 
staffing of these organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 117 Cong. Rec. 32971, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staffing of the institute was detailed in section 1405 which 
read as follows:

        Sec. 1405. The Secretary may appoint and fix the compensation 
    of such officers and employees as may be necessary to carry out 
    purposes of this title. Such officers and employees shall be 
    appointed in accordance with chapter 51 of title 5, United States 
    Code, except that (1) to the extent that the Secretary deems such 
    action necessary to recruit men and women of exceptional talent he 
    may establish the entrance grade for personnel at a level up to two 
    grades higher than the grade level provided for by such personnel 
    under the General Schedule established by such title, and fix their 
    compensation accordingly, and (2) to the

[[Page 2978]]

    extent the Secretary deems such action necessary to the discharge 
    of his responsibilities, he may appoint personnel of the Institute 
    without regard to the civil service or classification laws; 
    Provided, That personnel appointed under this clause do not exceed 
    at any one time one-third of the number of full-time, regular 
    technical or professional employees of the Institute.

    The staffing of the council was provided for in section 1406, 
pertinent sections of which are excerpted below:

        Sec. 1406(a). The President shall appoint a National Advisory 
    Council on Educational Research and Development. . . .
        (b) The Council shall be appointed by the President without 
    regard to the civil service laws and shall consist of fifteen 
    members appointed for terms of three years; except that (1) any 
    member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the 
    expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed 
    shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. . . . One of 
    such members shall be designated by the President as Chairman. 
    Members of the Council who are not regular full-time employees of 
    the United States shall, while serving on the business of the 
    Council, be entitled to receive compensation at rates to be 
    determined by the Secretary, but not exceeding the per diem 
    equivalent for GS-18 for each day so engaged, including travel time 
    and, while so serving away from their homes or regular places of 
    business, may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in 
    lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, 
    United States Code, for persons in the Government service employed 
    intermittently. The Director of the Institute and the Commissioner 
    of Education shall serve on the Council ex officio. . . .
        (e) The Council is authorized without regard to the provisions 
    of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
    competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of 
    chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating 
    to classification and general schedule pay rates, to employ and fix 
    the compensation of such personnel as may be necessary to carry out 
    its functions.

    Immediately after it was agreed by unanimous consent 
(18) that title XIV be considered as open to amendment, 
Chairman pro tempore Richard Bolling, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. 
H.R. Gross, of Iowa, a member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service, who raised the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 39272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against title XIV 
    inasmuch as it invades the jurisdiction of the House Post Office 
    and Civil Service Committee.
        Mr. Chairman, this title, on pages 220 and 222 and 223, 
    includes authorizations for the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
    Welfare to recruit men and women of certain talent, and establishes 
    entrance grades for personnel at levels up to two grades higher 
    than the grade levels provided for under the

[[Page 2979]]

    general schedule, and authorizes the Secretary to appoint personnel 
    of the National Institute of Education without regard to the Civil 
    Service or classification laws.
        The language in title XIV also authorized the President to 
    appoint a National Advisory Council on Education, Research and 
    Development, and it authorizes the Council to employ and fix the 
    compensation of such personnel as may be necessary to carry out its 
    functions without regard to the provisions of title 5, United 
    States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and 
    without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III 
    of chapter 53 of title 5 relating to the classification of 
    positions and the General Schedule rates of pay.
        Clause 15 of rule XI (19) of the Rules of the House 
    of Representatives provides that the Committee on Post Office and 
    Civil Service shall have jurisdiction over all matters relating to 
    the Federal civil service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Rule XI clause 15, House Rules and Manual Sec. 711 (1973) lists the 
        following subjects, among others, as being within the 
        jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service: 
        `` (b) Federal Civil Service generally. . . . (f) Status of 
        officers and employees of the United States, including their 
        compensation, classification, and retirement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The civil service laws, the classification laws, and the laws 
    relating to the General Schedule all pertain to title 5, United 
    States Code, and are clearly under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, my point of order against title XIV is 
    based on the fact that it contains matters that are clearly and 
    wholly within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service. There can be no claim or pretense on the 
    part of the House Committee on Education and Labor to jurisdiction 
    in these matters.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist that my point of order be sustained.

    The Chair then recognized Mr. John Brademas, of Indiana, who, as a 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor, which drafted the 
substitute for H.R. 7248, responded, as follows:

        First, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Iowa on the basis that the scope of his point of 
    order is much too broad. The intent of the rule adopted for 
    consideration of the bill now under consideration is to provide 
    that any ``titles, parts, or sections'' of the bill would be 
    subject to a point of order where the subject matter jurisdiction 
    was in question. In this case, Mr Chairman, the personnel 
    exemptions to the civil service laws are the only matters in 
    question with respect to jurisdiction.
        I contend, therefore, that the question of the point of order 
    should be directed to those provisions with respect to which there 
    is a question of jurisdiction, and not to the entire title.
        Second, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the jurisdiction question, 
    legislation to establish a National Institute of Education was 
    introduced in the House during the 91st, and again during the 92d 
    Congresses. In each instance the bills were referred to the 
    Committee on Education and Labor. Extensive hear

[[Page 2980]]

    ings were held over a period of 2 years, and at no time was the 
    jurisdictional question raised. I suggest, therefore, Mr. Chairman, 
    that this bill is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Education and Labor, and germane to the bill before this 
    Chamber.
        Third, Mr. Chairman, the specific provisions of concern to 
    which the gentleman from Iowa makes reference have been a part of 
    this legislation since the date of its introduction to the House 2 
    years ago. The only change made by the Committee on Education and 
    Labor was to limit the number of exemptions from the civil service 
    laws.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the point of order is 
    overruled.

    Immediately thereafter, the Chairman announced that he was ready to 
rule and explained his reasoning and conclusion:

        The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order against title 
    XIV. The Chair has examined the title, and has found that the 
    language in section 1405, and in section 1406 invades the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
        Under provisions of House Resolution 661 (20) under 
    which the Committee of the Whole is considering this bill, it is 
    provided that all titles, parts, or sections of the said 
    substitute, the subject matter of which is properly within the 
    jurisdiction of any other standing committee of the House of 
    Representatives shall be subject to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 661, agreed to on Oct. 27, 1971 [117 Cong. Rec. 37769, 92d 
        Cong. 1st Sess.], prescribed the special rule by which H.R. 
        7248 was to be considered, and provided, among other things 
        [id. at p. 37765], that ``all titles, parts or sections of the 
        [amendment in the nature of a] substitute, the subject matter 
        of which is properly within the jurisdiction of any other 
        standing committee of the House of Representatives, shall be 
        subject to a point of order for such reason if such point of 
        order is properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 
        7248.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Iowa has directed his point of order, not 
    just to the sections on pages 220 through 223, but to the whole 
    title.
        Under the rule, the point of order in this case must be 
    sustained against the whole title, and the entire title is thus 
    stricken.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 117 Cong. Rec. 39286, 39287, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 4, 
        1971, where another proposed title of H.R. 7248, which called 
        for the establishment of an advisory council (the Council on 
        Higher Education Relief Assistance), to be staffed without 
        regard to civil service laws, was similarly objected to, and 
        struck from the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI Reemployment of Civil Service Retirees

Sec. 45.5 The Committee on Civil Service (now the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service), and not the Committee on Naval Affairs 
    (now the Committee on Armed Services), had jurisdiction of a

[[Page 2981]]

    bill to permit the reemployment by the Federal Bureau of 
    Investigation of persons retired under the Civil Service Retirement 
    Act.

    On Apr. 25, 1941,(2) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs (now the Committee on Armed 
Services), obtained unanimous consent to have his committee discharged 
from further consideration of the bill (S. 881), and to have it 
referred to the Committee on Civil Service (now the Committee on Post 
Office and Civil Service).(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 87 Cong. Rec. 3329, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. S. 881 was reported by the Committee on Civil Service on July 14, 
        1941 (H. Rept. No. 944).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration Service Salaries

Sec. 45.6 The Committee on Civil Service (now the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service), and not the Committee on Immigration and 
    Naturalization (now the Committee on the Judiciary), had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to amend section 24 of the Immigration Act 
    of Feb. 5, 1917, relative to salaries of various employees of the 
    Immigration Service.

    On May 8, 1946,(4) Mr. John Lesinski, of Michigan, 
obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Immigration and 
Naturalization (now the Committee on the Judiciary), be discharged from 
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2988), and that it be referred 
to the Committee on Civil Service (now the Committee on Post Office and 
Civil Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 4676, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military Disabled Retirees--Ceiling on Military and Civilian 
    Remuneration to the Federally Employed

Sec. 45.7 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and not the 
    Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill to provide 
    that certain officers of the uniformed services who have been 
    retired for disability incurred in line of duty, and who hold 
    civilian office or employment with the United States, may receive 
    retired pay and civilian pay totaling $6,000.

    On Jan. 13, 1955,(5) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 279, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2982]]

rerefer the bill (H.R. 487), from his committee to the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service.

Authorizing Military to Grant Employee Return Rights

Sec. 45.8 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and not the 
    Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction of proposed 
    legislation to authorize the Secretary of Defense and the 
    secretaries of the military departments to grant return rights of 
    employment to career and career-conditional employees in the civil 
    service who accept temporary overseas assignments with the defense 
    establishment.

    On Feb. 26, 1959,(6) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent to have 
an executive communication (Exec. Comm. No. 553), containing the 
legislative proposals described above rereferred from his committee to 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 3042, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-47]                         

[Page 2982-2998]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 46. Committee on Public Works

    The Committee on Public Works was created on Jan. 2, 1947, as part 
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,(7) and 
combined the Committees on Flood Control (created in 
1916),(8) Public Buildings and Grounds (created in 
1837),(9) Rivers and Harbors (created in 
1883),(10) and Roads (created in 1913).(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 60 Stat. 812.
 8. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2069.
 9. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4231.
10. Id. at Sec. 4118.
11. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973, the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works read as 
follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XI clause 16, House Rules and Manual Sec. 713 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(p), House Rules and Manual Sec. 685 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Flood control and improvement of rivers and harbors.
        (b) Measures relating to the Capitol Building and the Senate 
    and House Office Buildings.
        (c) Measures relating to the construction or maintenance of 
    roads and post roads, other than appropriations therefor; but it 
    shall not be in order for any bill providing general legislation in 
    relation to roads to contain any provision for any specific road, 
    nor for any bill in relation to a specific road to embrace a 
    provision in relation to any other specific road.

[[Page 2983]]

        (d) Measures relating to the construction or reconstruction, 
    maintenance, and care of the buildings and grounds of the Botanic 
    Gardens, the Library of Congress, and the Smithsonian Institute.
        (e) Measures relating to the purchase of sites and construction 
    of post offices, customhouses, Federal courthouses, and Government 
    buildings within the District of Columbia.
        (f) Oil and other pollution of navigable waters.
        (g) Public buildings and occupied or improved grounds of the 
    United States generally.
        (h) Public reservations and parks within the District of 
    Columbia, including Rock Creek Park and the Zoological Park.
        (i) Public works for the benefit of navigation, including 
    bridges and dams (other than international bridges and dams).
        (j) Water power.

    Among the other subjects upon which the committee has reported on 
over the years (13~) are disaster relief, regional 
development, and relocation assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Terrence T. Finn, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents reveal, the jurisdiction of the committee and its 
predecessors has also extended to such matters as converting toll 
bridges to free bridges,(l4) enabling the Secretary of 
Agriculture to build national forest roads and trails,(15) 
providing economic development programs in conjunction with a state 
centennial observance,(16) providing facilities for 
educational institutions,(17) transferring the U.S. interest 
in educational and recreational facilities to the states,(1) 
providing school facilities for dependents of workmen on water 
projects,(2) establishing the jurisdiction of the Federal 
Works Administrator over certain school buildings,(3) 
authorizing the conveyance of certain Army lands,(4) 
creating a Division of Stream Pollution Control in the Bureau of the 
Public Health Service,(5) and establishing a revolving fund 
in the Treasury for certain regional power 
administrations.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sec. 46.6, infra.
15. Sec. 46.16, infra.
16. Sec. 46.8, infra.
17. Sec. Sec. 46.9, 46.10, infra.
 1. Sec. 46.11, infra.
 2. Sec. 46.18, infra.
 3. Sec. 46.12, infra.
 4. Sec. Sec. 46.1-46.4, 46.7, infra.
 5. Sec. 46.22, infra.
 6. Sec. 46.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973, the Committee on Public Works maintained six subcommittees 
of which five were legislative and one investigative, as follows:

                         Legislative Subcommittees

        (1) Subcommittee on Economic Development;

[[Page 2984]]

        (2) Subcommittee on Energy;
        (3) Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds;
        (4) Subcommittee on Transportation; and
        (5) Subcommittee on Water Resources.

                           Oversight Subcommittee

        (6) Subcommittee on Investigations and Review.

    In the exercise of its oversight jurisdiction, the committee relies 
on its Subcommittee on Investigations and Review. Among the executive 
agencies the committee oversees completely or in part are the Corps of 
Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Highway 
Administration, the General Services Administration, the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the various regional 
economic commissions (for example, the Coastal Plains Regional 
Commission).
    During the 92d Congress, the Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Review studied such matters (7) as highway safety, the 
impact of the postal building program on federal agencies, closure of 
the Fort Worth clinical research center, the federal water pollution 
program, disaster relief, safety and security in public buildings, and 
(in conjunction with the Subcommittee on Energy) the energy crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Terrence T. Finn, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation lost jurisdiction over parks in the 
District of Columbia to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 
but obtained jurisdiction over: transportation, including civil 
aviation, but excluding railroads, which remain within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce; roads and the 
safety thereof; water transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the 
Interstate Commerce Commission; and related transportation regulatory 
agencies with the exception of those relating to 
railroads.                          -------------------

Army Lands--Conveyance to State and Local Governments

Sec. 46.1 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on Armed 
    Services has jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the Secretary of 
    the Army to sell certain lands within a Corps of Engineers water 
    project to the State of Oklahoma.

[[Page 2985]]

    On Apr. 21, 1953,(8) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized George A. Dondero, of Michigan, Chairman of 
the Committee on Public Works, who proceeded to make the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 99 Cong. Rec. 3486, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the bill H.R. 4505 was referred to the Committee 
    on Armed Services. The bill has to do with the sale of certain land 
    in the State of Oklahoma. I received a letter this morning from the 
    Honorable Dewey Short, chairman of the committee, to the effect 
    that either he would ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
    Armed Services be discharged from the consideration of the bill and 
    to have the bill referred to the Committee on Public Works or that 
    I should do so. I now make that request.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted his request by unanimous 
consent.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 4505 was reported by the Committee on Public Works on May 21, 
        1953 (H. Rept. No. 446).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 46.2 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on Armed 
    Services has jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the Secretary of 
    the Army to convey certain land acquired as part of a river and 
    harbor improvement project to the Brownsville Navigation District 
    of Cameron County, Texas.

    On July 23, 1954,(10) Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the bill (H.R. 9913), referred from 
the Committee on Armed Services to the Committee on Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 100 Cong. Rec. 11757, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 46.3 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on Armed 
    Services has jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the Secretary of 
    the Army to convey certain lands in San Diego, California held in 
    connection with a flood control project to the city of San Diego.

    On May 21, 1953,(1~) George A. Dondero, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, obtained unanimous consent 
to have the Committee on Armed Services discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1613), and to have it rereferred to his 
committee. In so doing, he noted that he had received a letter from the 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, Dewey Short, of Missouri, 
in which the original referral of the bill was brought to his 
attention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 99 Cong. Rec. 5322, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 2986]]

Army Land Conueyance--Flood Control Project

Sec. 46.4 In the 89th Congress, the Committee on Public Works and not 
    the Committee on Armed Services had jurisdiction of a bill 
    authorizing the Secretary of the Army to convey to a third party, 
    lands acquired by the government as part of a Corps of Engineers 
    public works-flood control project.

    On July 15, 1965,(2~) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Robert A. Everett, of Tennessee, who made 
the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 17002, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on January 4, 1965, H.R. 1296 was referred through 
    error to the Committee on Armed Services. We have cleared this with 
    the chairman of that committee, and as a member of the Committee on 
    Public Works, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be rereferred 
    to the Committee on Public Works.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Bridge Alteration; Toll Bridges

Sec. 46.5 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce has jurisdiction of a bill to amend 
    the act of June 21, 1940, relating to the alteration of certain 
    bridges over navigable waters, so as to include highway bridges, 
    and for other purposes.

    On June 6, 1951,(3) Mr. Lindley Beckworth, of Texas, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3464), and to have it referred to the Committee on Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 6181, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 46.6 The Committee on Roads (now the Committee on Public Works), 
    and not the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to aid several states in making certain toll 
    bridges free bridges, to authorize an appropriation for such 
    purpose, and to make such appropriation available for matching 
    funds apportioned under the Federal Highway Act.

    On May 18, 1936,(4) Sam Rayburn, of Texas, (chairman of 
the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 7444, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2987]]

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, obtained unanimous 
consent that the bill (H.R. 12722), be rereferred from his committee to 
the Committee on Roads (now the Committee on Public Works).

Authorizing Defense Homes Corporation to Convey District of Columbia 
    Land

Sec. 46.7 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency had jurisdiction of a bill to authorize the 
    Defense Homes Corporation to convey certain lands in the District 
    of Columbia to Howard University.

    On Mar. 9, 1948,(5) Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5509), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 94 Cong. Rec. 2414, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This bill authorized the Reconstruction 
Finance Corporation [RFC], to discharge the indebtedness of the Defense 
Homes Corporation to the RFC, and the Secretary of the Treasury to 
discharge the indebtedness of the RFC to the Treasury.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 5509 was reported by the Committee on Public Works on May 11, 
        1948 (H. Rept. No. 1931).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Development Programs in Conjunction With State Centennial 
    Observances

Sec. 46.8 Under the rules of the 89th Congress a bill providing for 
    federal economic assistance and economic development programs as 
    part of a state centennial observance was within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on the 
    Judiciary. (This was an instance in which the Speaker took the 
    floor in debate to explain his referral of the bill.)

    On Mar. 2, 1966,(7) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9963). 
In the course of the debate which ensued, Chairman Charles A. Vanik, of 
Ohio, recognized Mr. James C. Cleveland, of New Hampshire, who noted 
that: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 4571, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Id. at pp. 4572, 4573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This bill, to promote the economic development of the State of 
    Alaska, by

[[Page 2988]]

    providing for the U.S. participation in the statewide exposition to 
    be held in Alaska next year, provides for an authorization for 
    appropriations from the Federal Treasury of $5,600,000. It is 
    disturbing to me that the bill is being sponsored to provide for a 
    centennial celebration of Alaska when even in the purposes of the 
    bill it is clearly stated that the money is for projects that will 
    contribute to the economy of Alaska.
        It is quite obvious that the money will be expended on 
    industrial, agricultural, educational, research, or commercial 
    projects or facilities which will endure in their use far beyond 
    the life of the centennial celebration. . . .
        Last fall, when the legislation was reported, many of us in the 
    minority were unaware of the fact that the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, which committee has jurisdiction over holidays and 
    celebrations, had before it some 250 bills relative to holidays, 
    celebrations, centennials, and the like. These bills encompass over 
    five score separate proposals. Many of them provide for the 
    expenditure of Federal funds. The Committee on Public works, which 
    handled this legislation, does not have jurisdiction of holidays 
    and celebrations. However, the bill was referred to the committee 
    when it was introduced last summer.

    The Chairman later recognized Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, who explained the manner in which the bill was referred 
to the Committee on Public Works: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 4579, 4580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the excerpts quoted above reveal, there 
was some concern as to how this bill was referred. As introduced the 
bill was primarily an economic development measure, contemplating 
public works to stimulate tourism and commercial development. In this 
form, the bill was primarily within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Public Works. As reported, however, the primary emphasis of the bill 
was federal recognition of and participation in the centennial celebra

[[Page 2989]]

tion of the Alaska Purchase. Economic development was a secondary 
purpose. In this form, the bill was similar to centennial bills that 
are normally, under the precedents, referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. (The rule under which the bill was considered, H. Res. 741, 
89th Cong. 2d Sess., H. Jour. 290, provided that it would be in order 
to consider the substitute amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Public Works, such substitute for the purpose of amendment to be 
considered under the five-minute rule as an original bill.)

Federal Educational and Recreational Facilities Under Lanham Public War 
    Housing Act

Sec. 46.9 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency has jurisdiction of a bill to provide that 
    schools constructed under the act entitled ``An act to expedite the 
    provision of housing in connection with national defense, and for 
    other purposes,'' approved Oct. 14, 1940, as amended, may be 
    donated to local school agencies.

    On Mar. 12, 1947,(~10) Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2190), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 93 Cong. Rec. 1981, 1982, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Public Buildings and 
Grounds--later to be incorporated into the Committee on Public Works--
reported (11) what was popularly known as the ``Lanham 
Public War Housing Act,'' the act of Oct. 14, 1940 (Pub. L. No. 76-
849). The legislation was designed to provide federal housing 
facilities for persons engaged in national defense activities and for 
their families in areas where an acute shortage of housing existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 11606, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 5, 1940 (H. Rept. 
        No. 2923).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 46.10 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency has jurisdiction of bills to amend the Act of 
    Oct. 14, 1940, as amended (1) relative to additional facilities for 
    educational institutions; and (2) to permit the making of

[[Page 2990]]

    contributions for the maintenance and operations of school 
    facilities.

    On. Feb. 27, 1948,(12) Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bills (H.R. 2845 and H.R. 3545, respectively), and to have them 
referred to the Committee on Public Works.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 94 Cong. Rec. 1909, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. The Record also discloses the identical rereferrals later in the 
        session; see 94 Cong. Rec. 4127, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 6, 
        1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Lanham War Housing Act had as its 
purpose to provide housing for persons engaged in national defense 
activities, as by authorizing the Federal Works Administrator to 
provide housing for such persons and their families in areas in which 
acute shortages of housing existed, without complying with state 
statutes and municipal ordinances prescribing zoning regulations.

Sec. 46.11 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency has jurisdiction of a bill to authorize the 
    transfer without charge to the states and their political 
    subdivisions of all interest of the United States in educational 
    and recreational facilities acquired under the Act of Oct. 14, 
    1940, as amended.

    On Mar. 11, 1947,(14~) Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2473), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 1915, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jurisdiction of Federal Works Administrator Over School Buildings; 
    Rebuilding Schools Destroyed by Fire

Sec. 46.12 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency had jurisdiction of a bill to transfer 
    jurisdiction over certain school buildings to the Federal Works 
    Administrator and to authorize an appropriation to rebuild a school 
    building destroyed by fire.

    On Feb. 27, 1948,(15) Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
Chairman of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 1909, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2991]]

the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5433), pertaining to certain school buildings located in Vanport, 
Oregon, and to have the bill referred to the Committee on Public 
Works.(16~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The Record also discloses the identical rereferral later in the 
        session; see 94 Cong. Rec. 4127, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 6, 
        1948.
            H.R. 5433 was reported by the Committee on Public works on 
        May 17, 1948 (H. Rept. No. 1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Capital Planning Commission; Planning Kennedy Center Site

Sec. 46.13 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia had jurisdiction of a joint resolution 
    directing the National Capital Planning Commission to study the 
    location and development of the John F. Kennedy Center for the 
    Performing Arts.

    On Sept. 15, 1965,(17) John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, 
obtained unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from 
further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 646), and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on Public Works.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 23927, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. For a similar rereference, see 111 Cong. Rec. 27803, 89th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Oct. 21, 1965 [H.J. Res. 659].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Monument Commission; Monument Construction

Sec. 46.14 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Interior and Insular Affairs has jurisdiction of a communication 
    from the National Capital Park and Planning Association submitting 
    a bill to create a National Monument Commission to build a monument 
    on the Nevius Tract adjoining Arlington Cemetery.

    On Aug. 15, 1951,(2) John R. Murdock, of Arizona, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the communication (Exec. Comm. No. 699), and to have 
it rereferred to the Committee on Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 97 Cong. Rec. 10098, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 2992]]

Road Construction or Maintenance--Creating Federal Highway Corporation 
    to Finance Interstate Highways

Sec. 46.15 The House rejected a motion to rerefer from the Committee on 
    Public Works to the Committee on Appropriations identical bills to 
    create a federal highway corporation for financing the construction 
    of the National System of Interstate Highways; to amend and 
    supplement the Federal Aid Road Act approved July 11, 1916 (39 
    Stat. 355), as amended and supplemented; and for other purposes.

    On Feb. 24, 1955,(3) acting by direction of the 
Committee on Appropriations which he chaired, Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, moved to rerefer the two identical bills (H.R. 4260 and H.R. 
4261), from the Committee on Public Works to the Committee on 
Appropriations. Mr. Cannon having demanded a division, the question was 
taken and there were--ayes 87, noes 131. A request for the yeas and 
nays was then refused, so the motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 101 Cong. Rec. 2029, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Forest Roads and Trails

Sec. 46.16 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Public Works and not 
    the Committee on Agriculture had jurisdiction of proposed 
    legislation enabling the Secretary of Agriculture to construct and 
    maintain a system of roads and trails for the national forests.

    On May 7, 1962,(4) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, 
obtained unanimous consent to have a letter (Exec. Comm. No. 2000), 
from the Secretary of Agriculture rereferred from the Committee on 
Agriculture to the Committee on Public Works. The letter contained a 
draft bill which would authorize the Secretary to grant permanent 
easements for road rights-of-way through the national forests; permit 
him to acquire, construct, and maintain forest development roads and 
trails; and authorize financing of the construction by using 
appropriated funds, charging users of the national forests, and of the 
products therefrom, and through cooperative financing with public or 
private agencies. The proposal would not have amended title 23, ``High

[[Page 2993]]

ways,'' of the United States Code or any other existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 7826, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Code Provisions Relating to Highways

Sec. 46.17 Bills having the purpose of codifying and enacting into law 
    title 23 of the United States Code, entitled ``Highways,'' but also 
    containing substantive revisions of certain provisions of the 
    highway laws, were rereferred from the Committee on the Judiciary 
    to the Committee on Public Works with the understanding that this 
    action was not to be construed as a jurisdictional waiver by the 
    Committee on the Judiciary over codification bills.

    On June 4, 1958,(5) by direction of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, Emanuel Celler, of New York, who chaired that committee, 
asked unanimous consent that the two bills (H.R. 12776 and H.R. 12777), 
be rereferred from his committee to the Committee on Public Works. Mr. 
Celler emphasized that such a request was ``not to be construed as a 
waiver by the Committee on the Judiciary of any of the jurisdiction 
under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 or the United States 
Code,'' but rather was being urged ``solely because of the particular 
circumstances with respect to the drafting of the bills.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 104 Cong. Rec. 10164, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    He explained those circumstances as follows:

        . . . Under section 12 of Public Law 350 of the 83d Congress, 
    the Secretary of the Department of Commerce was directed to 
    transmit to the Committees on Public Works of the Senate and of the 
    House of Representatives a suggested draft of a bill or bills for a 
    Federal Highway Act, which will include such provisions of existing 
    law, and such changes or new provisions as the Secretary deems 
    advisable. The Secretary submitted such a draft bill to the 
    committees, as a result of which the bill H.R. 10488, to revise the 
    Federal aid highway laws of the United States, was introduced and 
    referred to the Committee on Public Works. A companion bill, S. 
    3151, was referred to the Senate Committee on Public Works. Through 
    the cooperation between the counsel of the House Committee on 
    Public Works and the law revision counsel of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, clerical changes have been suggested in the bill H.R. 
    10488 to provide for the enactment into law of title 23, United 
    States Code ``Highways.'' As a result, the bills H.R. 12776 and 
    H.R. 12777 were introduced containing a number of clerical changes 
    to achieve that purpose. These two bills are, however, essentially 
    the same as the bill submitted by the Secretary of Commerce to the 
    Committee on Public Works and which is now pending be

[[Page 2994]]

    fore that committee which has set hearings for tomorrow.
        Therefore, in view of these special circumstances and without 
    any intention to waive the prerogative of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, I make this unanimous-consent request.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent to 
effect the bills' rereferral.

School Facilities for Dependents of Workmen Engaged in a Water 
    Conservation Project

Sec. 46.18 In the 90th Congress, the Committee on Public Works and not 
    the Committee on Education and Labor had jurisdiction of a bill 
    authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Army to provide 
    school facilities for dependents of construction workers engaged in 
    the building of a Corps of Engineers project.

    On June 17, 1968,(~6) Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 17487), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 114 Cong. Rec. 17429, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H.R. 17487 was specifically intended to provide facilities for the 
dependents of persons working on the construction of the Dworshak Dam 
and Reservoir project.

Smithsonian-affiliated Buildings

Sec. 46.19 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Interior and Insular Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill providing 
    for the construction of a National Air Museum for the Smithsonian 
    Institution.

    On July 2, 1958,(7) Clair Engle, of California, Chairman 
of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, asked unanimous 
consent that the bill (S. 1985), be rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works, ``it having been erroneously referred to the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 12941, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, unanimous consent was granted.

Sec. 46.20 In the 90th Congress, the Committee on Public Works and not 
    the Committee on House Administration reported a measure 
    authorizing the trustees of the Smithsonian Institution to 
    construct, with privately donated funds, an annex to the

[[Page 2995]]

    National Gallery of Art on a site previously earmarked for that 
    purpose by the Congress.

    On Apr. 10, 1968,(8) Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, 
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 16358), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 9553, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Executive Communication No 1579, 
transmitting a draft bill on this subject to the Congress, was not 
rereferred from the Committee on House Administration along with the 
bill since it contained information regarding the gallery which, as 
part of the Smithsonian, is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
House Administration. Matters pertaining to the actual construction of 
Smithsonian buildings are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Public Works. Matters pertaining to the management of the Institution 
are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on House 
Administration.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The rules [Rule XI clause 16(d) House Rules and Manual Sec. 713 
        (1973)] provide that the Committee on Public Works has 
        jurisdiction over ``measures relating to the construction or 
        reconstruction, maintenance, and care of the buildings and 
        grounds of the Botanic Gardens, the Library of Congress, and 
        the Smithsonian Institute.''
            The rules provide also [Rule XI clause 9(e), House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 693 (1973)] that the Committee on House 
        Administration has jurisdiction ``except as provided in clause 
        16(d) [over] matters relating to the Smithsonian Institution.. 
        . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revolving Funds for Regional Power Administrations

Sec. 46.21 In the 86th Congress, the Committee on Public Works and not 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had jurisdiction of 
    proposed legislation dealing with the establishment of revolving 
    type funds in the Treasury for the Southeastern and Southwestern 
    Power Administrations.

    On July 2, 1959,(10) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of an executive communication (Exec. Comm. No. 1109), and 
to have that communication re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 12629, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2996]]

referred to the Committee on Public Works.

Stream Pollution Control

Sec. 46.22 The Committee on Rivers and Harbors (now the Committee on 
    Public Works), and not the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce had jurisdiction of a bill to create a Division of Stream 
    Pollution Control in the Bureau of Public Health Service.

    On June 8, 1936,(11) Sam Rayburn, of Texas, Chairman of 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, obtained unanimous 
consent to have the bill (H.R. 12764), rereferred from his committee to 
the Committee on Rivers and Harbors (now the Committee on Public 
Works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 80 Cong. Rec. 9241, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water Resources Conservation and Development

Sec. 46.23 A Presidential message pertaining to the need for regional 
    conservation and development of national water resources was, on 
    motion, referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors (now the 
    Committee on Public Works) after a motion to refer to the Committee 
    on Flood Control was withdrawn following rejection of the previous 
    question.

    On June 3, 1937,(12) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, laid before the House the following message from President 
Franklin D. Roosevelt:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 5296, 5297, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.

    To the Congress of the United States:

        Nature has given recurrent and poignant warnings through dust 
    storms, floods, and droughts that we must act while there is yet 
    time if we would preserve for ourselves and our posterity the 
    natural sources of a virile national life. . . .
        For instance, our recent experiences of floods have made clear 
    that the problem must be approached as one involving more than 
    great works on main streams at the places where major disasters 
    threaten to occur. There must also be measures of prevention and 
    control among tributaries and throughout the entire headwaters 
    areas. A comprehensive plan of flood control must embrace not only 
    downstream levees and floodways and retarding dams and reservoirs 
    on major tributaries but also smaller dams and reservoirs on the 
    lesser tributaries, and measures of applied conservation throughout 
    an entire drainage area, such as restoration of forests and grasses 
    on inferior lands, and encouragement of farm practices which 
    diminish run-off and prevent erosion on arable lands. . . .

[[Page 2997]]

        It is also well to remember that improvements of our national 
    heritage frequently confer special benefits upon regions 
    immediately affected, and a large measure of cooperation from State 
    and local agencies in the undertaking and financing of important 
    projects may fairly be asked for. . . .
        I think, however, that for the time being we might give 
    consideration to the creation of seven regional authorities or 
    agencies--one on the Atlantic seaboard; a second for the Great 
    Lakes and Ohio Valley; a third for the drainage basin of the 
    Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers; a fourth embracing the drainage 
    basins of the Missouri River and the Red River of the North; a 
    fifth embracing the drainage basins of the Arkansas, Red, and Rio 
    Grande Rivers; a sixth for the basins of the Colorado River and 
    rivers flowing into the Pacific south of the California-Oregon 
    line; and a seventh for the Columbia River Basin. And, in addition, 
    I should leave undisturbed the Mississippi River Commission, which 
    is well equipped to handle the problems immediately attending the 
    channel of that great river. . . .
        Such regional bodies would also provide a useful mechanism 
    through which consultation among the various governmental agencies 
    working in the field could be effected for the development of 
    integrated programs of related activities. Projected programs would 
    be reported by the regional bodies annually to the Congress through 
    the President after he has had the projects checked and revised in 
    light of national budgetary considerations and of national planning 
    policies. When the national planning board is established I should 
    expect to use that agency to coordinate the development of regional 
    planning to insure conformity to national policy, but not to give 
    to the proposed national planning board any executive authority 
    over the construction of public works or over management of 
    completed works. . . .
        For nearly a year I have studied this great subject intensively 
    and have discussed it with many of the Members of the Senate and 
    the House of Representatives. My recommendations in this message 
    fall into the same category as my former recommendation relating to 
    the reorganization of the executive branch of the Government. I 
    hope, therefore, that both of these important matters may have your 
    attention at this session.
                                            Franklin D. Roosevelt.
                                    The White House, June 3, 1937.

    Although William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, Chairman of the 
Committee on Flood Control, moved that the President's message be 
referred to his committee,(13) the previous question on that 
motion was subsequently voted down.(14) Shortly thereafter, 
Mr. Whittington withdrew his motion, after which Joseph J. Mansfield, 
of Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors (now the 
Committee on Public Works), moved that the message be referred to his 
committee. The latter motion was agreed to.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 5297.
14. Id. at p. 5306.
15. Id. at p. 5307.

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

[[Page 2998]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Flood Control and the 
Committee on Rivers and Harbors were both incorporated into the present 
day Committee on Public Works. Had Mr. Whittington not withdrawn his 
motion to refer, Mr. Mansfield would have been obliged to offer an 
amendment to that motion to accomplish his purpose.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-48]                         

[Page 2998-3004]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 47. Committee on Science and Astronautics

    The Committee on Science and Astronautics was established on July 
21, 1958,(16) although it did not commence operations until 
January 1959. The committee was vested with jurisdiction formerly 
accorded a Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration 
established the previous March,(1) as well as the subject of 
science scholarships and matters relating to the Bureau of Standards 
(transferred from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce).(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 104 Cong. Rec. 14513, 14514, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. The name of the 
        committee was changed to the Committee on Science and 
        Technology effective Jan. 3, 1975. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 
        34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974.
 1. After the new standing committee was created, no Members were 
        elected to it during the remainder of the second session of the 
        85th Congress. The Members appointed to the select committee 
        continued to serve on that committee until the end of the 
        session.
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 719 (1973). See House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 687 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that, initially, the committee's primary purpose 
was to oversee the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
and the nonmilitary national space program.(3) Indeed,

        [O]ne of the major legislative problems involved in creating 
    NASA was to distinguish the aeronautical and space activities to be 
    conducted by NASA from those to be conducted by the Department of 
    Defense. This distinction was made in the Act by excluding 
    ``activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the 
    development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense 
    of the United States (including the research and development 
    necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United 
    States) . . .'' (42 U.S. Code, sec. 2451(b)).(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Spencer M. Beresford, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House 
        of Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 135.
 4. Id. at p. 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Astronau

[[Page 2999]]

tics pursuant to the 1973 rules (5) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XI clause 18, House Rules and Manual Sec. 718 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause l(r), House Rules and Manual Sec. 687 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Astronautical research and development, including 
    resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.
        (b) Bureau of Standards, standardization of weights and 
    measures and the metric system.
        (c) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
        (d) National Aeronautics and Space Council.
        (e) National Science Foundation.
        (f) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
        (g) Science Scholarships.
        (h) Scientific research and development.

    Pursuant to its responsibilities, the committee oversees and 
reports the annual authorization bills for the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.
    The committee has reported on such subject matters as: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Spencer M. Beresford, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House 
        of Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) International space cooperation;
        (2) Ocean and atmospheric sciences;
        (3) Satellite programs (weather, communications, earth 
    resources);
        (4) Science fellowships and research grants;
        (5) Science policy;
        (6) Scientific and technical manpower; and
        (7) Technology assessment.

    Further insight into the committee's jurisdictional expanse is seen 
in the following list of legislative subject categories: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. This list was prepared by the staff of the Select Committee on 
        Committees [enumeration added].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) Measurement systems;
        (2) Metric system;
        (3) Research and development: (a) Aeronautical (by or for the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Civil Aviation); (b) 
    Astronautical, generally; and (c) Scientific (except that required 
    for the national defense);
        (4) Science and technology;
        (5) Science fellowships;
        (6) Science policy;
        (7) Science scholarships;
        (8) Scientific centers;
        (9) Scientific measurements and observations;
        (10) Scientific programs;
        (11) Scientific resources including manpower;
        (12) Space, outer (Control, exploration, space programs);
        (13) Technology assessment; and
        (14) Weights and measures.

    As the precedents reveal, the committee's jurisdiction has extended 
to such matters as the establishment of a Council on Environmental 
Quality,(8) expression of congressional support for an inter

[[Page 3000]]

national biological program,(9) and U.S. participation in 
the World Science Pan-Pacific Exposition.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sec. 47.2, infra.
 9. Sec. 47.3, infra.
10. Sec. 47.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be borne in mind, moreover, that the focal point of the 
committee's jurisdiction has shifted over the years from primary 
concern with astronautical matters to a far broader emphasis on 
scientific research and development, in general. Thus, the committee 
has recently reported on such matters as computer technology and 
genetic engineering. And, of course, as new technological advances take 
place, the committee's jurisdiction expands, accordingly.
    In 1973, the committee maintained the following six subcommittees:

        (1) Subcommittee on Aeronautics and Space Technology;
        (2) Subcommittee on Energy;
        (3) Subcommittee on International Cooperation in Science and 
    Space;
        (4) Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight;
        (5) Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development;
        (6) Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications.

    The Subcommittees on Aeronautics and Space Technology, Manned Space 
Flight, and Space Science and Applications were fundamentally concerned 
with NASA and its authorization bills. The Subcommittee on Science, 
Research, and Development dealt with authorizing legislation for the 
National Science Foundation. The Subcommittees on Energy and 
International Cooperation in Science and Space were largely 
investigative and nonlegislative in nature.
    In the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, the Committee on 
Science and Technology obtained legislative jurisdiction over civil 
aviation research and development, environmental research and 
development, energy research and development (except nuclear research 
and development which remained with the Joint Committee on Atomic 
Energy), and the National Weather Service. The amendments also vested 
in the committee oversight jurisdiction over all laws, programs and 
government activities involving nonmilitary research and 
development.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the legislative jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Atomic 
Energy was abolished in the 95th Congress, the Committee on Science and 
Technology obtained jurisdiction over all energy re

[[Page 3001]]

search and development, including nuclear research and 
development.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53-70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
        1977. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creation of the Committee; Acquisition of Functions of Other Committees

Sec. 47.1 Transferring certain functions of the Committees on Armed 
    Services and Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the House amended its 
    rules to create a new standing committee to take over and continue 
    the work started by the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space 
    Exploration to be known as the ``Committee on Science and 
    Astronautics.''

    On July 21, 1958,(1) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, who, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 580 and asked for its 
immediate consideration. The resolution was read by the Clerk, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 104 Cong. Rec. 14513, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives are 
    hereby amended as follows:
        Rule X, clause 1, is hereby amended by inserting after (p) the 
    following:
        ``(q) Committee on Science and Astronautics, to consist of 25 
    members.'' . . .
        Rule XI, clause 11, is hereby amended to read as follows:
        ``11. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        ``(a) Interstate and foreign commerce generally.
        ``(b) Civil aeronautics.
        ``(c) Inland waterways.
        ``(d) Interstate oil compacts and petroleum and natural gas, 
    except on the public lands.
        ``(e) Public health and quarantine.
        ``(f) Railroad labor and railroad retirement and unemployment, 
    except revenue measures relating thereto.
        ``(g) Regulation of interstate and foreign communications.
        ``(h) Regulation of interstate and foreign transportation, 
    except transportation by water not subject to the jurisdiction of 
    the Interstate Commerce Commission.
        ``(i) Regulation of interstate transmission of power, except 
    the installation of connections between Government waterpower 
    projects.
        ``(j) Securities and exchanges.
        ``(k) Weather Bureau.''
        Rule XI is further amended by inserting after clause 16 the 
    following:
        ``17. Committee on Science and Astronautics.
        ``(a) Astronautical research and development, including 
    resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.
        ``(b) Bureau of Standards, standardization of weights and 
    measures, and the metric system.

[[Page 3002]]

        ``(c) National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.
        ``(d) National Science Foundation.
        ``(e) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
        ``(f) Science scholarships.
        ``(g) Scientific research and development.''

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Bolling offered this amendment:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bolling: On page 2, line 24, strike 
    out line 24 through the remainder of the resolution and in lieu 
    thereof insert the following:
        ``(c) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
        ``(d) National Aeronautics and Space Council.
        ``(e) National Science Foundation.
        ``(f) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
        ``(g) Science Scholarships.
        ``(h) Scientific research and development.''

    Referring to the amendment, he stated that it was ``in effect a 
perfecting amendment so that the language of the resolution which 
establishes the new committee will conform to the act which is to 
become law, which was passed by both the House and the other body last 
week establishing this National Administration on Aeronautics and 
Science. This is to make the rules of the House conform to this act 
which is about to become law.''
    Asked to elaborate further with respect to the resolution itself, 
Mr. Bolling explained that it amended the rules of the House to provide 
for the establishment of a new standing legislative committee to be 
known as the Committee on Science and Astronautics. The committee would 
consist of 25 members and would have jurisdiction over the exploration 
and control of outer space and astronautic research and development, 
including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.
    The standing committee would take over, and continue, the work 
started by the House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space 
Exploration. Certain functions of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce and the Armed Services Committee would be transferred 
to this committee; namely legislation relating to the scientific 
agencies--the Bureau of Standards, the National Advisory Committee for 
Aeronautics and the National Science Foundation. The chairmen of the 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and the Armed Services 
Committee agreed with these proposed transfers. The committee would 
also cooperate with the Executive in the operation of the Space Agency.
    Further discussion of the resolution proceeded briefly, after which 
the Chair put the question on the

[[Page 3003]]

amendment which was agreed to, and the resolution, as amended, was then 
agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 14514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Mar. 5, 1958,(~3~) the House 
passed House Resolution 496, creating the Select Committee on 
Astronautics and Space Exploration, consisting of 13 members authorized 
and directed to conduct a complete study and investigation ``with 
respect to all aspects and problems relating to the exploration of 
outer space and the control, development, and use of astronautical 
resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.'' House Resolution 496 
directed the select committee to report to the House by June 1, 1958, 
or the earliest practical date thereafter, but not later than Jan. 3, 
1959. After the new standing committee was created, no Members were 
elected to it nor were any bills referred to it during the remainder of 
the second session of the 85th Congress. The Members appointed to the 
select committee continued to serve on that committee until the end of 
the session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 3443, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishing Council on Environmental Quality

Sec. 47.2 Under the rules in effect in the 90th Congress, the Committee 
    on Science and Astronautics and not the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs had jurisdiction of a bill to establish a Council 
    on Environmental Quality to study environmental changes and their 
    effect on man.

    On Apr. 17, 1967,(4) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 7796), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Science and Astronautics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 9708, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Biological Program

Sec. 47.3 In the 91st Congress, the Committee on Science and 
    Astronautics and not the Committee on Foreign Affairs had 
    jurisdiction of a joint resolution expressing the support of 
    Congress for the international biological program, established 
    under the auspices of the International Council of Scientific 
    Unions and sponsored in the United States by the National Academy 
    of Sciences.

[[Page 3004]]

    On Apr. 29, 1969,(5) Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, 
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 589), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Science and Astronautics.(~6~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 10745, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. H.J. Res. 589 was reported by the Committee on Science and 
        Astronautics on June 11, 1969 (H. Rept. No. 91-302).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Science Pan-Pacific Exposition

Sec. 47.4 The Committee on Science and Astronautics and not the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs had jurisdiction of bills, messages, 
    and communications dealing with the participation of the United 
    States in the World Science Pan-Pacific Exposition.

    On June 24, 1959,(7) Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, 
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bills (H.R. 7431, H.R. 7434, H.R. 7435, H.R. 7436, H.R. 7438, H.R. 
7440, and H.R. 7443), and to have them rereferred to the Committee on 
Science and Astronautics. Immediately thereafter, a message from the 
President was similarly referred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 11810, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-49]                         

[Page 3004-3005]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 48. Committee on Small Business

    The Committee on Small Business was created as a standing committee 
effective Jan. 3, 1975, with the adoption of the Committee Reform 
Amendments of 1974.(8) Paragraph (1) of its jurisdiction was 
transferred from the Committee on Banking and Currency, and paragraph 
(2) was transferred mainly from the Committee on the Judiciary:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975. See Rule X clause 1(s), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 688 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (s) Committee on Small Business.
        (1) Assistance to and protection of small business, including 
    financial aid.
        (2) Participation of small-business enterprises in Federal 
    procurement and Government contracts.
        In addition to its legislative jurisdiction under the preceding 
    provisions of this paragraph (and its general oversight function 
    under clause 2(b)(1)), the committee shall have the special

[[Page 3005]]

    oversight function provided for in clause 3(g) with respect to the 
    problems of small business.

    The committee's oversight jurisdiction [Rule X clause 3(g), House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1979)], reads as follows:

        (g) The Committee on Small Business shall have the function of 
    studying and investigating, on a continuing basis, the problems of 
    all types of small business.

    The standing committee was the successor to the permanent Select 
Committee on Small Business, which had been incorporated into the rules 
as a permanent select committee, but without legislative jurisdiction, 
in the 92d Congress; (9) prior to that time, a Select 
Committee on Small Business had been created by separate House 
resolution in each Congress since 1941.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 5, 117 Cong. Rec. 134-144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 
        1971.
10. See H. Res. 294, 87 Cong. Rec. 9418-28, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 
        4, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-50]                         

[Page 3005-3020]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 49. Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

    The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was established on 
Apr. 13, 1967,(11) with instructions to ``recommend as soon 
as practicable . . . such changes in laws, rules, and regulations, as 
the committee deems necessary to establish and enforce standards of 
official conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the House.'' 
The committee became a permanent standing committee on Apr. 3, 
1968,(12) at which time its jurisdiction was redefined, and 
a code of ``Official Conduct'' and provisions for ``Financial 
Disclosure'' were made part of the House rules. On July 8, 
1970,(13) the committee was granted certain legislative and 
investigative authority over the subjects of lobbying and the reporting 
of campaign contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 9448, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (H. Res. 418).
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 8812, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (H. Res. 1099).
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 23136, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (H. Res. 1031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
pursuant to the 1973 rules (l4) and the procedures which 
governed the exercise of that jurisdiction were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XI clause 19, House Rules and Manual Sec. 720 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(t), House Rules and Manual Sec. 689 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Measures relating to the Code of Official Conduct.
        (b) Measures relating to financial disclosure by Members, 
    officers, and employees of the House of Representatives.

[[Page 3006]]

        (c) Measures relating to activities designed to (1) assist in 
    defeating, passing, or amending any legislation by the House or (2) 
    influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any 
    legislation by the House.

        (d) Measures relating to the raising, reporting, and use of 
    campaign contributions for candidates for the office of 
    Representative in the House of Representatives and of Resident 
    Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico.
        (e) The committee is authorized (1) to recommend to the House 
    of Representatives, from time to time, such legislative or 
    administrative actions as the committee may deem appropriate to 
    establish or enforce standards of official conduct for Members, 
    officers, and employees of the House of Representatives; (2) to 
    investigate, subject to paragraph (f) of this clause, any alleged 
    violation, by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives, of the Code of Official Conduct or of any law, 
    rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the 
    conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the performance of 
    his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities and, after 
    notice and a hearing, shall recommend to the House of 
    Representatives, by resolution or otherwise, such action as the 
    committee may deem appropriate in the circumstances; (3) to report 
    to the appropriate Federal or State authorities, with approval of 
    the House of Representatives, any substantial evidence of a 
    violation, by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives, of any law applicable to the performance of his 
    duties or the discharge of his responsibilities, which may have 
    been disclosed in a committee investigation; and (4) to give 
    consideration to the request of a Member, officer, or employee of 
    the House of Representatives, for an advisory opinion with respect 
    to the general propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such 
    Member, officer, or employee and, with appropriate deletions to 
    assure the privacy of the individual concerned, to publish such 
    opinion for the guidance of other Members, officers, and employees 
    of the House of Representatives.
        (f)(1) No resolution, report, recommendation, or advisory 
    opinion relating to the official conduct of a Member, officer, or 
    employee of the House of Representatives shall be made, and no 
    investigation of such conduct shall be undertaken, unless approved 
    by the affirmative vote of not less than seven members of the 
    committee. (2) Except in the case of an investigation undertaken by 
    the committee on its own initiative, the committee may undertake an 
    investigation relating to the official conduct of an individual 
    Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives only 
    (A) upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and under oath, made by 
    or submitted to a Member of the House of Representatives and 
    transmitted to the committee by such Member, or (B) upon receipt of 
    a complaint, in writing and under oath, directly from an individual 
    not a Member of the House of Representatives if the committee finds 
    that such complaint has been submitted by such individual to not 
    less than three Members of the House of Representatives who have 
    refused, in writing, to transmit such complaint to the committee. 
    (3) No investigation shall be undertaken of any alleged violation 
    of a law,

[[Page 3007]]

    rule, regulation, or standard of conduct not in effect at the time 
    of the alleged violation. (4) A member of the committee shall be 
    ineligible to participate, as a member of the committee, in any 
    committee proceeding relating to his official conduct. In any case 
    in which a member of the committee is ineligible to act as a member 
    of the committee under the preceding sentence, the Speaker of the 
    House of Representatives shall designate a Member of the House of 
    Representatives from the same political party as the ineligible 
    member of the committee to act as a member of the committee in any 
    committee proceeding relating to the official conduct of such 
    ineligible member.
        (g) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, acting as a 
    whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to conduct investigations 
    and studies, from time to time, of the laws, rules, regulations, 
    procedures, practices, and activities pertaining to (1) lobbying 
    activities as described in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 
    (c) of this clause, or (2) the raising, reporting, and use of 
    political campaign contributions as described in paragraph (d) of 
    this clause, or (3) both. Each such investigation and study may 
    include all pertinent matters which would assist the Congress in 
    connection with necessary remedial legislation. The committee may 
    obtain the views of all parties familiar with the subject matter 
    covered by the investigation and study. The committee shall report 
    to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in 
    session) the results of each such investigation and study, together 
    with such recommendations as the committee considers advisable.
        (h) For the purpose of carrying out the foregoing provisions of 
    this clause, the committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is 
    authorized to sit and act at such times and places within the 
    United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or 
    has adjourned, to hold such hearings, and to require, by subpena or 
    otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 
    production of such books, records, correspondence, memorandums, 
    papers, and documents, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be 
    issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any 
    member of the committee designated by him, and may be served by any 
    person designated by such chairman or member.

    Further insight into the jurisdiction of the committee may be 
obtained through examination of the rules establishing a code of 
conduct (15) and the financial disclosure 
requirements.(16) Measures relating to these matters were 
incorporated by reference as falling within the committee's 
realm.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XLIII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 939 (1979).
16. Rule XLIV, House Rules and Manual Sec. 940 (1979).
17. See Rule XI clauses 19(a), (b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 720 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973 the relevant provisions read as follows:

                                 Rule XLIII

                          code of official conduct

        There is hereby established by and for the House of 
    Representatives the following code of conduct, to be known as the 
    ``Code of Official Conduct'':

[[Page 3008]]

        1. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner 
    which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.
        2. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the 
    Rules of the House of Representatives and to the rules of duly 
    constituted committees thereof.
        3. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives shall receive no compensation nor shall he permit 
    any compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest from any 
    source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence 
    improperly exerted from his position in the Congress.
        4. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives shall accept no gift of substantial value, directly 
    or indirectly, from any person, organization, or corporation having 
    a direct interest in legislation before the Congress.
        5. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives shall accept no honorarium for a speech, writing 
    for publication, or other similar activity, from any person, 
    organization, or corporation in excess of the usual and customary 
    value for such services.
        6. A Member of the House of Representatives shall keep his 
    campaign funds separate from his personal funds. He shall convert 
    no campaign funds to personal use in excess of reimbursement for 
    legitimate and verifiable prior campaign expenditures. He shall 
    expend no funds from his campaign account not attributable to bona 
    fide campaign purposes.
        7. A Member of the House of Representatives shall treat as 
    campaign contributions all proceeds from testimonial dinners or 
    other fund raising events if the sponsors of such affairs do not 
    give clear notice in advance to the donors or participants that the 
    proceeds are intended for other purposes.
        8. A Member of the House of Representatives shall retain no one 
    from his clerk hire allowance who does not perform duties 
    commensurate with the compensation he receives.
        As used in this Code of Official Conduct of the House of 
    Representatives--(a) the terms ``Member'' and ``Member of the House 
    of Representatives'' include the Resident Commissioner from Puerto 
    Rico and each Delegate to the House; and (b) the term ``officer or 
    employee of the House of Representatives'' means any individual 
    whose compensation is disbursed by the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives.

                                 Rule XLIV

                            financial disclosure

        Members, officers, principal assistants to Members and 
    officers, and professional staff members of committees shall, not 
    later than April 30, 1969, and by April 30 of each year thereafter, 
    file with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct a report 
    disclosing certain financial interests as provided in this rule. 
    The interest of a spouse or any other party, if constructively 
    controlled by the person reporting, shall be considered to be the 
    same as the interest of the person reporting. The report shall be 
    in two parts as follows:

                                   part a

        1. List the name, instrument of ownership, and any position of 
    manage

[[Page 3009]]

    ment held in any business entity doing a substantial business with 
    the Federal Government or subject to Federal regulatory agencies, 
    in which the ownership is in excess of $5,000 fair market value as 
    of the date of filing or from which income of $1,000 or more was 
    derived during the preceding calendar year. Do not list any time or 
    demand deposit in a financial institution, or any debt instrument 
    having a fixed yield unless it is convertible to an equity 
    instrument.
        2. List the name, address, and type of practice of any 
    professional organization in which the person reporting, or his 
    spouse, is an officer, director, or partner, or serves in any 
    advisory capacity, from which income of $1,000 or more was derived 
    during the preceding calendar year.
        3. List the source of each of the following items received 
    during the preceding calendar year: (a) Any income for services 
    rendered (other than from the United States Government) exceeding 
    $5,000. (b) Any capital gain from a single source exceeding $5,000, 
    other than from the sale of a residence occupied by the person 
    reporting. (c) Reimbursement for expenditures (other than from the 
    United States Government) exceeding $1,000 in each instance. (d) 
    Honorariums from a single source aggregating $300 or more.
        4. List each creditor to whom the person reporting was indebted 
    for a period of ninety consecutive days or more during the 
    preceding calendar year in an aggregate amount in excess of 
    $10,000, excluding any indebtedness specifically secured by the 
    pledge of assets of the person reporting of appropriate value.
        Campaign receipts shall not be included in this report.
        Information filed under part A shall be maintained by the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and made available at 
    reasonable hours to responsible public inquiry, subject to such 
    regulations as the committee may prescribe including, but not 
    limited to, regulations requiring identification by name, 
    occupation, address, and telephone number of each person examining 
    information filed under part A, and the reason for each such 
    inquiry.
        The committee shall promptly notify each person required to 
    file a report under this rule of each instance of an examination of 
    his report. The committee shall also promptly notify a Member of 
    each examination of the reports filed by his principal assistants 
    and of each examination of the reports of professional staff 
    members of committees who are responsible to such Member.

                                   part b

        1. List the fair market value (as of the date of filing) of 
    each item listed under paragraph 1 of part A and the income derived 
    therefrom during the preceding calendar year.
        2. List the amount of income derived from each item listed 
    under paragraphs 2 and 3 of part A, and the amount of indebtedness 
    owed to each creditor listed under paragraph 4 of part A.
        The information filed under this part B shall be sealed by the 
    person filing and shall remain sealed unless the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct, pursuant to its investigative 
    authority, determines by a vote of not less than seven members of 
    the committee that the examination of such in

[[Page 3010]]

    formation is essential in an official investigation by the 
    committee and promptly notifies the Member concerned of any such 
    determination. The committee may, by a vote of not less than seven 
    members of the committee, make public any portion of the 
    information unsealed by the committee under the preceding sentence 
    and which the committee deems to be in the public interest.
        Any person required to file a report under this rule who has no 
    interests covered by any of the provisions of this rule shall file 
    a report, under part A only of this rule, so stating.
        In any case in which a person required to file a sealed report 
    under part B of this rule is no longer required to file such a 
    report, the committee shall return to such person, or his legal 
    representative, all sealed reports filed by such person under part 
    B and remaining in the possession of the committee.
        As used in this rule--(1) the term ``Members'' includes the 
    Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico and each Delegate to the 
    House; and (2) the term ``committees'' includes any committee or 
    subcommittee of the House of Representatives and any joint 
    committee of Congress, the expenses of which are paid from the 
    contingent fund of the House of Representatives.

    In the course of analyzing the scope of the committee's 
jurisdiction, it should be noted that the Committee on Rules is 
expressly excluded from responsibility over ``rules or joint rules 
relating to the Code of Official Conduct or relating to financial 
disclosure by a Member, officer, or employee of the House'' (in the 
95th Congress, the Committee on Rules regained jurisdiction over 
financial disclosure rules).(18) Thus, the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct has been charged with exclusive 
responsibilities in regard to the Code of Official Conduct (Rule 
XLIII). Secondly, the procedural safeguards which are incorporated in 
the rules significantly affect the committee's investigatory and 
advisory roles. Thus, no action--not even an advisory opinion--will be 
undertaken by the committee unless seven of its 12 members (the party 
ratio of which is one to one) choose to proceed. No complaint will be 
considered unless it is in writing, under oath, submitted or 
transmitted by a Member or unless its submission is made by a nonmember 
after its transmission has been rejected, in writing, by three Members. 
Moreover, no action not in violation of a law, rule, regulation, or 
standard at the time of its commission will be investigated. And, no 
member of the committee may partake in any proceeding relating to his 
own official conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XI clause 17(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1973) and 
        Rule X clause 1(q)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 686 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents indicate, the committee has issued advisory

[[Page 3011]]

opinions and reports pursuant to its responsibilities (19) 
and has also dealt with such matters as roll call irregularities and 
recommendations with respect thereto.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Ch. 12 Sec. Sec. 9.1, 10, 13.1, 15.2, and the appendix thereto, 
        supra.
20. 49.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 94th Congress, jurisdiction over the raising, reporting, and 
use of campaign contributions for candidates for the House was 
transferred to the Committee on House Administration.(1) And 
Special Committees to Investigate Campaign Expenditures are no longer 
created, since the Committee on House Administration, with jurisdiction 
over that subject, now has standing investigatory power as do other 
standing committees [Rule XI clause 2(m), House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 718 1979)].(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-22, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 
        1975.
 2. Rule XI clause 2(m) resulted from the adoption of the Committee 
        Reform Amendments of 1974, H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-
        70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 95th Congress, the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct over lobbying activities and over 
financial disclosure were removed from the committee, leaving it with 
jurisdiction over measures relating to the Code of Official Conduct and 
the special functions now provided in Rule X clause 4(e) (3) 
[transferred from Rule XI clause 19(e),(4) carried in full 
above]: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (1979).
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 720 (1973).
 5. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53-70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
        1977. The clause was transferred by the Committee Reform 
        Amendments of 1974, which also permitted a majority of the 
        committee, rather than seven members, to authorize an 
        investigation. Subparagraph (E) was added to the clause by H. 
        Res. 5, in the 95th Congress, to provide a mechanism for a 
        committee member to disqualify himself from participating in an 
        investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (e)(1) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is 
    authorized: (A) to recommend to the House from time to time such 
    administrative actions as it may deem appropriate to establish or 
    enforce standards of official conduct for Members, officers, and 
    employees of the House; (B) to investigate, subject to subparagraph 
    (2) of this paragraph, any alleged violation by a Member, officer, 
    or employee of the House, of the Code of Official Conduct or of any 
    law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to 
    the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the performance 
    of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities, and, after 
    notice and hearing, to recommend to the House by resolution or 
    otherwise, such action as the committee

[[Page 3012]]

    may deem appropriate in the circumstances; (C) to report to the 
    appropriate Federal or State authorities, with the approval of the 
    House, any substantial evidence of a violation, by a Member, 
    officer, or employee of the House, of any law applicable to the 
    performance of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities, 
    which may have been disclosed in a committee investigation; and (D) 
    to give consideration to the request of any Member, officer, or 
    employee of the House for an advisory opinion with respect to the 
    general propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such 
    Member, officer, or employee and, with appropriate deletions to 
    assure the privacy of the individual concerned, to publish such 
    opinion for the guidance of other Members, officers, and employees 
    of the House.

        (2)(A) No resolution, report, recommendation, or advisory 
    opinion relating to the official conduct of a Member, officer, or 
    employee of the House shall be made by the Committee on Standards 
    of Official Conduct, and no investigation of such conduct shall be 
    undertaken by such committee, unless approved by the affirmative 
    vote of a majority of the members of the committee.
        (B) Except in the case of an investigation undertaken by the 
    committee on its own initiative, the committee may undertake an 
    investigation relating to the official conduct of an individual 
    Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives only--
        (i) upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and under oath, 
    made by or submitted to a Member of the House and transmitted to 
    the committee by such Member, or
        (ii) upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and under oath, 
    directly from an individual not a Member of the House if the 
    committee finds that such complaint has been submitted by such 
    individual to not less than three Members of the House who have 
    refused, in writing, to transmit such complaint to the committee.
        (C) No investigation shall be undertaken by the committee of 
    any alleged violation of a law, rule, regulation, or standard of 
    conduct not in effect at the time of the alleged violation.
        (D) A member of the committee shall be ineligible to 
    participate, as a member of the committee, in any committee 
    proceeding relating to his or her official conduct. In any case in 
    which a member of the committee is ineligible to act as a member of 
    the committee under the preceding sentence, the Speaker of the 
    House shall designate a Member of the House from the same political 
    party as the ineligible member of the committee to act as a member 
    of the committee in any committee proceeding relating to the 
    official conduct of such ineligible member.
        (E) A member of the committee may disqualify himself from 
    participating in any investigation of the conduct of a Member, 
    officer, or employee of the House upon the submission in writing 
    and under oath of an affidavit of disqualification stating that he 
    cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision in the case in 
    which he seeks to disqualify himself. If the committee approves and 
    accepts such affidavit of disqualification, the chairman shall so 
    notify the Speaker and request the Speaker to designate a Member of 
    the House from the same political party as the disqualifying member 
    of the com

[[Page 3013]]

    mittee to act as a member of the committee in any committee 
    proceeding relating to such 
    investigation.

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

Lobbying Activities; Campaign Contributions

Sec. 49.1 The rules were amended to confer upon the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct jurisdiction over measures relating 
    to (1) lobbying activities affecting the House, and (2) raising, 
    reporting, and use of campaign contributions for candidates for the 
    House; the committee was also given authority to investigate those 
    matters and to report its findings to the House.

    On July 8, 1970,(6) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, William M. Colmer, Chairman of that committee, called up House 
Resolution 1031 and asked for its immediate consideration. The Clerk 
then read the resolution, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 23136, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That (a) clause 19 of rule XI of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives (7) is amended by inserting 
    immediately below paragraph (b) thereof the following new 
    paragraphs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. This clause defined the jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards 
        of Official Conduct [H. Jour. 1435, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. 
        (1969)] and did not then include [Rule XI clause 19, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 720 (1973)] paragraphs ``(c),'' ``(d),'' 
        and ``(g).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``(c) Measures relating to activities designed to (1) assist in 
    defeating, passing, or amending any legislation by the House or (2) 
    influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any 
    legislation by the House.
        ``(d) Measures relating to the raising, reporting, and use of 
    campaign contributions for candidates for the office of 
    Representative in the House of Representatives and of Resident 
    Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico.''.
        (b) Clause 19 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is further amended by inserting immediately below 
    paragraph (d) thereof the following new paragraph:
        ``(g) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, acting as 
    a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to conduct investigations 
    and studies, from time to time, of the laws, rules, regulations, 
    procedures, practices, and activities pertaining to (1) lobbying 
    activities as described in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 
    (c) of this clause, or (2) the raising, reporting, and use of 
    political campaign contributions as described in paragraph (d) of 
    this clause, or (3) both. Each such investigation and study may 
    include all pertinent matters which would assist the Congress in 
    connection with necessary remedial legislation. The committee may 
    obtain the views of all parties familiar with the subject matter 
    covered by the investigation and study. The com

[[Page 3014]]

    mittee shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if 
    the House is not in session) the results of each such investigation 
    and study, together with such recommendations as the committee 
    considers advisable.''.
        Sec. 2. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall 
    conduct its first investigation and study under authority of the 
    amendments made by the first section of this resolution during the 
    remainder of the Ninety-first Congress, and shall submit to the 
    House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in 
    session), at the earliest practicable date prior to the close of 
    the Ninety-first Congress, a report of the results of that 
    investigation and study. Such report shall contain such 
    recommendations as the committee considers advisable, including a 
    draft of proposed legislation to carry out such recommendations.

    As debate on the measure commenced, Mr. Colmer noted that the 
resolution comprised part of the entire congressional reorganization 
effort:

        One of the facets of this reorganization program was the 
    question of amending the House rules with reference to lobbying 
    activities. This matter gave your rules committee, and particularly 
    the subcommittee, considerable concern. It was finally decided that 
    because of the depth and the complexity of the matter that the 
    appropriate place for the lobbying provision was in the Standing 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
        So, primarily, this resolution authorizes the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct to make a study of this matter and 
    report back to the Congress by the end of this session. It also 
    provides that the subject of campaign contributions shall likewise 
    be studied and a report made back to this Congress by the Committee 
    on Standards of Official Conduct.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, further 
elaborated on the position of the Committee on Rules in recommending 
the proposed jurisdictional change: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 23137, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There are several reasons why the Committee on Rules believes 
    that the jurisdiction over both the Federal lobby statute, as well 
    as over campaign fund raising and usage, should be vested in the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. First, in its short 
    period of existence, the committee has proven itself to be more 
    than able in discharging its present responsibilities. Second, 
    matters contained in this resolution are of a nature as to clearly 
    fall within the natural jurisdiction of that committee, and they 
    are so interrelated that divided jurisdiction over them cannot be 
    effectively discharged. Additionally, by vesting this jurisdiction 
    with the committee, the House will be giving this important matter 
    to a committee which does not have substantial duties in other 
    areas that could compete for its energies and time.

        Further, the committee has an able and adequate staff and 
    sufficient office space to assume this additional responsibility. 
    In addition, it is a bipartisan

[[Page 3015]]

    committee from the standpoint of its membership--there being six 
    Democrats and six Republicans. It also has adequate provisions to 
    maintain confidential information.
        The resolution also requires that during the remainder of the 
    91st Congress a study and investigation shall be conducted, and a 
    report containing ``such recommendations as the committee considers 
    advisable, including a draft of proposed legislation to carry out 
    such recommendations'' must be made to the House. The Committee on 
    Rules has recommended this provision because of the need to bring 
    the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act up to date now, rather than 
    later.

    As the debate proceeded, several Members proposed questions 
regarding the jurisdiction to be accorded the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct pursuant to the resolution. Mr. Durward G. Hall, of 
Missouri, for one, prompted the following exchange with B. F. Sisk, of 
California, Chairman of the Committee on Rules' Subcommittee on the 
Reorganization of Congress: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 23137, 23138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Mr. Speaker,(10) I would like to ask the 
    gentleman about the language on page 2 of House Resolution 1031, 
    beginning about on line 7, where it says the Committee on Standards 
    of Official Conduct is delegated authority:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Hale Boggs (La.), Speaker pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            To conduct investigations and studies, from time to time, 
        of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, practices, and 
        activities pertaining to (1) lobbying activities as described 
        in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph (c) of this clause, 
        or

        Mr. Speaker, in the gentleman's opinion does that also apply to 
    and permit such studies and investigations--by which I presume the 
    committee means surveillance and review and oversight--of executive 
    agencies that might be lobbying the legislative branch? To point 
    this up, I have an old telegram in my hand here from a certain 
    department, which is not only a threat that unless Congress acts 
    certain things will happen; but it also states that the executive 
    branch will make certain recommendations to do or not to do certain 
    things to the interest of our constituents, if Congress does not 
    act within such a time in a certain and allegedly proper way.
        This is, of course, a telegram paid for at the taxpayers' 
    expense in direct violation of existing law. I, for one, would 
    certainly hope it would be in the purview of this new committee 
    under this resolution, and that the gentleman would so indicate at 
    this time, in order to preclude such lobbying activities of the 
    legislative branch by the executive.
        Is that the gentleman's interpretation of the intent?
        Mr. Sisk: Let me thank my colleague from Missouri very much for 
    the statement he has made. I join him in his concern about some of 
    the activities which he has discussed.
        It is my understanding that his statement is correct, that the 
    language is sufficiently broad here to permit the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct to make a study and to look into that 
    phase of it and to make legis

[[Page 3016]]

    lative recommendations as to handling that part of what we might 
    call the executive lobbying, along with all other kinds and types 
    of lobbying.
        My answer would be ``yes,'' emphatically it would be my 
    understanding that is the intent of the language herein contained.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, expressed 
his reservations that House Resolution 103 would encroach upon the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration which committee 
he chaired:

        Under rule XI, section 9(k) relating to the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on House Administration the rule (11) reads:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Rule XI clause 9(k), House Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Measures relating to the election of the President, Vice 
        President, or Members of Congress; corrupt practices; contested 
        elections; credentials and qualifications; and Federal 
        elections generally.

        I believe the proposal, so far as the lobby is concerned, might 
    be in order, but I believe the rest is usurping the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on House Administration. We have a bill right now 
    before our committee relating to elections, campaign contributions 
    and expenditures and the reporting thereof. We have had hearings on 
    this subject. We intend to pursue it all the way through. We are 
    pursuing this under our assigned authority concerned with corrupt 
    practices of which contributions and expenditures are a part.
        Obviously the purpose of this resolution would encroach upon 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration.
        Mr. Sisk: If the gentleman will permit me to comment, of 
    course, it was certainly not the intention of the Committee on 
    Rules, or of the subcommittee, to invade in any sense the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration. As we 
    interpret the rule which the gentleman read, which I have before 
    me, there would be no jurisdictional question, at least in our 
    opinion.
        As the gentleman knows, the committee does have jurisdiction 
    over contested elections and over matters which arise therefrom, 
    and has a subcommittee which looks into these matters.

        Mr. Friedel: And also contributions and disbursements which are 
    within the Corrupt Practices Act.

    The discussion between Mr. Sisk and Mr. Friedel on this point 
continued with Mr. Sisk observing that:

        . . . It is not the intent of the subcommittee nor of the 
    Committee on Rules, as I understand it . . . to turn over to the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the matter of contested 
    elections or the matter of dealing specifically with elections of 
    the President and Vice President, et cetera, as listed here under 
    subsection (k). . . .
        On the other hand, it was the decision of the committee to turn 
    over to them the lobbying. The question then arose as to campaign 
    expenditures and possible ramifications, as would be of concern to 
    the American public as well as Members of Congress, as it might

[[Page 3017]]

    tie to lobbying activities. It was felt that these two items should 
    go together. . . .
        Again, as I say, there is no intent to invade or step on the 
    toes of our good friends on the Committee on House Administration.

    Mr. Friedel responded by suggesting that those provisions of the 
resolution which pertained to campaign contributions be struck from the 
measure ``because we have a reform bill before our [the Committee on 
House Administration's sub-] committee on Federal elections involving 
specifically the matters of contributions and expenditures, which was 
referred to our committee under the rules of the House.''
    Mr. Sisk replied, that:

        . . . [A]ll this resolution before us does is to call for the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to make a study, to make 
    an investigation of the subjects of lobbying and campaign 
    expenditures, and to report back to the House.

    He additionally stated ``. . . [I]f in their [the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct] recommendations they find that there 
might be a need for some changes in connection with campaign 
expenditures, that could very well be acted on legislatively by the 
gentleman's [Mr. Friedel] committee [the Committee on House 
Administration] either accepting or rejecting the recommendations.''
    At this juncture, Mr. John H. Kyl, of Iowa, a member of the 
Committee on House Administration, also expressed concern as to whether 
the passage of House Resolution 1031 might result in a duplication of 
jurisdictional authority. Mr. Kyl pointed out that before the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct could proceed with any investigation, 
the funds to be used would have to be approved by the Committee on 
House Administration. The latter committee, he added, maintained a firm 
policy of not providing funds for ``any investigation which is a 
duplication of another committee's investigation.'' Continuing the 
discussion on this point, Mr. Kyl prompted the following exchange: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 23139, 23140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kyl: The point I am trying to make is unless this bill also 
    removes authority from the House Administration Committee, then the 
    House Administration Committee can in every instance deny funds for 
    investigation, because the Committee on House Administration itself 
    is, under the rules, given authority to cover exactly the same 
    subject material.
        Mr. Smith of California: Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Sisk: Yes. I yield to the gentleman.

[[Page 3018]]

        Mr. Smith of California: Let us talk about what we are 
    discussing here for a minute. Let us read section (k) of the rule 
    we are referring to, rule 9:

            Measures relating to the election of the President, Vice 
        President, or Members of Congress; corrupt practices; contested 
        elections; credentials and qualifications; and Federal 
        elections generally.

        Let us read what this resolution does. This says:

            Measures relating to the raising, reporting, and use of 
        campaign contributions for candidates.

        It has to do with raising money and funds and giving effective 
    authority to investigate if they are contested. We are not changing 
    your authority at all. You are left in the same position. When we 
    change the rules and give the authority, they will have to get some 
    money to operate.
        Mr. Kyl: Will the gentleman yield further?
        Mr. Sisk: I am glad to yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Kyl: I would say to the other gentleman from California 
    that again I am not in contention with his desire. What I am trying 
    to indicate is unless your piece of legislation, your resolution, 
    does remove from the House Administration Committee certain 
    authority which it now has under the rules, they could effectively 
    block every anticipated effort of the Ethics Committee.
        Mr. Smith of California: I do not think so. That is not the way 
    I read it. I do not think that committee would do it. The 
    jurisdiction is clear. It is a changing of the rules of the House.
        Mr. Sisk: Let me make clear--
        Mr. Friedel: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Sisk: Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
        Mr. Friedel: This resolution embodies what the Committee on 
    House Administration is doing at the present time. They are 
    investigating these very matters. Of course, you can bring in 
    legislation to correct and reform things that are wrong. However, 
    we are doing it right now. It is a part of our basic jurisdiction 
    under the rules of the House, Rule XI, section 9(k) wherein 
    ``corrupt practices'' is spelled out, and campaign contributions 
    and expenditures, and the reporting thereof constitute an important 
    segment of the Corrupt Practices Act.

    In the course of the remaining discussion, no other jurisdictional 
issues were addressed. House Resolution 1031 was agreed to, 
unanimously, on a roll call vote.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 23140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Notwithstanding the passage of House 
Resolution 1031, the Committee on House Administration retains 
jurisdiction under the rules (1) over ``corrupt practices'' 
and ``Federal elections generally.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule X clause 1(j)(11), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roll Call Irregularities

Sec. 49.2 The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct informed the 
    Speaker of its inquiry into roll call

[[Page 3019]]

    irregularities, and of its recommendation for an improved recording 
    system in the House.

    On June 19, 1969,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, laid before the House the following communication from 
Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, and ranking minority member 
Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct which was read and referred to the Committee on House 
Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 16629, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Dear Mr. Speaker: On September 27, 1968 you referred to this 
    Committee a letter from the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
    reporting on his investigation of recording irregularities in roll 
    calls taken on September 9, 10, and 16, 1968. You stated, ``It 
    seems to me that the allegations set forth in the Clerk's (the 
    Clerk of the House) letter are matters that may come within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.'' 
    The Committee interpreted this referral as a request for it to move 
    on its own initiative as provided in the Rules of the House. 
    Accordingly on October 1, 1968, the Committee directed its staff to 
    inquire into these irregularities.
        The first phase of the inquiry sought to fix the responsibility 
    for the specific irregularities referred to in the letter from the 
    Clerk of the House. In pursuing this, the need became apparent for 
    an examination of roll call mechanics in general. The Committee now 
    has drawn certain conclusions with respect to the specific 
    irregularities but feels that until the institution of improved 
    recording procedures, which it previously has recommended, it 
    should continue to observe the working of the present system.
        With respect to the responsibility for the irregularities 
    referred, the Committee was satisfied that the Clerk of the House 
    accurately reported the information he received. But, after deeper 
    scrutiny of all facets of the situation, the Committee became 
    convinced that the tally clerk's explanation, that he had made the 
    specific erroneous entries ``at the request of'' another employee 
    was not accurate. The Committee verified that the errors did, in 
    fact, occur, but the most probable explanation is that the tally 
    clerk's response to the Clerk of the House was an instinctively 
    defensive reaction stemming from the complete state of exhaustion 
    which he was experiencing at the time.

        In the Committee's belief, several factors contributed to this 
    condition in the tally clerk. At a point when legislative activity 
    in the House was unusually high and with his assistant physically 
    incapacitated and off the job, the tally clerk assumed the full 
    burden of both positions. In the Committee's opinion, this burden 
    was beyond his physical capacity to perform with accuracy, and led 
    to impairment of his efficiency, culminating in the errors referred 
    to as well as several others which were disclosed at about that 
    time.
        The Committee therefore reaffirms its earlier interim finding 
    that neither the Member nor employees named in

[[Page 3020]]

    the original referral, nor any names subsequently disclosed, were 
    parties to any complicity in these errors.
        It may be argued that the tally clerk should have sought 
    assistance during this period. Undoubtedly he would have done so 
    had he recognized the effect the increasing work load was producing 
    in his performance.
        Addressing the larger matter of the entire system of tallying, 
    the Committee has made what it feels is the most detailed analysis 
    of the subject ever undertaken and has arrived at numerous 
    statistical conclusions. All of these support the conviction that 
    an unacceptably small percentage of the random error inherent in 
    the present system is subsequently corrected by the Members. While 
    these errors have had absolutely no effect on legislative results, 
    they should be eliminated to the greatest extent possible. Early 
    indications are that there has been some improvement in the 91st 
    Congress to date in the correction of errors but not enough to 
    obviate the need for a modernized system of roll call recording.
        In view of the foregoing, the Committee renews its earlier 
    recommendation for installation of a modernized voting system at 
    the earliest possible date.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-51]                         

[Page 3020-3025]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 50. Committee on Veterans' Affairs

    The Committee on Veterans' Affairs was created on Jan. 2, 1947, as 
part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,(3) and 
was accorded jurisdiction formerly held by the Committee on World War 
Veterans' Legislation (created in 1924),(4) the Committee on 
Invalid Pensions (created in 1831),(5) and the Committee on 
Pensions (created in 1825).(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 60 Stat. 812.
 4. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2077.
 5. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4258.
 6. Id. at Sec. 4260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1967,(7) jurisdiction over veterans' cemeteries 
administered by the Department of Defense was transferred to the 
committee from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 29566, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 20, 1967 (H. Res. 
        241).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973, the jurisdiction of the committee under the rules read as 
follows:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XI clause 20, House Rules and Manual Sec. 722 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause l(u), House Rules and Manual Sec. 690 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Veterans' measures generally.
        (b) Cemeteries of the United States in which veterans of any 
    war or conflict are or may be buried, whether in the United States 
    or abroad, except cemeteries administered by the Secretary of the 
    Interior.
        (c) Compensation, vocational rehabilitation, and education of 
    veterans.
        (d) Life insurance issued by the Government on account of 
    service in the armed forces.
        (e) Pensions of all the wars of the United States, general and 
    special.

[[Page 3021]]

        (f) Readjustment of servicemen to civil life.
        (g) Soldiers' and sailors' civil relief.
        (h) Veterans' hospitals, medical care, and treatment of 
    veterans.

    Further insight into the scope of the committee's jurisdiction is 
provided by the legislative subject categories list prepared by the 
staff of the Select Committee on Committees.(9) With respect 
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the list reads, as follows 
[enumeration added]:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Terrence T. Finn, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) Administration of the Veterans' Administration;
        (2) Veterans' cemeteries;
        (3) Veterans' compensation;
        (4) Veterans' education;
        (5) Veterans' employment;
        (6) Veterans' health care;
        (7) Veterans' housing;
        (8) Veterans' insurance;
        (9) Veterans' pensions;
        (10) Veterans' readjustment; and
        (11) Veterans' training.

    As the precedents reveal, the jurisdiction of the committee has 
also extended to such matters as the erection of headstones to mark 
honorary burial places for deceased and missing veterans; 
(10) veterans' civil liabilities; (11) survivors' 
death benefits; (12) and veterans' cemeteries not 
administered by the Secretary of the Interior.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sec. Sec. 50.3, 50.4, infra.
11. Sec. Sec. 50.1, 50.2, infra.
12. Sec. 50.6, infra.
13. Sec. 50.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee's oversight responsibilities revolve around the 
Veterans' Administration (VA) with particular emphasis on the 
administration of VA hospitals.
    In 1973, the committee maintained five subcommittees, as follows:

        (1) Subcommittee on Compensation;
        (2) Subcommittee on Education and Training;
        (3) Subcommittee on Hospitals;
        (4) Subcommittee on Housing;
        (5) Subcommittee on 
    Insurance.                          -------------------

Soldiers' and Sailor Civil Relief Act of 1940

Sec. 50.1 The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill to amend section 200 of 
    the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 to permit the 
    establishment of certain facts by a declaration under penalty of 
    perjury in lieu of an affidavit.

    On Feb. 4, 1959,(~14~) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 105 Cong. Rec. 1812, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3022]]

mittee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent to have his 
committee discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3313), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 3133 was reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on 
        Mar. 2, 1960 (H. Rept. No. 1309).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act 
of 1940 (16) was enacted in order to suspend temporarily the 
enforcement of civil liabilities, in certain cases, of persons in the 
military service in order to enable such individuals to devote their 
entire energy to the defense needs of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Pub. L. No. 76-861, 54 Stat. 1178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 50.2 The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of bills pertaining to the 
    Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (1) to provide that 
    it shall not apply to divorce proceedings, (2) to render sections 
    200(1) and 200(2) inapplicable to future actions and proceedings 
    relating to default judgments, and (3) to amend it so as to 
    guarantee to persons after their period of military service certain 
    rights with respect to employment.

    On Apr. 2, 1948,(1) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
obtained unanimous consent that the four bills described above (H.R. 
3137, H.R. 4580, regarding divorce proceedings, H.R. 3808, regarding 
default judgments, H.R. 582, with respect to employment), be rereferred 
from the Committee on Armed Services to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 94 Cong. Rec. 4070, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erection of Headstones; Payment Therefor

Sec. 50.3 The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill providing for the 
    erection of headstones for certain members of the armed forces 
    buried outside the United States, lost at sea, or reported missing 
    in the performance of duty.

    On Feb. 13, 1947,(2) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Armed Services 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 243), and to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 1001, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3023]]

have it rereferred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Sec. 50.4 The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of bills authorizing the Secretary 
    of War to furnish headstones to mark honorary burial places and 
    relating to the payment therefor.

    On Feb. 13, 1947,(3) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent to have the Committee on Armed Services 
discharged from further consideration of a bill (H.R. 1184), 
authorizing the furnishing of headstones and of a companion measure 
(H.R. 507), providing for the payment of such headstones. He 
additionally requested that both measures be referred to the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 1001, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Interest on Government Life Insurance Loans

Sec. 50.5 The Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation (now the 
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs), and not the Committee on Ways and 
    Means had jurisdiction of a bill to reduce the interest on loans on 
    U.S. Government (converted) life insurance.

    On Nov. 28, 1941,(4) Mr. Victor Wickersham, of Oklahoma, 
asked unanimous consent to have the bill (H.R. 6114), rereferred from 
the Committee on Ways and Means to the Committee on World War Veterans' 
Legislation (5) (now the Committee on Veterans' Affairs). In 
so doing, he stated that he had talked to the Chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, and there was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 87 Cong. Rec. 9248, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. At the time, the jurisdiction of the committee consisted of 
        subjects relating ``to war-risk insurance of soldiers, sailors, 
        and marines, and other persons in the military and naval 
        service of the United States during or growing out of the World 
        War, the United States Veterans' Bureau, the compensations, 
        allowances, and pensions of such persons and their 
        beneficiaries, and all legislation affecting them other than 
        civil service, public lands, adjusted compensations, and 
        private claims.'' Rule XI clause 40, H. Jour. 825, 77th Cong. 
        1st Sess. (1941)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

[[Page 3024]]

Survivors' Death Benefits for Military Retirees

Sec. 50.6 The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill ``To amend Sec. 102 of 
    the Servicemen's and Veterans' Survivor Benefits Act to provide 
    that all retired members of the uniformed services who served not 
    less than 25 years on active duty and who thereafter die shall be 
    considered to have died service-connected deaths.''

    On May 18, 1959,(6) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent to have his 
committee discharged from further consideration of the bill (H. R. 
1129), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 8273, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veterans' Cemeteries Not Administered by Secretary of the Interior

Sec. 50.7 The rules of the House were amended to transfer jurisdiction 
    over all veterans' cemeteries not administered by the Secretary of 
    the Interior from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to 
    the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

    On Oct. 20, 1967,(7) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, called up a resolution (H. 
Res. 241), and asked for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read 
the resolution; a quorum call followed, after which the House 
considered and agreed to the committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 29560, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution, with committee amendments, read as follows:

        Resolved, That clause 10 of rule XI (8) of the Rules 
    of the House of Representatives is amended by striking out 
    paragraph (h) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. At the time, Rule XI clause 10, prescribed the jurisdiction of the 
        Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Clause 10 (h) stated 
        [H. Jour. 1482, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966)] specifically: ``(h) 
        Military parks and battlefields; national cemeteries 
        administered by the Secretary of the Interior.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``(h) Military parks and battlefields.''
        Sec. 2. Clause 19 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives (9) is amended by inserting a new 
    subsection (b), as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. At the time, this clause [H. Jour. 1483, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. 
        (1966)] set forth the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
        Veterans' Affairs.

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

[[Page 3025]]

        ``(b) Cemeteries of the United States in which veterans of any 
    war or conflict are or may be buried, whether in the United States 
    or abroad, except cemeteries administered by the Secretary of the 
    Interior''.

    In the course of the ensuing discussion, Mr. James H. Quillen, of 
Tennessee, pointed out (10) that under the then-prevailing 
rules, no less than three committees (Veterans' Affairs, Interior and 
Insular Affairs, and Armed Services) possessed jurisdictional interests 
(11) in matters relating to national cemeteries. He noted 
that such cemeteries were distinguishable insofar as they belonged to 
one of two main categories; to wit, those which were in active use as 
burial grounds for military veterans, and those which were inactive for 
all practical purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 29562, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. See Sec. 40.16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the active cemeteries, he stated:

        . . . Those cemeteries still open and available for the burial 
    of our service men ought uniformly to be under the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. This committee is charged with 
    the overall direction and formulation of our national policy with 
    regard to our service veterans. The committee also deals on a 
    regular and day to day basis with the Veterans' Administration, the 
    agency which handles the matter of veteran burials.

    As the debate proceeded, Mr. E. Ross Adair, of Indiana, further 
explained the distinction between the types of cemeteries and the 
rationale behind the resolution: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 29563, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under this resolution the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will 
    assume legislative jurisdiction over all national cemeteries except 
    13 which are now administered by the Secretary of the Interior as a 
    part of the national park system. Seven of these cemeteries are 
    closed to further burials. These cemeteries are located in national 
    historical parks and battlefields. They are administered by the 
    National Park Service because their significance as national 
    monuments overshadows their importance as places of current burial. 
    Therefore, it seems appropriate that legislative jurisdiction over 
    this small group of national cemeteries should remain with the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

    After additional discussion, the resolution as amended was agreed 
to, unanimously, by roll call vote.(~13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 29566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-52]                         

[Page 3025-3032]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 51. Committee on Ways and Means

    The Committee on Ways and Means was established as a standing 
committee on Jan. 7, 1802,(14) at which time it held ju
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3026]]

risdiction over both revenue and appropriation bills, general oversight 
of the debt and the departments of government, and veterans' 
affairs.(15) Over time, some of this jurisdiction was 
transferred to other committees. In 1814, the Committee on Public 
Expenditures took over the subject of governmental departments; in 
1824, a Committee on Veterans' Affairs garnered that subject, and in 
1865, when the Committee on Appropriations was created and given 
jurisdiction over appropriation of the revenue, the Committee on Ways 
and Means' jurisdiction was largely restricted to revenue-raising 
measures, and the consideration of reports from the 
Treasury.(16) In 1880, the bonded debt of the United States 
formally became one of the committee's responsibilities. And, in 1947, 
by virtue of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,(17) 
the committee lost previously held jurisdiction over the subject of 
recesses and final adjournments to the Committee on Rules while the 
main elements of its jurisdiction were more fully defined and have 
remained part of the committee's mandate in 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Linda H. Kamm, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 154.
16. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4020.
17.  60 Stat. 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that the committee's revenue jurisdiction has 
extended to such subjects as transportation of dutiable goods, 
collection districts, ports of entry and delivery,(18~) 
customs unions, reciprocity treaties,(19) revenue relations 
of the United States with Puerto Rico,(20) the revenue bills 
relating to agricultural products generally, excepting 
oleomargarine,(1) and tax on cotton and grain futures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4026.
19. Id. at Sec. 4021.
20. Id. at Sec. 4025.
 1. Id. at Sec. 4022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee has long held jurisdiction over subjects relating to 
the Treasury of the United States and the deposit of public moneys  
although it failed to make good a claim to the subjects of ``national 
finances'' and ``preservation of the Government credit.'' 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at Sec. 4028.
 3. Id. at Sec. 4023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having once held jurisdiction over seal herds and other revenue-
producing animals in Alaska, the committee lost this jurisdiction to 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the 68th 
Congress.(4) The committee also used to report resolutions 
dis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1725, 1851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3027]]

tributing the President's annual message,(5) but the 
practice was discontinued as of the first session of the 64th 
Congress.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4030.
 6. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means pursuant to the 
1973 rules read as follows: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XI clause 21, House Rules and Manual Sec. 724 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1 (v), House Rules and Manual Sec. 691 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and 
    delivery.
        (b) National social security.
        (c) Reciprocal trade agreements.
        (d) Revenue measures generally.
        (e) Revenue measures relating to the insular possession.
        (f) The bonded debt of the United States.
        (g) The deposit of public moneys.
        (h) Transportation of dutiable goods.

    The following list of legislative subject categories provides some 
additional insight into the scope of the committee's jurisdiction 
beyond that specified in the rules (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Linda H. Kamm, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, pp. 150, 151 [enumeration and punctuation 
        added].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) Airport trust fund;
        (2) Highway trust fund;
        (3) National health insurance;
        (4) Public Debt;
        (5) Renegotiation;
        (6) Revenue sharing;
        (7) Social Security: (a) Disability insurance, (b) Maternal and 
    Child Health Care, (c) Medicaid, (d) Medicare, (e) Old Age and 
    Survivors' Insurance, (f) Public assistance, aid for families with 
    dependent children, (g) Public assistance, social services, (h) 
    Public assistance, supplemental security income for aged, blind and 
    disabled, and (i) Unemployment Compensation;
        (8) Taxes, corporate income;
        (9) Taxes, disability insurance fund;
        (10) Taxes, estate;
        (11) Taxes, excise;
        (12) Taxes, gift;
        (13) Taxes, individual income;
        (14) Taxes, interest equalization;
        (15) Taxes, old age and survivors' insurance fund;
        (16) Taxes, unemployment compensation;
        (17) Trade, adjustment assistance;
        (18) Trade, customs administration;
        (19) Trade, import control;
        (20) Trade, negotiating authority;
        (21) Trade, reciprocal agreements;
        (22) Trade, tariffs.

    In an effort to clarify the scope of its subject matter, the 
committee identified four main areas in its legislative activity report 
for the 92d Congress as comprising the major focus of its jurisdiction. 
Those areas (9) are, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Cited by Linda H. Kamm, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House 
        of Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, pp. 149, 150.

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

[[Page 3028]]

    1. Federal revenue measures generally. Included in this category 
are personal and corporate income taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes, 
gift taxes, miscellaneous taxes, and tax aspects of both the Highway 
and Airport Trust Funds. With respect to the trust funds, the committee 
prepares the revenue-generating provisions of law while the Committee 
on Public Works [for the Highway Trust Fund] and the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce [for the Airport Trust Fund] prepare 
the nontax aspects of the legislation. Aviation, including jurisdiction 
over the Airport Trust Fund, was transferred from the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce to the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation by the Committee Reform Amendments of 
1974.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
            The Committee on Ways and Means generates all revenue-
        raising legislation including payments into trust funds with 
        the exception of the railroad retirement fund. This fund is 
        within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The bonded debt of the United States. The Committee on Ways and 
Means provides the House with an overview of revenues, spending, and 
the financial stability of the Nation as a whole in conjunction with 
its legislative responsibilities in this area.
    3. National social security programs. The basic programs are:

        (a) Old-Age, Survivors' and Disability Insurance, which is the 
    basic Social Security program;
        (b) Medicare, which provides basic hospital benefits for people 
    over 65 and eligible disabled persons and voluntary medical 
    insurance for the elderly and disabled;
        (c) Medicaid, under which states receive grants-in-aid to help 
    pay for medical care for the poor;
        (d) Public assistance, including supplemental security income 
    for the aged, blind and disabled, aid to families with dependent 
    children, maternal and child health care and social services;
        (e) Unemployment Compensation, which involves trust funds in 
    each of the 50 states, includes programs for extended and emergency 
    benefits in times of high unemployment.

    Medicaid and other health care and programs supported by general 
revenues, as opposed to payroll deductions, were transferred to the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Supplemental medical 
benefits under part B title 18 of the Social Security Act, since 
neither financed from payrolls nor from general revenues but rather 
financed by deductions from payments to retired social security 
recipients, do

[[Page 3029]]

not fall within either committee's exclusive jurisdiction and have been 
a matter of joint jurisdiction since 1974. Work incentive programs 
within the Social Security Act were transferred to the Committee on 
Education and Labor, by the Committee Reform Amendments of 
1974.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Trade and tariff legislation. The committee's jurisdiction over 
tariffs stems from a period when they were a major source of revenue. 
Trade jurisdiction has included the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act and 
the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
    Much of the committee's oversight work involves the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Department of the Treasury 
although committee-sponsored legislation is administered by many 
departments. Also within the committee's oversight jurisdiction are the 
Tariff Commission and the Tax Court. In addition, the committee 
frequently consults with a number of departments in the course of 
preparing legislation. Examples of the latter would include the 
Departments of Agriculture on trade matters, Commerce on tariffs, 
Health, Education, and Welfare on social security and health, Interior 
on mining tax treatment and fishing trust funds, Labor on work 
incentives, State on trade and tariffs, Treasury on customs, taxes, 
trade, trust funds, and the economy, generally, and Transportation on 
highway and airport trust funds.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Linda H. Kamm, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents reveal, the committee's jurisdiction has also 
extended to such subjects as agricultural employment insofar as it 
relates to the Social Security Act,(13) codifying the 
internal revenue laws of the United States,(14) taxation 
aspects of the Civil Service Retirement Act,(15) directing 
the Secretary of State through a resolution of inquiry to transmit 
information about foreign trade agreements,(16) and 
providing a federal war service bonus for District of Columbia 
residents.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sec. Sec. 51.1, 51.2, infra.
14. Sec. 51.4, infra.
15. Sec. 51.3, infra.
16. Sec. 51.5, infra.
17. Sec. 51.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For many years, the Committee on Ways and Means conducted all 
business in the full committee and did not have established 
subcommittees. However, the Com

[[Page 3030]]

mittee Reform Amendments of 1974 required each standing committee that 
has more than 20 members to establish at least four subcommittees [Rule 
X clause 6(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 701(c) 
(1979)].(18) Since that time the committee has maintained 
subcommittees with legislative jurisdiction as well as an oversight 
subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-32, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., effective 
        Jan. 14, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the effects of the Committee Reform Amendments on the 
Committee on Ways and Means have heretofore been mentioned. In sum, the 
committee obtained jurisdiction over tax-exempt foundations and 
charitable trusts, and lost jurisdiction over: health care and 
facilities supported by general revenues; work incentive programs; 
general revenue sharing; and renegotiation (to the Committee on Banking 
and Currency).(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 
        1975.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agricultural Employment and the Social Security Act

Sec. 51.1 The Committee on Ways and Means and not the Committee on 
    Agriculture had jurisdiction of a bill to amend the Farm Credit Act 
    of 1933, as amended, and the Federal Farm Loan Act, as amended, to 
    provide that after a certain date, employment by production credit 
    associations and national farm loan associations would be covered 
    by the old-age and survivors insurance benefit provisions of the 
    Social Security Act.

    On June 18, 1947,(20) Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, obtained unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2415), and to have it referred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 7262, 7263, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 51.2 The Committee on Ways and Means and not the Committee on 
    Agriculture has jurisdiction of a bill to extend the period during 
    which income from agricultural labor and nursing services may be 
    disregarded by the states in making old-age assistance payments 
    without prejudicing their rights to grants-in-aid under the Social 
    Security Act

[[Page 3031]]

    On June 4, 1947,(21) Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, obtained unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(S. 1072), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 93 Cong. Rec. 6344, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
22. S. 1072 was reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on June 26, 
        1947 (H. Rept. No. 713).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Service Retirement Act and Annuity Taxation

Sec. 51.3 The Committee on Ways and Means and not the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a bill to amend the 
    Civil Service Retirement Act approved May 29, 1930, as amended, so 
    as to exempt annuity payments under such act from taxation.

    On Feb. 15, 1951,(23) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2575), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 97 Cong Rec. 1294, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. See 93 Cong. Rec. 209, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1947, where a 
        similar bill (H.R. 738), in an earlier Congress was directly 
        referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Codification of Internal Revenue Laws

Sec. 51.4 The Committee on Ways and Means and not the Committee on the 
    Revision of the Laws (now the Committee on the Judiciary), was, by 
    unanimous consent, granted jurisdiction of a bill to consolidate 
    and codify the internal revenue laws of the United States.

    On Jan. 18, 1939,(2) Robert L. Doughton, of North 
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, introduced the 
bill (H.R. 2762), and asked unanimous consent that it be referred to 
his committee. In so doing, he noted that the Chairman of the Committee 
on Revision of the Laws (now the Committee on the Judiciary), had no 
objection to this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 449, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous 
consent.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 2762 was reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on Jan. 
        20, 1939 (H. Rept. No. 6).

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

[[Page 3032]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: At the time, the Committee on Ways and 
Means had jurisdiction over matters relating ``to the revenue and such 
measures as purport to raise revenue and the bonded debt of the United 
States,'' (4) while the Committee on the Revision of the 
Laws had jurisdiction over subjects relating to ``the revision and 
codification of the statutes of the United States.'' (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Jour. 1118, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. (1939).
 5. Id. at p. 1119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foreign Trade Information--Resolutions of Inquiry

Sec. 51.5 The Committee on Ways and Means and not the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs had jurisdiction of a resolution of inquiry 
    directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House 
    information touching upon the failure of the Republics of Brazil 
    and Colombia to ratify certain trade agreements.

    On June 3, 1935,(6) Mr. Harold Knutson, of Minnesota, 
offered the resolution (H. Res. 236), which was referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 79 Cong. Rec. 8604, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.

Tax Incentives to Improve Economic Circumstances of Indians

Sec. 51.6 In the 88th Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means and not 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had jurisdiction of a 
    bill to improve the economic circumstances of Indians by, inter 
    alia, providing tax incentives (including deductions from gross 
    income under the Internal Revenue Code) for persons investing in 
    Indian property or furthering industrialization on Indian 
    reservations.

    On Feb. 1, 1964,(7) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 980), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 1582, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 3033]]



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-53]                         

[Page 3033-3046]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 52. History and Role


    The Committee on Rules has existed as part of the House committee 
structure since the First Congress.(8) It was established in 
1789 as a select committee; in the early years of the House, the 
Speaker appointed the committee in each Congress and the committee 
varied in size from three to nine members.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Some early Congresses created no Committee on Rules (the 6th, 15th, 
        16th, 18th, and 19th).
 9. Kravitz, Walter and Oleszek, Walter, ``A Short History of the 
        Development of the House Committee on Rules,'' Congressional 
        Research Service (June 18, 1995), Multilith JK 1015 I, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It became a standing committee of the House in 1880 and was 
constituted as a committee of five members with jurisdiction over ``all 
proposed action touching rules, joint rules, and order of business.'' 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 1858 until 1910, the Speaker served as a member of the 
committee.(11) In 1910, the rules were amended to prohibit 
this practice,(12) but the prohibition was removed from the 
rules in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at 4321.
12. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2047.
13. Pub. L. No. 79-610, 60 Stat. 812, Aug. 2, 1946, effective Jan. 2, 
        1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The size of the committee was increased to 15 members in the 87th 
Congress, and this size was maintained through the 92d 
Congress.(14) Effective Jan. 3, 1975, the rules of the House 
were amended to eliminate all reference to committee 
size,(15) and in the 94th Congress 16 members were elected 
to the committee from nominations submitted to the House from the 
respective party caucuses.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 127, 107 Cong. Rec. 1589, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 31, 
        1961. This increase in the committee's size was made part of 
        the rules in the 88th Congress. H. Res. 5, 109 Cong. Rec. 22, 
        88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963.
15. Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 8, 1974.
16. H. Res. 76, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 20, 1975; H. Res. 101, 94th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 28, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The essential portion of the present jurisdiction of the committee 
as set forth in Rule X clause 1(q) (over the rules, joint rules, order 
of business of the House, and recesses and final adjournments of the 
House) was first made effective Jan. 2, 1947,

[[Page 3034]]

by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.(17) The 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 gave the committee jurisdiction over 
emergency waivers of the reporting date required by that act for bills 
and resolutions authorizing new budget authority,(18) and 
this change was incorporated into the rules of the House effective Jan. 
3, 1975, by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Pub. L. No. 79-601, Sec. 121 [amending Rule XI (1) (p)], 60 Stat. 
        812, 828. Previous to the jurisdiction of the committee as 
        stated in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Sec. 53 
        of Rule XI provided ``All proposed action touching the rules, 
        joint rules, and order of business shall be referred to the 
        Committee on Rules.'' 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4321.
18. Pub. L. No. 93-344, Sec. 402(b), 88 Stat. 297, 318, July 12, 1974; 
        the provisions of Sec. 402 were made effective by that act with 
        respect to the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 1976.
19. H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules considered and reported the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, major portions of which were enacted as an exercise 
of the rulemaking power of the House (and of the Senate); 
(1) therefore proposals to amend that Act, as well as 
special orders waiving provisions of that Act, are within the 
jurisdiction of the committee. Since the committee has original 
jurisdiction over the ``rules and joint rules (other than rules or 
joint rules relating to the Code of Official Conduct)'', it has the 
authority to report to the House as privileged proposals to amend the 
standing rules. Propositions to make or change the rules of the 
House,(2) to create committees,(3) and to direct 
committees to undertake certain investigations (4) fall 
within
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Pub. L. No. 93-344, Sec. 904, 88 Stat. 297, 331.
 2. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6770, 6776: 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2047.
 3. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4322: 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2048.
 4. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4322-4324; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2048. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Pub. L. 
        No. 79-601, 60 Stat. 812, retained the traditional authority of 
        the Committee on Rules to report resolutions authorizing 
        investigations by House standing (as well as select) committees 
        and conferring subpena authority on those committees; during 
        consideration of that legislation in the House an amendment was 
        rejected to grant permanent subpena authority to all standing 
        committees. See 92 Cong. Rec. 10073, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 
        25, 1946. The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, H. Res. 988, 
        93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974, did however grant to all 
        standing committees the authority to conduct studies and 
        investigations and to issue subpenas, whether or not the House 
        was in session [Rule XI clause 2(m), effective Jan. 3, 1975].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3035]]

this jurisdiction. The committee also has general jurisdiction over 
statutory provisions changing the procedures of the House for 
consideration of resolutions or bills disapproving or approving 
proposed action by the executive branch or by other governmental 
authorities.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See the compilation of statutory provisions entitled ``A. 
        Resolutions which are privileged for consideration in the 
        House'' in `` `Congressional Disapproval' Provisions contained 
        in public laws'', House Rules and Manual Sec. 1013 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Committee on Rules has standing jurisdiction over 
permanent changes in the rules of the House, major changes in the rules 
have not always emanated from the committee but have on occasion been 
developed by other institutions within the House. For example, the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1346,(6) and the Committee 
Reform Amendments of 1974,(7) were reported or considered by 
select or joint committees created for that purpose (by resolutions 
reported from the Committee on Rules) and not directly by the Committee 
on Rules itself. In the 96th Congress, a Select Committee on Committees 
was created,(8) by a resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Pub. L. No. 79-601, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., 60 Stat. 812, Aug. 2, 
        1946. H. Con. Res. 18, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., reported by the 
        Committee on Rules on Jan. 16, 1945, created a joint committee 
        on the organization of Congress and was agreed to by both 
        Houses. S. 2177, which became the Legislative Reorganization 
        Act of 1946, was reported in the Senate and passed the House 
        (with amendments) on July 25, 1946. The Senate bill and House 
        amendment were the product of the joint committee, which filed 
        its report in the House on Mar. 4, 1946 (H. Rept. No. 79-1675).
 7. H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974 (effective Jan. 3, 
        1975). H. Res. 132, reported from the Committee on Rules on 
        Jan. 30, 1973, created a select committee to study the 
        operation and implementation of Rules X and XI (relating to 
        committees) of the House of Representatives; the resolution 
        passed the House on Jan. 31, 1973, and the select committee 
        considered and reported the Committee Reform Amendments (H. 
        Rept. No. 93-916).
 8. H. Res. 118, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., was reported from the Committee 
        on Rules on Feb. 28, 1979, and passed the House on Mar. 20, 
        1979; the resolution created a Select Committee on Committees, 
        which filed several reports with the House on proposed changes 
        in committee jurisdiction and procedure. The only proposal 
        reported by the committee to reach House consideration was H. 
        Res. 549, to create a new standing Committee on Energy; the 
        House adopted the resolution on Mar. 25, 1980, with substantial 
        changes (rejecting the creation of a new standing committee but 
        clarifying instead the current energy jurisdiction of existing 
        committees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3036]]

reported from the Committee on Rules at the informal direction of the 
Democratic Caucus, to recommend changes in the rules relative to 
committee jurisdiction and procedure. As stated above, however, the 
Committee on Rules did consider and report the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974,(9) which 
created a congressional budget process and a mechanism for disapproving 
or approving impoundment and rescission proposals of the President. The 
Committee on Rules also reported the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970, which made major changes in the rules of the 
House.(l0) Of course, even in the case where a select 
committee and not the Committee on Rules reports changes in the rules, 
Rules Committee action is ordinarily necessitated to provide an order 
of business resolution for consideration in the House.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Pub. L. No. 93-344, 88 Stat. 297, July 12, 1974, contains the text 
        of both acts and was reported as one measure by the Committee 
        on Rules (H. Rept. No. 93-658).
10. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140, Oct. 26, 1970; see H. Rept. No. 
        91-1215, June 17, 1970, the report of the Committee on Rules on 
        H.R. 17654.
11. The Committee on Rules reported a special order for consideration 
        of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 on July 20, 1946 
        (H. Res. 717, adopted by the House on July 25, 1946), a special 
        order for consideration of the Committee Reform Amendments of 
        1974 on Sept. 25, 1974 (H. Res. 1395, adopted Sept. 30, 1974), 
        and a special order for consideration of a resolution reported 
        from the Select Committee on Committees in the 96th Congress 
        (to amend the rules relative to committee jurisdiction over 
        energy) on Mar. 12, 1980 (H. Res. 607, adopted by the House on 
        Mar. 18, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, substantive changes in the rules of the House may 
occur at the beginning of each Congress, when the resolution adopting 
the rules of the House, offered by the direction of the majority party 
caucus, may include changes recommended by the caucus. Such a 
resolution is privileged and does not require action by the Committee 
on Rules, which at the time the resolution is offered is not 
constituted.(12) While the resolution has traditionally been 
offered by the (prospective) Chairman of the Committee on Rules, at the 
direction of the majority party caucus, the resolution has on occasion 
been offered by the Majority Leader. A review of the resolutions 
adopting the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Deschler's Precedents, Ch. 1, for discussion of the procedure 
        at the commencement of Congress and the procedure for adoption 
        of rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3037]]

rules of the House demonstrates that the majority party caucus in 
recent years has become more active in recommending substantial changes 
in the rules at the beginning of the Congress.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. In the 96th Congress, the majority party caucus even continued to 
        propose further changes in the rules to the Committee on Rules 
        after the adoption of the rules, the caucus not having 
        completed its consideration of rules changes during the 
        organizational caucus of December 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules is subject to discharge, upon a petition 
signed by a majority of the House membership, from the further 
consideration of certain special orders of business, which have been 
referred to that committee at least seven (legislative) days prior to 
the filing of a discharge motion (Rule XXVII clause 4). In some 
previous Congresses, the rules contained a special discharge rule 
relative to the Committee on Rules. In 1949, the House adopted for the 
first time the so-called 21-day rule; the 81st Congress version read as 
follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 5, 95 Cong. Rec. 10, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1949 
        [paragraph (2)(c) of Rule XI].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . If the Committee on Rules shall adversely report, or fail 
    to report within twenty-one calendar days after reference, any 
    resolution pending before the committee providing for an order of 
    business for the consideration by the House of any public bill or 
    joint resolution favorably reported by a committee of the House, on 
    days when it shall be in order to call up motions to discharge 
    committees it shall be in order for the chairman of the committee 
    which reported such bill or joint resolution to call up for 
    consideration by the House the resolution which the Committee on 
    Rules has so adversely reported or failed to report, and it shall 
    be in order to move the adoption by the House of said resolution 
    adversely reported, or not reported, notwithstanding the adverse 
    report, or the failure to report, of the Committee on Rules, and 
    the Speaker shall recognize the Member seeking recognition for that 
    purpose as a question of the highest privilege. Pending the 
    consideration of said resolution the Speaker may entertain one 
    motion that the House adjourn; but after the result is announced he 
    shall not entertain any other dilatory motion until the said 
    resolution shall have been fully disposed of.

    This rule restricted the power of the Committee on Rules to prevent 
floor consideration of a measure reported by a legislative committee. 
It made in order as privileged a motion to call up a resolution 
providing for the consideration of a public bill favorably reported by 
a committee, which had been before the Committee on Rules for 21 days. 
During the 81st Congress, the rule was utilized to pass eight bills. In 
the 82d Congress, when the majority party held a smaller majority in 
the

[[Page 3038]]

House, the rule was not incorporated into the rules.
    A version of the 21-day rule was again adopted in 
1965.(15) This version of the rule in the 89th Congress 
differed in two respects from that of the 81st Congress. First, the 
Speaker was under no mandatory obligation to recognize the individual 
seeking the special order, and the matter was entirely within his 
discretion. Secondly, the individual who could be recognized was not 
limited solely to the chairman of the committee which had reported the 
measure out, but could be ``the chairman or any member of the committee 
. . . who has been so authorized by the committee.'' At the beginning 
of the 90th Congress, the resolution adopting the rules of the House 
was amended to delete the 21-day rule, and the provision has not been 
included in the rules since that time.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Res. 9, 111 Cong. Rec. 25, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965.
16. H. Res. 7, 113 Cong. Rec. 28-33, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 
        1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 1967 and 1970, the committee forfeited whatever 
jurisdiction it might have had over measures relating to the Code of 
Official Conduct, measures relating to financial disclosures of House 
Members, officers, and employees, measures relating to lobbying 
activities, and measures relating to the raising, reporting, and use of 
campaign contributions for House candidates. Jurisdiction over these 
subjects was granted to the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct.(17) In the 94th Congress, the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct lost jurisdiction over the raising and 
reporting of campaign contributions (to the Committee on House 
Administration),(18) and in the 95th Congress jurisdiction 
over lobbying activities and over financial disclosure was removed from 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.(19) Since 
the latter committee retained jurisdiction in the 95th Congress only 
over the Code of Official Conduct (Rule XLIII), other rules relating to 
conduct of Members which were adopted in the 95th Congress were 
considered and reported to the House by the Committee on Rules (Rule 
XLIV on financial disclosure, Rule XLV prohibiting unofficial office 
accounts, Rule XLVI limiting the use of the frank, and Rule XLVII 
limiting outside earned income).(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Res. 1099, 114 Cong. Rec. 8803, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3, 
        1968.
18. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-22, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 
        1975.
19. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977.
 1. See H. Res. 287, 123 Cong. Rec. 5885, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 
        1977.

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

[[Page 3039]]

    The most important function of the Committee on Rules in the 
contemporary practice of the House is its authority to report special 
orders providing for the consideration of legislation. This function of 
the committee, which had its origins in 1883,(2) enables the 
House by majority vote to vary the order of business, to proceed with 
particular measures or matters, to waive any rule of the House which 
impedes consideration, and to provide whatever special procedures may 
be appropriate. This authority includes but is not limited to, 
recommendations temporarily waiving specific House rules, discharging 
legislation not reported from other committees, permitting or 
precluding consideration of certain amendments, disposing of 
differences between the two Houses, and reconciling differences among 
committees reporting the same measure. This aspect of the role of the 
Committee on Rules is treated exhaustively in Chapter 21 (Order of 
Business), infra, of this work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3152; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules is among those committees which can report 
matters directly to the floor as privileged under Rule XI clause 4. 
Matters reported from the committee concerning the rules, joint rules, 
and order of business are privileged; under clause 4(b) of that rule, 
such reports may be called up for consideration by the House on the 
same day reported if the House by a two-thirds vote permits such 
consideration. The report of the committee may be called up on the day 
following its filing in the House and the question of consideration 
cannot be raised at that time. Clauses 4(c), 4(d), and 4(e) of Rule XI 
also specifically deal with reports from the Committee on Rules, their 
content, the procedures for filing such reports, and voting on such 
reports.
    Subjects treated elsewhere include: special rules and the order of 
business (Ch. 21), infra, motions to discharge special orders from the 
Committee on Rules (Ch. 18), infra, consideration and debate (Ch. 29), 
infra, and adoption of the rules of the House on recommendation of the 
majority party caucus (Chs. 1, 3), 
supra.                          -------------------

Role of the Committee on Rules

Sec. 52.1 The failure of the Committeeon Rules to grant a particular 
    rule having resulted in debate, Members discussed the role of the 
    committee at the turn of the century and its purpose as formulated 
    in that era.

[[Page 3040]]

    On July 14, 1955,(3) a supplemental appropriations bill 
(H. R. 7278) under consideration in the Committee of the Whole became 
subject to innumerable points of order, all of which Chairman Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, was obliged to sustain.(4) Several 
Members attributed the bill's vulnerability to inaction by the 
Committee on Rules which did not report a rule waiving points of order 
against the measure. In the course of debate, Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,(5) 
made the following observations about the history of the Committee on 
Rules: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 101 Cong. Rec. 10572-625, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. See Sec. 52.5, infra.
 5. Mr. Cannon served as Clerk at the Speaker's Table from 1915 to 
        1921, became a Member of the House in 1923, and compiled 
        Cannon's Precedents by 1936.
 6. 101 Cong. Rec. 10609, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon: . . . [T]he session this afternoon is reminiscent 
    of the good old times when I first came to the floor 34 years ago. 
    In those days it was estimated that a third of the time of the 
    House was taken up in the discussions of points of order. We had 
    long sessions, during which all the parliamentary authorities and 
    would--be parliamentary authorities of the House rose and expressed 
    themselves practically every day, taking up a large part of the 
    daily program.
        And in those halcyon days the Committee on Rules governed the 
    House. There were three men on the Committee on Rules in those 
    days. And the Speaker of the House was a member of the committee. 
    As I recall it, the Committee on Rules in the 61st Congress 
    consisted of Speaker Cannon; John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, on the 
    part of the majority; and James Richardson, of Tennessee, on the 
    part of the minority. Every day or so they would send around and 
    tell Richardson to ``Come on out to the Speaker's room, we are 
    going to have a meeting of the Committee on Rules.'' They would go 
    into session for about 3 minutes and tell him what the report of 
    the committee would be. Then when they came out on the floor with 
    the resolution Richardson would take up his portion of the time 
    telling what an outrage it was, until finally Speaker Cannon would 
    beckon Dalzell up to the Speaker's stand and say, ``John, go down 
    there and tell Jim Richardson to come out to the Speaker's room--we 
    are going to commit another outrage.''
        Eventually the reaction against the government of the House by 
    the Committee on Rules became so pronounced that in the election of 
    1910 it was the sole issue before the country in the congressional 
    campaign. The Committee on Rules dominated the House of 
    Representatives. No measure could be considered unless the 
    committee sponsored it. Finally, the reaction against the Committee 
    on Rules became so great that it resulted in an overturn of the 
    House and for the first time in 16 years, the people elected a 
    Democratic Congress.

[[Page 3041]]

    Several days later, there still being some discord between Members 
over the fate of H.R. 7278, Mr. Cannon discussed (7) the 
role of the Committee on Rules, as he perceived it and as he believed 
former ``Parliamentarian'' Hinds (8) perceived it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 101 Cong. Rec. 11059, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 1955.
 8. Asher C. Hinds served the House as Clerk at the Speaker's Table 
        from 1895 to 1911, at which time he became a Member of the 
        House from Maine. Hinds' Precedents, the first compilation of 
        the parliamentary precedents of the House, was published in 
        1907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        What is the function of the Committee on Rules? We have 
    traveled far afield in the interpretation and adaptation of the 
    functions of the Committee on Rules. Let us get back to the 
    fundamentals. There have been two great revisions of the rules of 
    the House in modern times, the first one in 1880 and the last one 
    in 1911. If you will read the debates on those two revisions with 
    relation to the duties of the Committee on Rules you will find that 
    committee was not intended to retard legislation. Wherever there 
    was a conflict as to priority the Committee on Rules was designed 
    to resolve the conflict. They were to make possible the 
    consideration of a bill which otherwise could not be considered. 
    They were never authorized, it was never intended, that they should 
    deny the House the right to pass upon any proposition reported by 
    other committees.
        . . . [M]ay I quote from the great Parliamentarian, Asher C. 
    Hinds, who knew more about the procedure of the House than any man 
    who ever lived. Asher Hinds excelled in parliamentary knowledge 
    anyone who has ever served the United States Congress since 1789.
        Here is what he said:

            The Committee on Rules officiates as to the consideration 
        of bills only when, for some reason, the ordinary method 
        prescribed by the rules for the order of business is not 
        satisfactory or produces delay.

        The purpose of the rules was to put the matter before the House 
    and put it before the House now.
        Hinds further said:

            The number of bills in relation to which it officiates by 
        reporting special orders is relatively few.

        It never occurred to him that the time would ever come when the 
    Committee on Rules would arrogate to itself the authority to pass 
    on every bill reported out by a committee of the House. And to deny 
    it consideration as it has denied the House the right and 
    opportunity to consider . . . items objected to in the 
    supplementary appropriation bill.

Sec. 52.2 A controversy having arisen over the failure of the Committee 
    on Rules to report a special rule waiving points of order against 
    and thus protecting the provisions in a supplemental appropriations 
    bill, the chairman and the ranking majority member discussed their 
    concepts of the committee's role and its reason for inac

[[Page 3042]]

    tion in the particular instance.

    On July 14, 1955,(9) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 7278), 
reported by the Committee on Appropriations making supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other 
purposes. In the course of the bill's consideration, however, points of 
order were raised against virtually every paragraph (10) by 
a Member who had unsuccessfully urged the Committee on Rules to report 
a rule which would have waived all points of order. This, in turn, 
prompted discussion of the propriety or impropriety of the Rules 
Committee action,(11) as well as the role of the committee 
in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 10572, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. See Sec. 52.5, infra.
11. See Sec. 52.1, supra, in which Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, then 
        Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and a former Clerk 
        at the Speaker's Table of the House, discusses his perception 
        of the proper role of the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At one juncture in the discussion, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, recognized William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, the ranking 
majority member of the Committee on Rules, who made the following 
remarks, among others: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 101 Cong. Rec. 10609, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I am not going into anything that transpired in the executive 
    session in the Rules Committee and I am not going to either praise 
    or criticize any member of that committee, but I think I can lay my 
    finger on the trouble here.
        I know that the Rules Committee becomes a whipping boy at one 
    or more sessions of this Congress, and usually more than once. I 
    know we are patted on the back sometimes because we prevent the 
    Members from having to vote on some controversial matter, and then 
    again I know that we are the recipients of brickbats that come our 
    way because we have offended somebody with a pet measure.
        If I am any judge of this situation, the trouble is in section 
    1301 on page 32 of this bill, where the Committee on Appropriations 
    set out to legislate the salaries of their employees, and other 
    committees were left out. . . .
        . . . [T]here were other committees represented that thought 
    that if the thing was going to be done, it ought to be done across 
    the board.
        Then there was opposition, it has been shown here, from the 
    Veterans' Affairs Committee. The chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
    Committee appeared before our committee and objected to waiving 
    points of order on an item setting up a study committee, 
    duplicating the work his committee was doing.
        Other committees were represented as objecting to certain items 
    in the bill which were considered as encroaching

[[Page 3043]]

    on the prerogatives of their respective committees.
        . . . I say to you that this is an unfortunate situation. Those 
    who want to raise points of order against everything in the bill, 
    of course, are permitted to do so. But maybe there was some reason 
    or some justification not aimed at agriculture or at the armed 
    service or at these other agencies that guided the Committee on 
    Rules in taking the action that it did.
        I am sure the members of the Committee on Rules need no defense 
    at my hands. They can and will bear their share of the 
    responsibility. But those responsible for mutilating the bill here 
    today must likewise take their full share of the responsibility.

    Several days later, on July 19, 1955,(13) Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, Chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, who obtained unanimous consent to proceed out 
of order and thereupon made the following remarks, among others:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 101 Cong. Rec. 10944, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I asked permission to speak out of order this 
    morning because I was unfortunately not on the floor Thursday [Judy 
    14, 1955] when the Rules Committee got its kicking around by the 
    Appropriations Committee. . . . I realize that the time of the 
    session has come when nobody loves the Rules Committee, and 
    particularly when they do not get exactly what they want from the 
    Rules Committee. I am also cognizant of the philosophy around here 
    on the part of some Members that the Rules Committee is just a 
    traffic cop and supposed to joyfully and gladly give everybody a 
    rule who asks for one. But my people did not elect me to Congress 
    to be a traffic cop, and I think that is true of the other members 
    of the Rules Committee. I think that committee feels they have some 
    functions of a discretionary nature to perform. . . .
        To begin with when the Committee on Appropriations appeared 
    before us they told us they had a bill of 38 pages and that all but 
    4 pages was in violation of the rules of the House. Of course 
    everybody set up and took notice about that time. A great many 
    questions were asked about it.
        Since I have been chairman of the Rules Committee there has 
    been much complaint from legislative committees that the 
    Appropriations Committee invades their field and then goes to the 
    Rules Committee and gets a rule waiving points of order. So I made 
    the rule that when that occurred in any appropriation bill we would 
    do the chairman of the Legislative Committee the courtesy of 
    letting him know and giving him an opportunity to be heard. It 
    appeared that there were at least three instances there that I 
    thought the chairman of the respective legislative committees ought 
    to be heard on. One of them involved matters of a legislative 
    character with respect to the Agricultural Committee; another one 
    was with respect to the House Administration Committee; also the 
    chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs appeared in 
    opposition to the rule on the ground that the bill invaded the 
    jurisdiction of that committee.

[[Page 3044]]

        The Rules Committee did not refuse anybody a rule. The 
    committee just adjourned without acting on it. . . .
        . . . [I] do not think the Rules Committee or any member of it 
    has any apologies to offer about what happened. We were pursuing 
    our policy and we were under the impression that the same rules 
    applied to the Appropriations Committee as to any other committee 
    in the House. We expect to pursue the same policy in the future 
    that we have in the past. I think I can speak for the entire 
    committee when I make that statement.

Increase in Committee Membership

Sec. 52.3 The House adopted a resolution increasing the membership of 
    the Committee on Rules from 12 to 15 for the duration of the 87th 
    Congress.

    On Jan. 31, 1961,(14) Mr. James W. Trimble, of Arkansas, 
called up House Resolution 127 and asked for its immediate 
consideration. The resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 1573, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the Eighty-seventh Congress the Committee 
    on Rules shall be composed of fifteen members.

    Following lengthy debate on the history, role, and power of the 
Committee on Rules, the House agreed to the resolution by yeas--217, 
nays--212.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 1589, 1590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 52.4 The 88th Congress adopted the rules of the 87th Congress with 
    an amendment increasing from 12 to 15, the membership of the 
    Committee on Rules.

    On Jan. 9, 1963,(16) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, who offered and 
asked for the immediate consideration of the following privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 5):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 14, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
    Eighty-seventh 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 Eighty-eighth Congress, with the following 
    amendment therein as a part thereof, to wit:
        Strike out subsection (p) of rule X and insert in lieu thereof 
    the following:
        ``(p) Committee on Rules, to consist of fifteen members.''

    Following debate on the proposal, the resolution was agreed to by 
yeas--235, nays--196.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 21, 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3045]]

Expediting House Business--Effect of Failure to Report Special Rule 
    Waiving Points of Order

Sec. 52.5 The Committee on Rules having adjourned without acting on a 
    requested special rule waiving all points of order against 
    provisions of a supplemental appropriations bill, a member of the 
    Committee on Appropriations subsequently raised points of order 
    against virtually every paragraph when the bill was read for 
    amendment in order to demonstrate what may happen where points of 
    order are not waived in such circumstances.

    On July 14, 1955,(18) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 7278), 
making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1956, and for other purposes. Shortly thereafter, Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who controlled 
half of the time allotted for debate, yielded to Mr. Louis C. Rabaut, 
of Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 10572, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Rabaut then made the following remarks, among others: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 10572, 10573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman,(20) with malice toward nobody but with 
    determination to do my duty as I see it, I want to report to this 
    House that yesterday I appeared before the Committee on Rules, as 
    was the request of the full Committee on Appropriations. I told the 
    Committee on Rules that this bill was filled with paragraphs that 
    were subject to points of order; that the bill probably contained 
    very few pages where a ruling could be denied against points of 
    order, and the bill would be bad. I said there were so few pages 
    that I limited it to about four pages that would not be subject to 
    a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I read to the committee a prepared statement and said the bill 
    contained many of the paragraphs that were in the final 
    supplemental bill as handled by the Committee on Appropriations 
    every year, and that a rule is usually granted.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Phillips], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
    Davis] were present and opposed a rule. Mr. Davis lent his moral 
    support.
        Past history always allowed a rule. To my surprise the 
    committee failed to act, and we find ourselves with 
    a bill involving approximately $1,650,000,000. Twelve subcommittees 
    of the Committee on Appropriations worked on this bill, practically 
    the entire membership of 50; the hearings comprise several volumes, 
    yet under the situation the House will not be able to work its will 
    as to accepting or rejecting the many provisions and amounts in 
    this bill before us because

[[Page 3046]]

    a point of order would lie in most instances.
        . . . So this is my notice that I intend to cite the paragraphs 
    that are subject to points of order and ask for their deletion from 
    this bill.

    Although several Members took exception (1) to Mr. 
Rabaut's stated intention, as the Clerk read the bill for amendment 
(2) Mr. Rabaut proceeded to raise points of order against 31 
paragraphs in the bill. Each point of order was based on the contention 
that the language in question constituted legislation in an 
appropriation bill.(3) In each instance the Chair sought 
comment from Mr. Cannon, who would concede the point of order--
whereupon the Chair would sustain it. When this process concluded, the 
total amount of funds to be appropriated was trimmed by more than $1.4 
billion,(4) a figure comprising 86 percent of the original 
total.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 52.2, supra, for comments from the Chairman and the 
        ranking majority member of the Committee on Rules. See also 
        Sec. 52.1, supra, in which Mr. Cannon discusses the historical 
        role of the Committee on Rules.
 2. 101 Cong. Rec. 10604-25, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. For information on legislation on appropriation bills generally, 
        see Ch. 26, infra.
 4. 101 Cong. Rec. 10949, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1955.
 5. For a comparable instance in an earlier Congress, see 94 Cong. Rec. 
        7603, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 9, 1948, where the Committee on 
        Rules reported out a rule [H. Res. 651], for the consideration 
        of a supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 6829), calling for 
        the waiver of all points of order against ``any provisions 
        contained therein'' as well as the waiver of all points of 
        order against ``any amendment offered by direction of the 
        Committee on Appropriations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-54]                         

[Page 3046-3073]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 53. Jurisdiction and Scope of Authority

    Under the 1973 rules (6) the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Rules (7) extended to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XI clauses 17(a), 17(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 
        (1973).
 7. See Sec. 52, supra, for a brief history of the Committee on Rules, 
        touching upon the evolution of its powers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) The rules and joint rules (other than rules or joint rules 
    relating to the Code of Official Conduct or relating to financial 
    disclosure by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives), and order of business of the House.
        (b) Recesses and final adjournments of Congress.

    This jurisdiction was made effective Jan. 2, 1947, as a part of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.(8) Effective July 
12, 1974, the Committee on Rules was given specific authority under 
section 402(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to report

[[Page 3047]]

emergency waivers of the required date under that act for bills and 
resolutions authorizing new budget authority; (9) that 
jurisdiction was incorporated into the rules in the 93d 
Congress.(10) The subject of recesses and final adjournments 
was formerly under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
Jurisdiction over rules relating to official conduct and financial 
disclosure was transferred to the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct on Apr. 3, 1968,(11) but in the 95th Congress, 
jurisdiction over rules relating to financial disclosure by Members, 
officers, and employees of the House was returned to the Committee on 
Rules (H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53-70, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 60 Stat. 812.
 9. Pub. L. No. 93-344, Sec. 402b.
10. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
11. H. Res. 1099, 114 Cong. Rec. 8811, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal jurisdiction of the committee is over propositions to 
make or change the rules,(12) for the creation of 
committees,(13) and directing them to make 
investigations.(14) It also reports resolutions relating to 
the hour of daily meeting and the days on which the House shall 
sit,(15) and orders relating to the use of the galleries 
during the electoral count.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6770, 6776; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2047.
13. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4322; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2048.
14. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4322-4324; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2048.
15. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4325.
16. Id. at Sec. 4327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the committee reports special orders providing the 
times and methods for consideration of public bills or classes of 
bills, thereby enabling the House, by majority vote, to determine the 
order and manner of consideration of measures on the House or Union 
Calendars. This special order jurisdiction also entitles the committee 
to bring a measure, not reported by legislative committee, directly 
before the House for its consideration,(17) and to report 
other resolutions to facilitate the disposal of business on the 
Speaker's table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The role of the Committee on Rules with respect to special orders 
        and order of business, generally, is treated in Ch. 21, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jurisdiction, Generally

Sec. 53.1 The Committee on Rules may consider any matter that is 
    properly before them.

    On July 30, 1959,(18) the Committee on Education and 
Labor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 14742, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3048]]

had received unanimous consent to have until midnight to file a report 
on a bill (H.R. 8342), pertaining to the prevention of abuses in labor 
organizations.

    Shortly thereafter, as the program for the forthcoming week was 
being discussed, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, initiated the 
following exchange with Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 14743.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: I ask the question, under the rules of 
    the House, can the Committee on Rules report out a bill before they 
    get a majority report from the committee?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Barden] 
    asked unanimous consent, which was obtained, to have until midnight 
    tonight to file a report of the Committee on Education and Labor on 
    the so-called labor bill.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: My question is, until a majority of 
    the committee sign the report, can the Committee on Rules consider 
    the bill?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules has the authority to 
    consider any matter which is properly before them. The Chair would 
    certainly hold that this is properly before the Committee on Rules.

Amending the House Rules

Sec. 53.2 The Committee on Rules has jurisdiction of a resolution 
    proposing amendments to the rules of the House, and the reporting 
    of such a measure is privileged under the rules.

    On Mar. 26, 1935,(20) John J. O'Connor, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 172, 
which was read by the Clerk as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 79 Cong. Rec. 4480, 4481, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That rule XXIV of the House of Representatives be, 
    and is hereby, amended by striking out paragraph 6 thereof and 
    inserting in lieu thereof the following:
        ``6. On the first Tuesday of each month after disposal of such 
    business on the Speaker's table as requires reference only, the 
    Speaker shall direct the Clerk to call the bills and resolutions on 
    the Private Calendar. Should objection be made by two or more 
    Members to the consideration of any bill or resolution so called, 
    it shall be recommitted to the committee which reported the bill or 
    resolution and no reservation of objection shall be entertained by 
    the Speaker. Such bills and resolutions, if considered, shall be 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. No other 
    business shall be in order on this day unless the House, by two-
    thirds vote on motion to dispense therewith, shall otherwise 
    determine. On such motion debate shall be limited to 5 minutes for 
    and 5 minutes against said motion.
        ``On the third Tuesday of each month after the disposal of such 
    business on

[[Page 3049]]

    the Speaker's table as requires reference only, the Speaker may 
    direct the Clerk to call the bills and resolutions on the Private 
    Calendar, preference to be given to omnibus bills containing bills 
    or resolutions which have previously been objected to on a call of 
    the Private Calendar. All bills and resolutions on the Private 
    Calendar so called, if considered, shall be considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole. Should objection be made by two 
    or more members to the consideration of any bill or resolution 
    other than an omnibus bill, it shall be recommitted to the 
    committee which reported the bill or resolution and no reservation 
    of objection shall be entertained by the Speaker.

        ``Omnibus bills shall be read for amendment by paragraph, and 
    no amendment shall be in order except to strike out or to reduce 
    amounts of money stated or to provide limitations. Any item or 
    matter stricken from an omnibus bill shall not thereafter during 
    the same session of Congress be included in any omnibus bill.
        ``Upon passage of any such omnibus bill, said bill shall be 
    resolved into the several bills and resolutions of which it is 
    composed, and such original bills and resolutions, with any 
    amendments adopted by the House, shall be engrossed, where 
    necessary, and proceedings thereon had as if said bills and 
    resolutions had been passed in the House severally.
        ``In the consideration of any omnibus bill the proceedings as 
    set forth above shall have the same force and effect as if each 
    Senate and House bill or resolution therein contained or referred 
    to were considered by the House as a separate and distinct bill or 
    resolution.''

    Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, then recognized Mr. Thomas 
L. Blanton, of Texas, who raised a point of order against the 
resolution, stating in part:

        Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order that this resolution is 
    not privileged from the Committee on Rules; that the Committee on 
    Rules has no authority, in the way that this rule was introduced 
    and passed upon by the committee and reported, to report such a 
    resolution to the House. Only a joint resolution passed by both the 
    House and Senate, and signed by the President, could authorize this 
    House to pass an omnibus bill, embracing the amounts carried in 
    many private bills, and then, after passage, send all of such 
    private bills to the Senate as bills regularly engrossed 
    (1) and passed by the House, as this rule proposes, when 
    they were not so engrossed and passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. An engrossed bill is the final copy of the measure as passed by the 
        House with the text as amended by floor action and certified to 
        by the Clerk of the House. See Ch. 24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Blanton continued to speak to his point of order, noting that 
for a century it had been House practice ``that all bills involving a 
charge upon the Treasury must be considered in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union, unless otherwise considered by 
unanimous consent. . . . [W]here bills are considered in the House as 
in the Committee of the Whole,'' (2) he ob

[[Page 3050]]

served, ``the rule changes entirely,'' for the person ``in charge of 
that legislation can move the previous question at any time and shut 
off debate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Ordinarily, procedure in the House as in Committee of the Whole is 
        only by unanimous consent since the rules governing the order 
        of business and admissions of motions make no provision for a 
        motion to consider a matter ``in the House as in Committee of 
        the Whole'' [4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4923]. The Committee on 
        Rules, however, may report a resolution providing a special 
        order for consideration of a measure in the House as in 
        Committee of the Whole [H. Res. 1515, 120 Cong. Rec. 40858, 93d 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 18, 1974]. In recent times, an order for 
        this procedure means merely that the bill will be considered as 
        having been read for amendment and will be open for amendment 
        and debate under the five minute rule [H.R. 18619, 116 Cong. 
        Rec. 28050, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1970; Rule XXIII 
        clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1979)] without 
        general debate [4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4924, 4925; 6 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 639; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2431, 2432] but with the motion for the previous 
        question in order. The Speaker remains in the chair, and when 
        the previous question has been ordered, he makes no report but 
        puts the question on the engrossment and third reading and on 
        the passage [Jefferson's Manual, Sec. 424 (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Blanton additionally expressed reservations as to the effect of 
the proposal, contending that ``old bills, hoary with age and time'' 
could be put back on the calendar and ``not a Member of this House 
would have an opportunity to even raise his voice to show why he made 
objection to their passage.'' (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. The rule which was then in effect provided that on each Saturday it 
        would be in order for the House to resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole to consider business on the Private 
        Calendar and that if there were objection or reservation of 
        objection after the Clerk read the bill, there would be ``10 
        minutes' general debate to be divided, five minutes controlled 
        by the Member offering the objection or reservation and five 
        minutes controlled by the chairman of the committee reporting 
        the bill, or in his absence by any Member supporting the 
        bill.'' [H. Jour. 879. 73d Cong. 2d Sess. (1934)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, he contended, ``Unless there be two Members 
simultaneously objecting to it, the bill would be passed.'' These 
changes he was convinced would render it ``impossible to prevent the 
passage of the numerous bad bills which have been favorably reported 
through the years gone by.''
    Mr. Blanton continued with the argument underlying his point of 
order (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 79 Cong. Rec. 4481, 4482, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair to hear me just a moment further 
    on the point of order.

[[Page 3051]]

        I make the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules 
    Committee, with all of its power, has no authority to bring in a 
    rule that will take away from all of the 435 Representatives of the 
    people in the House of Representatives their representative 
    capacity, their privilege of representing the people of the United 
    States as Members of different districts in Congress, with the 
    inherent right to be heard on public questions, especially upon 
    legislation coming up in the House that takes large sums of money 
    out of the Treasury.
        Now, if this rule is passed, it will take away from every 
    Member of this House, except the chairman of the committee in 
    charge of legislation on private bill day, the right to be heard, 
    the inherent right to be heard, in his representative capacity on 
    legislation and his right to protest against the passage of bad 
    bills that will wrongfully take large sums of money from the Public 
    Treasury. Why, the one in charge of legislation at that time could 
    move the previous question immediately if he wanted to, for such 
    bills are to be considered in the House.
        If the Rules Committee has authority to bring in this kind of 
    rule, Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Chair in all earnestness it has 
    authority to bring in a rule on the floor of this House that will 
    prevent any Member of the House of Representatives, except a member 
    of the Rules Committee, from being heard on any kind of bill that 
    comes up in the House. It would permit the Rules Committee, Mr. 
    Speaker, to bring in a rule that would force the consideration of 
    every supply bill, of every big appropriation bill, to be heard 
    without any debate in the House instead of in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union. Why, the chairman would have 
    the authority to move the previous question any time he wanted to 
    and prevent every Member on the floor except himself from being 
    heard.

        The Speaker: Of course, the gentleman knows that in passing on 
    a point of order the Chair cannot take into consideration the 
    effect of a resolution or bill that may be pending; that is a 
    matter that must be considered by the membership itself with 
    respect to the legislation in question.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, 
stated on the point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, rule XI, paragraph 45,(5) reads as 
    follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The following-named committees shall have leave to report 
        at any time on the matters herein stated, namely: The Committee 
        on Rules, on rules, joint rules, and order of business.

        The resolution under discussion is a resolution amending rule 
    XXIV of the House of Representatives. This disposes of the point of 
    order.

    After a brief exchange between Mr. Lehlbach and Mr. Blanton, the 
Speaker ruled on the point of order as follows:

        In disposing of a point of order it is not within the province 
    of the Chair to consider the effect, or what may be the effect, of 
    the passage of any rule or legislation which may be pending. After 
    all, rules reported by the Committee on

[[Page 3052]]

    Rules must be considered and acted upon by a majority of the House, 
    which action, of course, is controlling.
        The gentleman from New Jersey has read from clause 45 of rule 
    XI, which, with the permission of the House, the Chair will reread:

            The following-named committees shall have leave to report 
        at any time on the matters herein stated, namely: The Committee 
        on Rules, on rules, joint rules, and order of business.

        The pending resolution proposes to amend the rules of the 
    House, it relates to the order of business in the House, and, under 
    the rule the Chair has just read, is made a matter of privilege
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 53.3 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules to amend the 
    House rules so as to permit any standing committee or subcommittee 
    thereof to fix a lesser number than a majority to constitute a 
    quorum for the purpose of taking sworn testimony was debated on the 
    floor and recommitted to the Committee on Rules by unanimous 
    consent.

    On Sept. 14, 1951,(6) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John E. Lyle, Jr., of Texas, who, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 386 and asked for its 
immediate consideration. The resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 97 Cong. Rec. 11394, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That rule XI (2)(f) of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is hereby amended to read as follows:
        ``(f) The rules of the House are hereby made the rules of its 
    standing committees so far as applicable, except that a motion to 
    recess from day to day is hereby made a motion of high privilege in 
    said committees, and except that each standing committee, and each 
    subcommittee of any such committee, is authorized to fix a lesser 
    number than a majority of its entire membership who shall 
    constitute a quorum thereof for the purpose of taking sworn 
    testimony: Provided, That such quorum shall consist of not less 
    than one member of the majority party and one member of the 
    minority party.''

    In the course of the ensuing debate, several Members expressed 
reservations about possible consequences of the rules amendment as 
drafted. Referring to the last clause of the resolution, Mr. Charles A. 
Halleck, of Indiana, for example, noted that: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 11397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [I]f this proviso stands as it is written, there would be 
    a complete bar available to either the majority or the minority to 
    prevent the taking of the testimony, through the simple operation 
    by which either all of the members of the majority or the minority, 
    whichever it might be, would absent themselves from the hearing. I 
    think

[[Page 3053]]

    that should be corrected. I want this resolution adopted, but I am 
    afraid, as a practical matter, if we write the rule in this fashion 
    we might create a circumstance that would effectively block action 
    by committees that should be taken.

    Although Mr. Lyle did propose an amendment to strike the offending 
language and his amendment was agreed to, he thereafter obtained 
unanimous consent that the resolution be recommitted to the Committee 
on Rules.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 11398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 53.4 In response to a point of order pertaining to the fixing of 
    debate in terms of days rather than hours, the Chair indicated that 
    the Committee on Rules may report a resolution to waive the rules 
    of the House on any matter (except where its authority is limited 
    by the Constitution or other rule).

    On Sept. 3, 1940,(9) Speaker pro tempore Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, recognized Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, who proceeded to call up House Resolution 586 which 
read, in pertinent part, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 11358, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill H.R. 10132, a bill to protect the integrity and 
    institutions of the United States through a system of selective 
    compulsory military training and service. That after general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to 
    exceed 2 days, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
    and ranking minority member of the Committee on Military Affairs, 
    the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.

    During debate, the Chair recognized Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New 
York, who raised the following point of order: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 11359, 11360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the resolution is 
    contrary to the unwritten law of the House. It has been the 
    universal practice, custom, and tradition of the House to have 
    debate fixed by hours. This resolution fixes general debate by 
    days. This is entirely meaningless, because a day may be terminated 
    by a motion that the Committee rise or by adjournment, and for that 
    reason I press my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the 
    resolution is contrary to the unwritten rules of the House in that 
    general debate is fixed by days instead of hours.
        In the first place, the point of order comes too 
    late.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. A point of order against a resolution reported from the Committee 
        on Rules must be made before debate begins. For more 
        information on points of order, in general, see Ch. 31, infra.

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

[[Page 3054]]

        In the second place, this is a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules to change the rules of the House, which is 
    permissible on anything except that which is prohibited by the 
    Constitution.
        The point of order is overruled.

Closed Rules

Sec. 53.5 In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill to 
    reorganize the legislative branch, an amendment to Rule XI clause 
    23, restricting the power of the Committee on Rules to report a 
    ``closed rule'' was held to change the jurisdiction of the 
    committee, which, under Rule XI clause 17, may report on ``rules, 
    joint rules and order of business,'' and was therefore ruled out of 
    order as in violation of a special rule prohibiting consideration 
    of amendments to that bill having the effect of changing House 
    committee jurisdictions.

    On July 29, 1970,(12) the House had resolved itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of H.R. 17654, 
a bill to improve the legislative branch of the federal government (the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970), and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 26413, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, recognized Mr. Andrew 
Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, who offered an amendment which read, in part, 
as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 26414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 123(a) Clause 23 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
    following: ``In addition, the Committee on Rules shall not report 
    any rule or order for the consideration of any legislative measure 
    which limits, restricts, or eliminates the actual reading of that 
    measure for amendment or the offering of any amendment to that 
    measure.''

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, raised a 
point of order against the amendment:

        Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order that this very 
    definitely limits the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee and would 
    prohibit us from issuing a closed rule and other types of rules. 
    The rule under which this measure was considered strictly prohibits 
    the changing of any jurisdiction of any committee.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Indiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the term 
    ``jurisdiction,'' it

[[Page 3055]]

    means the territory or subject matter over which legal power is 
    exercisable, not the rules by which such power proceeds.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to point out to the gentleman from Indiana 
    that under House Resolution 1093 we have the following language, 
    beginning in line 11:

            No amendments to the bill shall be in order which would 
        have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee 
        of the House listed in Rule XI.

        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Correcting the Record Through Motion

Sec. 53.6 A Member having made a motion to correct the Record so as to 
    show the language actually uttered in debate and not as extended 
    and revised, the motion, after debate, was referred to the 
    Committee on Rules.

    On July 5, 1945,(14) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, 
addressed Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, and offered the following 
motion (as a question of the privileges of the House):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 7221, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I move that the daily Record of July 2, 1945, 
    which contains in the Appendix on pages A3448 and A3449 a speech 
    entitled ``$120,000,000 for Rural Electrification,'' purporting to 
    have been delivered by the gentleman from Mississippi, Hon. John E. 
    Rankin, be corrected for the permanent or bound copy of the Record, 
    so as to show the exact stenographic report of the colloquy which 
    occurred between myself and the gentleman from Mississippi on that 
    date and as a part of that speech.

    Prior to offering the motion, Mr. Tarver had stated that under 
leave to revise and extend his remarks, the gentleman from Mississippi 
had so ``materially changed and enlarged'' (15) certain of 
the statements he made in the course of a colloquy with Mr. Tarver ``as 
to misrepresent materially the position assumed by me in the 
colloquy.'' A unanimous-consent request to effect the same result 
having been objected to by Mr. Rankin,(16) the quoted motion 
was then offered presumably as a question of the privileges of the 
House under Rule IX relating to the accuracy of the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 7220.
16. Id. at p. 7221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the debate which ensued, the propriety or impropriety of the 
revision and extension of the remarks in question was not immediately 
apparent, thereby prompting Mr. Matthew M. Neely, of West Virginia, to 
offer the following motion: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 7225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3056]]

        Mr. Speaker, in behalf of peace in the House and the orderly 
    progress of legislation, I move that the motion of the gentleman 
    from Georgia be referred to the Committee on Rules.

    Shortly thereafter, the Neely motion was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Although a motion to refer may specify 
reference to any committee, the Committee on House Administration, it 
should be noted, has jurisdiction over the correction of the 
Congressional Record.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule X clause 1(j), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishing Investigatory Committees

Sec. 53.7 The jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules over resolutions 
    establishing investigatory committees does not extend to provisions 
    in the resolution or in committee amendments thereto calling for 
    such committees' expenses to be paid from the contingent fund of 
    the House, and an amendment from that committee has been held not 
    germane as a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Accounts (now the Committee on House Administration).

    On June 21, 1944,(19) Mr. Joe B. Bates, of Kentucky, 
called up a resolution (H. Res. 551), reported from the Committee on 
Rules and asked for its immediate consideration. House Resolution 551 
provided for the establishment of a special committee to be appointed 
by the Speaker for the purpose of investigating and reporting back to 
the House with respect to the campaign expenditures of all candidates 
for the House. The resolution having been read earlier,(20) 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, directed the Clerk to report the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 90 Cong. Rec. 6393, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Id. at p. 6392.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 7 of the committee amendment contained the following 
language:

        For the purpose of this resolution, the committee, or any duly 
    authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold such public 
    hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the 
    sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Seventy-eighth 
    Congress, to employ such attorneys, experts, clerical, and other 
    assistants, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of 
    such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, 
    papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, to take such 
    testimony, and to make such expenditures, as it deems advisable. 
    The cost of sten

[[Page 3057]]

    ographic services to report such hearings shall not be in excess of 
    25 cents per hundred words. The expenses of the committee shall be 
    paid from the contingent fund of the House of Representatives upon 
    vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee or the chairman 
    of any duly authorized subcommittee thereof and approved by the 
    Committee on Accounts.

    Immediately after the Clerk read the committee amendment, the Chair 
recognized Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, who commenced the ensuing 
exchange:

        Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the amendment on 
    the ground that the Rules Committee has exceeded its authority, and 
    I respectfully request to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, I invite your special attention to 
    the language on page 6, beginning in line 15.

            The expenses of the committee shall be paid from the 
        contingent fund of the House of Representatives upon vouchers 
        approved by the chairman of the committee and the chairman of 
        any duly authorized subcommittee thereof and approved by the 
        Committee on Accounts.

        Also to the words on page 6, lines 12 and 13, ``and to make 
    such expenditures.''
        Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Accounts was set up by this House 
    in 1803, long before the Rules Committee was ever heard of. This 
    all-powerful Rules Committee takes it upon itself to assume 
    jurisdiction over the contingent fund of the House. Not only do the 
    rules of the House (1) place that jurisdiction in the 
    Committee on Accounts, but your Committee on Accounts is subject to 
    several statutes, specifically referring to the activities of the 
    Committee on Accounts, and the contingent fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. At the time, Rule XI clause 36 provided that the jurisdiction of 
        the Committee on Accounts extended to subjects ``touching the 
        expenditure of the contingent fund of the House, the auditing 
        and settling of all accounts which may be charged therein by 
        order of the House, the ascertaining of the travel of Members 
        of the House and the reporting the same to the Sergeant at 
        Arms.'' [H. Jour. 699, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (1944)]. Presently 
        such jurisdiction is vested in the Committee on House 
        Administration [Rule X clause 1(j), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 679(a) (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Continuing to address himself to the point of order, Mr. Cochran 
additionally voted: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 90 Cong. Rec. 6393, 6394, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If this precedent that the Rules Committee seeks to establish 
    is adopted by the House, the House will lose control over its 
    contingent fund. The language that I have read places absolutely no 
    limitation upon the amount this select committee can spend. 
    Vouchers are to be signed by the chairman of the select committee 
    or any subcommittee thereof, and the only jurisdiction the 
    Committee on Accounts has is to put its signature on the voucher 
    and pass it along for payment.
        Now, if you can do that with this select committee, you can do 
    it with

[[Page 3058]]

    every select committee and every special committee that this House 
    sets up. . . .

        The practice has always been for the Accounts Committee to hold 
    hearings and require the select or special committee to state its 
    needs and justify its request.
        If it is the desire of the House to pass this jurisdiction to 
    the Rules Committee, then change the rules, but do not let the 
    Rules Committee assume jurisdiction now or at any time in the 
    future unless you do. It is time this House assert itself and serve 
    notice on the Rules Committee to stay within its jurisdiction. . . 
    .
        I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Rules having taken 
    jurisdiction which did not belong to it, the language I object to 
    is subject to a point of order; and I hope the Chair will so hold.

    At the conclusion of Mr. Cochran's remarks, Mr. Bates asserted that 
he had ``no desire to usurp any of the rights of the Committee on 
Accounts,'' and expressed his belief that such a feeling was shared by 
``members on both sides of the Committee on Rules.''
    Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, also a member of the Committee 
on Rules, expressed his agreement to the point of order, and in so 
doing, delineated one of the key limitations of the Committee on Rules' 
jurisdiction over measures creating investigatory committees:

        I realize there is much truth in what the gentleman from 
    Missouri says. This amendment would bypass the Committee on 
    Accounts. To my knowledge that has never been done in the setting 
    up of an investigating committee. The Rules Committee has 
    jurisdiction over investigating committee resolutions, but the 
    Accounts Committee has jurisdiction over the funds with which the 
    committee operates. I have often said it is a good bit like when my 
    little boy used to ask his mother for a new football. She would 
    say: ``Yes, John, you may have the football, but you must go to 
    daddy and get the money.'' That is the way these investigations are 
    controlled; and, personally, I could not speak in opposition to the 
    point of order.

    Following Mr. Michener's remarks, Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
another member of the committee, stated also that ``It was never the 
desire of the Committee on Rules to usurp the authority of the 
Committee on Accounts.'' He added, however, that he believed that ``the 
language objected to is language that has been used in previous 
resolutions where no point of order has been raised to it.''
    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker rendered his decision as follows:

        The Chair has before it a case exactly in point, and the 
    interesting thing about it is that it begins with the statement:

            On May 3, 1933, Mr. Howard W. Smith of Virginia, by 
        direction of the Committee on Rules, and so forth, presented a 
        rule.

        A point of order was made against the rule and the Chair held 
    as fol

[[Page 3059]]

    lows--and it is exactly on all fours with the instant case:

            The Chair thinks that the provision incorporated in section 
        5 of the resolution authorizing the committee to employ 
        suitable counsel, assistants, and investigators in the aid of 
        its investigation, and also the provision authorizing all 
        necessary expenses of the investigation to be paid on vouchers 
        approved by the chairman of the committee, is a matter properly 
        within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Accounts.

        That is exactly the proposition that is before the Chair at 
    this time. The Chair could cite other precedents.
        The point of order, therefore, is sustained as against the 
    committee amendment.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For a comparable instance in a later Congress, see 95 Cong. Rec. 
        1617-19, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 28, 1949, where a 
        resolution (H. Res. 44), calling for a study of Panama Canal 
        tolls by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries was 
        reported out by the Committee on Rules with a provision 
        authorizing the former committee ``to make such expenditures as 
        it deems advisable'' [within a $15,000 limit] from the 
        contingent fund of the House, a matter within the jurisdiction 
        of the Committee on House Administration. The Member who called 
        the measure up, John E. Lyle, Jr. [Tex.], announced that ``the 
        resolution must be amended to comply with the rules of the 
        House'' and introduced an amendment to strike the contingent 
        fund provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This point of order against the amendment 
did not destroy the privilege of the resolution. This was a germaneness 
ruling against the amendment. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, then 
offered another substitute the same as the original amendment but 
without the language about the contingent fund. Compare this situation 
with those contained in 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4623, where it was 
held that a bill containing nonprivileged matter in the original text 
cannot be considered as privileged merely based on a committee 
amendment removing the nonprivileged matter, and in 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 2300, where a funding resolution reported from the 
Committee on Accounts and also containing legislative provisions within 
the jurisdiction of other committees was held not to be privileged.

Investigations Pertaining to Impeachment

Sec. 53.8 The Speaker has referred to the Committee on Rules 
    resolutions authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to 
    investigate the conduct of federal officials and directing that 
    committee to report its findings to the House ``together with such 
    resolutions of impeachment as it deems proper.''

[[Page 3060]]

    On Feb. 21, 1966,(4) pursuant to a previous order of the 
House, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. H. 
R. Gross. of Iowa:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 112 Cong. Rec. 3489, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on file in the U.S. Supreme Court, ignored and 
    gathering dust for nearly 4 years, is an official transcript that 
    sets forth in detail the shocking story of a bitter feud among 
    Federal judges in Oklahoma City, Okla.
        The transcript is the verbatim statement of Federal Judge 
    Stephen S. Chandler in which he accuses Federal Judges Alfred P. 
    Murrah and Luther Bohanon of persecution.

    Mr. Gross then elaborated on the contents of the transcript which 
included allegations of telephone tapping, attempted bribery, wrongful 
assertion of judicial power, and conduct unbecoming to the federal 
judiciary in general. He concluded his statement by observing: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 3490.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As a citizen and a Member of Congress, I cannot sit idly by and 
    watch while the respect and confidence in the Federal judiciary is 
    undermined in Oklahoma or any other area of the Nation. And I 
    submit that there are other areas that need attention.

        I urge in the strongest terms at my command that the proper 
    committees of Congress launch an immediate investigation.

    On Feb. 22, 1966,(6) the Record reveals that a measure 
(H. Res. 739), introduced by Mr. Gross ``authorizing the Committee on 
the Judiciary to conduct certain investigations'' was referred by 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, to the Committee on 
Rules.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 3665, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. For information on impeachment powers, generally, see Ch. 14, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 53.9 Resolutions directly calling for the impeachment or censure 
    of the President are referred by the Speaker to the Committee on 
    the Judiciary, whereas resolutions calling for an investigation by 
    that committee or by a select committee with a view toward 
    impeachment are referred to the Committee on Rule.

    On Oct. 23, 1973,(8) following dismissal of Special 
Prosecutor Archibald Cox by President Richard M. Nixon, and the 
resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Assistant 
Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus, numerous resolutions were 
offered by Members calling for a wide range of congressional ac

[[Page 3061]]

tion. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, referred these proposals either 
to the Committee on Rules or to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
depending upon the wording of each measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 34871-74, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the aforementioned resolutions directing the Committee on 
the Judiciary to investigate the President's conduct (H. Res. 644, H. 
Res. 645), or to investigate whether grounds for his impeachment 
existed (H. Res. 626, H. Res. 627, H. Res. 628, H. Res. 629, H. Res. 
630, H. Res. 641, H. Res. 642), were referred by the Chair to the 
Committee on Rules, as were those measures calling for such inquiries 
by a select committee (H. Res. 637, H. Res. 646), or without 
designating a committee (H. Res. 636). Precedents supporting such 
referrals (9) date from the 19th century, and are premised 
on the theory that the very act of directing a committee to undertake 
an investigation amounts to the adoption of a new rule; this is 
understood to be so regardless of whether the measure pertains to a 
standing committee or whether a select committee is created, in which 
case a ``rule'' establishing jurisdiction would be essential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4322-4324; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the resolutions directly calling for the impeachment (H. 
Res. 625, H. Res. 631, H. Res. 635, H. Res. 638, H. Res. 643, H. Res. 
648, H. Res. 649), or censure (H. Con. Res. 365), of the President were 
referred by the Chair to the Committee on the Judiciary in view of that 
committee's long-standing historical jurisdiction over the subject 
matter.

Resolution Proposing Special or Standing Committee Investigation

Sec. 53.10 A resolution proposing that a question of the privileges of 
    the House be investigated by a special committee or by a standing 
    committee was referred, by unanimous consent, to the Committee on 
    Rules.

    On June 1, 1939,(10) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, recognized Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, who rose to a 
question of the privilege of the House, and submitted a resolution (H. 
Res. 208), with respect thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 6531, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution recounted in the preamble certain events which took 
place on the floor of the House involving a colloquy between two 
Members and a unanimous-consent request by one of

[[Page 3062]]

those Members to have certain remarks of his deleted from the Record. 
Contending that the Record as ultimately published failed to reflect a 
true account of the events which took place, the resolution stated, in 
part:

        Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the Speaker 
    of the House, or, in the discretion of the Speaker, make reference 
    to a standing committee of the House, to ascertain from the 
    reporters of the House and from such other sources as they may deem 
    trustworthy a true and correct record of what did occur, deleting 
    from such record all such matters which the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    [Mr. Massingale] was given permission to delete, and retaining in 
    the Record all such other transactions and proceedings which 
    occurred on the floor of the House and for the withdrawal of which 
    permission was not given; and thereupon to report its conclusions 
    to the House, together with such recommendations as it may deem 
    desirable.

    After the Speaker indicated that matters stated in the resolution 
``probably'' raised a question of the privileges of the House, the 
following exchange ensued: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 6532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . Is it the desire of the gentleman to have 
    the resolution referred to a committee?
        Mr. Hoffman: Either to a special committee or to any standing 
    committee, in the discretion of the Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that in the opinion of the 
    Chair the Committee on Rules would have jurisdiction over the 
    resolution.
        Is there objection to referring the resolution of the gentleman 
    from Michigan to the Committee on Rules? [After pause.] The Chair 
    hears none, and it is so ordered.

Joint Resolutions to Establish Joint Committees

Sec. 53.11 Joint resolutions providing for the establishment of joint 
    congressional committees have been within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Rules.

    On June 2, 1937,(12) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, recognized Mr. Robert L. Doughton, of North Carolina, who 
sought unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider 
a joint resolution (S. J. Res. 155), to create a Joint Congressional 
Committee on Tax Evasion and Avoidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 5243, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution in question read as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 5243, 5244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That (a) there is hereby established a joint 
    congressional committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Tax 
    Evasion and Avoid

[[Page 3063]]

    ance (hereinafter referred to as the joint committee).
        (b) The joint committee shall be composed of six Members of the 
    Senate who are members of the Committee on Finance, appointed by 
    the President of the Senate, and six Members of the House of 
    Representatives who are members of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A vacancy 
    in the joint committee shall not affect the power of the remaining 
    members to execute the functions of the joint committee, and shall 
    be filled in the same manner as the original selection.
        Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the joint committee to 
    investigate the methods of evasion and avoidance of income, estate, 
    and gift taxes, pointed out in the message of the President 
    transmitted to Congress on June 1, 1937, and other methods of tax 
    evasion and avoidance, and to report to the Senate and the House, 
    at the earliest practicable date, and from time to time thereafter, 
    but not later than February 1, 1938, its recommendations as to 
    remedies for the evils disclosed by such investigation.
        Sec. 3. (a) The joint committee, or any subcommittee thereof, 
    shall have power to hold hearings and to sit and act at such places 
    and times, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of 
    such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and 
    documents, to administer such oaths, to take such testimony, to 
    have such printing and binding done, and to make such expenditures, 
    as it deems advisable. Subpenas shall be issued under the signature 
    of the chairman of said joint committee, and shall be served by any 
    person designated by him. Amounts appropriated for the expenses of 
    the joint committee shall be disbursed one-half by the Secretary of 
    the Senate and one-half by the Clerk of the House. The provisions 
    of sections 101 and 102 of the Revised Statutes shall apply in case 
    of any failure of any witness to comply with any subpena, or to 
    testify when summoned, under authority of this joint resolution.
        (b)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury and any officer or 
    employee of the Treasury Department, upon request from the joint 
    committee, shall furnish such committee with any data of any 
    character contained in or shown by any return of income, estate, or 
    gift tax.
        (2) The joint committee shall have the right, acting directly 
    as a committee or by or through such examiners or agents as it may 
    designate or appoint, to inspect any or all such returns at such 
    times and in such manner as it may determine.
        (3) The joint committee shall have the right to submit any 
    relevant or useful information thus obtained to the Senate, the 
    House of Representatives, the Committee on Ways and Means, or the 
    Committee on Finance, and shall have the right to make public, in 
    such cases and to such extent as it may deem advisable, any such 
    information or any such returns. The Committee on Ways and Means or 
    the Committee on Finance may submit such information to the House 
    or to the Senate, or to both the House and the Senate, as the case 
    may be.
        Sec. 4. The joint committee shall have power to employ and fix 
    the compensation of such officers, experts, and employees as it 
    deems necessary for

[[Page 3064]]

    the performance of its duties, but the compensation so fixed shall 
    not exceed the compensation fixed under the Classification Act of 
    1923, as amended, for comparable duties. The joint committee is 
    authorized to utilize the services, information, facilities, and 
    personnel of the departments and agencies in the executive branch 
    of the Government and of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue 
    Taxation.
        Sec. 5. The joint committee may authorize any one or more 
    officers or employees of the Treasury Department to conduct any 
    part of such investigation on behalf of the committee, and for such 
    purpose any person so authorized may hold such hearings, and 
    require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses 
    and the production of such books, papers, and documents, administer 
    such oaths, and take such testimony as the committees may 
    authorize. In any such case subpenas shall be issued under the 
    signature of the chairman of the joint committee and shall be 
    served by any person designated by him.
        Sec. 6. All authority conferred by this joint resolution shall 
    expire February 1, 1938.

    Several Members commented on the resolution while reserving the 
right to object. Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas, announced 
(14) his intention to object after stating that he did not 
believe the House had the opportunity to give the measure ``mature 
consideration.'' Accordingly, unanimous consent was denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 5245.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 7, 1937,(15) the joint resolution having been 
referred in the interim to the Committee on Rules, and reported 
therefrom together with a special rule providing for its consideration, 
the Speaker recognized Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, who raised 
the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 5369, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I make a point of order with respect to the reference of Senate 
    Joint Resolution 155, to create a Joint Congressional Committee on 
    Tax Evasion and Avoidance. This resolution was referred 
    erroneously, in my judgment, to the Rules Committee. I will read 
    section 35, rule XI: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The equivalent of this provision is set forth in Rule X clause 
        1(q), House Rules and Manual Sec. 786(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            All proposed action touching the rules, joint rules, and 
        order of business shall be referred to the Committee on Rules.

        I appreciate the fact that in making this point of order I am 
    making it to the court who made the reference, and I am making this 
    point of order under no misapprehension. . . .

        I appreciate the fact that the average investigation resolution 
    goes to the Committee on Rules, because it has been determined that 
    that was simply a change in the rules of the House providing for a 
    new committee to make an investigation; but this Senate Joint 
    Resolution 155 goes much further than any resolution of this kind 
    that has ever come to my attention. This resolution is much more 
    than an investigation; it is just full of legislation. In the first 
    place, it authorizes an appropriation. It places new duties on the 
    Secretary of the Treasury. It provides for

[[Page 3065]]

    the repeal of the law for publicity of income-tax returns under 
    certain circumstances. It allows this committee to create 
    positions, fix compensation, and so forth. It also delegates new 
    authority to the employees of the Department of the Treasury. It is 
    so full of legislation that even the chairman of the Rules 
    Committee himself,(17) under a reservation to object to 
    the immediate consideration of the resolution last week, brought up 
    the question of the legislation contained in the resolution. There 
    are at least five definite legislative proposals in this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As we all know, Rules Committee is not a legislative committee, 
    and it has never been the custom of the House to refer legislative 
    proposals to this committee. If the Chair needs any further proof 
    that this is legislation, I refer to the fact that even the 
    Parliamentarian of the House has placed this Senate Joint 
    Resolution 155 on the Union Calendar and I expect he did so because 
    it authorized an appropriation of funds out of the Treasury of the 
    United States.

    After addressing himself to the anticipated issue of tardiness in 
the making of his point of order, Mr. Snell concluded his initial 
remarks by stating:
    . . . This [S.J. Res. 155] in reality, is nothing but a legislative 
    proposal. I think it was erroneously referred to the Rules 
    Committee and that the Rules Committee had no jurisdiction whatever 
    over matters of this character.

        I ask a ruling from the Chair.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily a motion to rerefer a bill 
erroneously referred is in order under Rule XXII clause 4 on motion of 
a committee either claiming or relinquishing jurisdiction, but when a 
bill has been reported such a motion comes too late and a point of 
order against the Speaker's referral does not lie.
    The Speaker then recognized Mr. O'Connor, who indicated it was his 
understanding that the ``primary ground'' for the referral of Senate 
Joint Resolution 155 was that it ``proposed an investigation.'' He 
described the language of the joint resolution as:

        . . . practically identical with the joint resolution which 
    created the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of the Executive 
    Branches of the Government and which was likewise referred to the 
    Committee on Rules and reported out by the Rules Committee.
        This Senate Joint Resolution 155, not being a privileged 
    matter, because it contains provisions as to expenditures required 
    the reporting of a separate House resolution for its consideration. 
    While the joint resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 155, is on the 
    Union Calendar, No. 328, the other resolution from the Rules 
    Committee, House Resolution 226, for the consideration of the joint 
    resolution has been placed on the House Calendar No. 113.

    Mr. Snell and Mr. O'Connor debated the matter from their different 
perspectives: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 5369, 5370, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 3066]]

        Mr. Snell: . . . Would the gentleman maintain that the Rules 
    Committee would have jurisdiction over matter such as is contained 
    in Senate Joint Resolution 155?
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Oh, no; of course it would not. It 
    would not have jurisdiction over appropriations. That is the only 
    big question that I see.
        Mr. Snell: There is authorization for appropriation, also 
    delegation of authority in the resolution and new duties for the 
    Secretary of the Treasury. It also creates new positions. There are 
    at least five definite subjects of legislation contained in the 
    joint resolution.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: As to the delegation of duties to the 
    employees of the Treasury Department, I do not believe that is any 
    different than permitting this joint committee to employ the 
    services of persons connected with those departments. Strictly 
    under the rules, of course, under subsection 35 of rule XI, nothing 
    is said about the Rules Committee having jurisdiction of 
    investigations, but as far as I remember--and I served for at least 
    8 years under the distinguished chairmanship of the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Snell]--as far back as I can remember, all of these 
    investigating resolutions went to the Rules Committee. I think that 
    is the basis of referring this resolution, that is based on 
    precedent. It is a custom, a practice, that has grown up in the 
    House.

    Mr. Snell continued to argue that the joint resolution contained 
legislative matter, contending that the language granting the joint 
committee power ``to make such expenditures as it deems advisable'' 
amounted to authorization for an appropriation from the Committee on 
Appropriations. While Mr. O'Connor did not agree, he conceded the 
language was ``not usual, I confess.''
    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, stated on the point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, there are few bills of all the thousands that are 
    introduced in the House of Representatives which do not contain 
    material that would warrant their being sent to any one of a number 
    of committees. Some of them carry provisions which come within the 
    jurisdiction of as many as six or eight committees of the House; 
    and on the other hand few bills are referred to any committee which 
    do not contain material which, if presented alone, would come 
    within the jurisdiction of some other committee or committees of 
    the House. It naturally follows that decision as to which one of a 
    number of committees having some claim of jurisdiction [to which] 
    bills are to be referred is a daily occurrence at the Speaker's 
    table. But the rule followed in such references is that the bill 
    goes to that committee having jurisdiction of the principal 
    objective for which the bill was introduced. The primary purpose of 
    the bill is to secure an investigation, and bills providing for 
    investigations in effect propose changes in the rules, and 
    therefore are referred to the Committee on Rules.

    The Speaker then made his ruling as follows: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 5370, 5371.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3067]]

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] raises the point of 
    order that Senate Joint Resolution 155 was improperly referred to 
    the Committee on Rules for consideration by that committee. The 
    gentleman from New York further makes the suggestion that although 
    the Rules Committee had reported this resolution back to the House 
    and that it had gone on the calendar, this is his first opportunity 
    to raise a point of order against the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Rules.
        With reference to that particular phase of the gentleman's 
    statement, section 2113 of volume 7 of Cannon's Precedents of the 
    House of Representatives, states:

            After a public bill has been reported, it is not in order 
        to raise a question of jurisdiction.

        Although it may be true, as stated by the gentleman from New 
    York, that this is his first opportunity to raise that question, in 
    view of the fact the bill has already been reported by the 
    committee to which it was referred, the Chair rules it is too late 
    to raise that question.
        On the general proposition raised by the gentleman from New 
    York, the Chair may say this is not a matter of first impression. 
    The question as to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules over 
    joint resolutions creating joint committees to make investigations 
    was decided by Speaker Longworth on April 1, 1930. On that occasion 
    the gentleman from New York, Mr. Snell, chairman of the Committee 
    on Rules reported from that committee House Joint Resolution 251, 
    which authorized the appointment of a commission to be composed of 
    Senators, Representatives, and persons to be appointed by the 
    President. The commission was empowered to study the feasibility of 
    equalizing the burden and to minimize the profits of war.
        The report on this joint resolution was referred to the 
    calendar and the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
    Union.
        On April 1, 1930, when Mr. Snell called up the resolution for 
    consideration, Mr. Stafford, of Wisconsin, raised the question as 
    to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules to consider and 
    report on the matters therein contained. In debating the point of 
    order the gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell], among other things, 
    stated:

            We propose setting up a special committee to do a special 
        piece of work, and that comes under the general provision of 
        the rules, because it is a change of the rules for a specific 
        purpose. As far as I know, there has never been any decision 
        against it, and I believe it is entirely in accordance with the 
        rules, because we are changing the rules for a specific 
        purpose, namely setting up a special committee to do a specific 
        piece of work. As far as I know, all the decisions have been to 
        the effect that such matters are privileged to come from the 
        Committee on Rules.

        That is the end of the argument made by the gentleman from New 
    York at that time on this particular question.
        The Speaker, Mr. Longworth, in deciding the point of order, 
    said:

            It has been the common practice of the occupant of the 
        chair, and I think of many of his predecessors, to

[[Page 3068]]

        invariably refer bills and joint resolutions which create a 
        joint commission, particularly composed of Members of the 
        House, to the Committee on Rules. There is no other committee 
        to which they could possibly go. It is a change in the rules, 
        insofar as it permits and provides that Members of the House 
        shall serve on the commission which it creates.

        It appears to the Chair that the reasoning of the gentleman 
    from New York, enunciated at that time, and the decision of the 
    then Speaker, Mr. Longworth, are sound in principle and in 
    precedent. Acting upon that decision as authority, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under the provisions of Rule X in the 94th 
Congress,(20) such matters may now be referred 
simultaneously to more than one committee, sequentially, or even 
divided into two or more parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule X clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 700 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Bill to Amend Nonexisting Act

Sec. 53.12 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution making in 
    order the consideration of a bill to amend a nonexisting act 
    (another bill not yet signed into law), and a point of order with 
    respect thereto is a question for the House, and not the Chair, to 
    decide.

    On May 13, 1953,(1) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Leo E. Allen, of Illinois, Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, who called up House Resolution 233 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 (H.R. 
5134), to amend the Submerged Lands Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 99 Cong. Rec. 4877, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the Clerk read the resolution, the following 
exchange took place:

        Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Feighan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of this rule because it attempts to make in order the 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 5134, which is a bill to amend a 
    nonexisting act.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order that 
    has been raised by the gentleman from Ohio is not one within the 
    jurisdiction of the Chair, but is a question for the House to 
    decide, whether it wants to consider such legislation.

    Although further discussion ensued regarding the necessity and 
rationale for this legislation (2) the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at pp. 4877-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3069]]

resolution was agreed to by voice vote.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 4881.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: After it passed the House, H.R. 4198, the 
initial bill providing for a Submerged Lands Act, was passed by the 
Senate with amendments. H.R. 5134, an effort to amend the as yet 
nonexistent Submerged Lands Act, was intended to counter the Senate's 
removal of title III from the provisions of H.R. 4198. Ultimately, both 
measures became part of the Submerged Lands Act.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 43 USC Sec. 1301. H.R. 4198, approved May 22, 1953, became Pub. L. 
        No. 83-31. H.R. 5134, approved Aug. 7, 1953, became Pub. L. No. 
        83-212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request to Senate

Sec. 53.13 In the House, a resolution raising a question of the 
    privileges of the House requesting the Senate to expunge debate as 
    well as certain rollcall votes of the House, and an editorial 
    critical of the House, inserted in the Record by a Senator, was, on 
    motion, referred to the Committee on Rules.

    On July 12, 1956,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, who rose to a question of 
personal privilege which he later consolidated (6) by 
unanimous consent with a question of the privilege of the House. Mr. 
Hoffman took exception to certain matter inserted in the Record by a 
Senator including the Houses' rollcall votes on H.R. 7535, the 
``Federal aid to education bill,'' and the ``Powell amendment'' 
thereto, along with the state and political affiliation of each Member 
voting, certain critical excerpts from a press editorial, and remarks 
from the floor of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 12522, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Id. at p. 12523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reading some of the offending material, Mr. Hoffman offered 
House Resolution 588, which read as follows:

        Resolved, whereas in the Congressional Record of July 9, 1956, 
    certain articles appear which reflect upon the integrity of the 
    House as a whole in its representative capacity, and upon 
    individual Members of the House; and
        Whereas such statements tend to disgrace, degrade, and render 
    ineffective the actions of the Members of the House; and
        Whereas the statements so made and carried in the Record 
    adversely affect the rights of the House collectively, its safety, 
    dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings: Now, therefore, be 
    it
        Resolved, That the House hereby by the adoption of this 
    resolution most re

[[Page 3070]]

    spectfully requests that the other body expunge from its records 
    the rollcall votes and remarks appearing on pages 11016-11017 and 
    the remarks appearing on page A5384 of the daily Congressional 
    Record of July 9, 1956, under the caption ``Ignoring the 
    Children''; and be it further
        Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the 
    Presiding Officer of the other body.

    Following some additional remarks by Mr. Hoffman, the Speaker 
recognized Mr. John W. McCormack of Massachusetts, who moved that the 
resolution be referred to the Committee on Rules. The motion was agreed 
to.

Special Rules

Sec. 53.14 A point of order against a special order reported from the 
    Committee on Rules, alleging lack of jurisdiction by the committee 
    reporting the bill made in order, will not lie, the Committee on 
    Rules having authority to report a resolution making any properly 
    or improperly referred bill a special order of business.

    On May 2, 1939,(7) Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization (now the 
Committee on the Judiciary), raised a point of order against a 
resolution (H. Res. 175), reported by the Committee on Rules providing 
that upon its adoption, the House would resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 5643), 
investing U.S. circuit courts of appeals with original and exclusive 
jurisdiction to review certain alien detention orders. The basis of Mr. 
Dickstein's point of order as Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
later phrased it (8) was 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 substance of this argument was not 
essential to the Chair's decision, however, since the point of order 
was overruled as being untimely.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Id. at p. 5054.
 9. Id. at p. 5055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding this result, Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, sought 
to examine the ``jurisdictional defects'' issue as the following 
exchange attests:

        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, in order to protect the rights of the 
    Committee on Rules, will the Chair permit this obser

[[Page 3071]]

    vation? The gentleman from New York slept on his rights further 
    until the Committee on Rules reported a rule making the 
    consideration of this measure in order. Even though the reference 
    had been erroneous and the point of order had been otherwise made 
    in time, the Committee on Rules has the right to change the rules 
    and report a rule making the legislation in order. This point also 
    might be taken into consideration by the Speaker, if necessary.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the statement 
    made by the gentleman from Michigan, although not necessary to a 
    decision of the instant question, is sustained by a particular and 
    special decision rendered by Mr. Speaker Garner on a similar 
    question. The decision may be found in the Record of February 28, 
    1933. In that decision it is held, in effect, that despite certain 
    defects in the consideration or the reporting of a bill by a 
    standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a special rule 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion to consider 
    such bill. The Chair thinks that that decision by Mr. Speaker 
    Garner clearly sustains the contention made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        Mr. Mapes: I call attention to the point, Mr. Speaker, only for 
    the purpose of future reference. I agree fully with the ruling of 
    the Speaker.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, it does not seem that the 
special rule cured any defect since no waivers of points of order were 
stated in the rule. Failure to move rereferral under Rule XXII clause 4 
prior to the report of the Committee on the Judiciary conferred 
jurisdiction on that committee over the bill in question.

Sec. 53.15 The rules of the House give the Committee on Rules the 
    authority to report resolutions providing for special orders of 
    business; and a point of order does not lie against such a 
    resolution because its adoption would have the effect of abrogating 
    another standing rule of the House.

    On Nov. 28, 1967,(10) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, called up House Resolution 985 
and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution provided that 
upon its adoption, the House would concur in Senate amendments to a 
House bill (H.R. 2275) with a further amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 34032, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H.R. 2275 was originally a private bill providing relief for an 
individual. The Senate passed the bill with an amendment which 
basically provided that all seats in the House of Representatives shall 
be filled by election of Members from districts. House Resolution 985 
provided for the amendment of that Senate amendment

[[Page 3072]]

in order to permit those states which had always elected their 
Representatives at--large to continue to do so for one more Congress.
    In the course of discussion, Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, made 
the point of order that the proceedings were in violation of a House 
rule.(11) The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 34033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: All right, we will start with rule XX. I 
    will take it under rule XX, which provides--and I can read the 
    English language, though I cannot give you a legal interpretation--

            Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be 
        subject to the point of order that it shall first be considered 
        in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
        if, originating in the House--

        Which this one did not--
        it would be subject to that point--

        Then they give a proviso--
        That a motion to disagree with the amendments--

        And there is no motion to disagree. The motion in the 
    resolution is to agree with the amendment, not to disagree with it. 
    I think at that point someone slipped up. I said I am not a lawyer, 
    but I think I can read the English language, and I have a pretty 
    good idea of what the intention was. I think I have a pretty good 
    idea of what the intentions of the Members of the House were. I ask 
    the Members of the House to give this matter consideration. We are 
    voting now upon a principle and not upon some specific bill that 
    has never been considered, in this House and which rule XX provides 
    should be considered in the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker [John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts]: The Chair is 
    prepared to rule. The Chair has given serious consideration to the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri. The Committee 
    on Rules has reported out a special rule. It is within the 
    authority of the rules, and a reporting out by the Rules Committee 
    is consistent with the rules of the House. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Discussion proceeded, and the previous question was 
moved.(12~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at o. 34038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this juncture, Mr. Jones again raised his point of order, and 
the following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against a vote on this resolution and I make the point of order 
    based entirely on rule XX, which says that any amendment of the 
    Senate to any House bill shall be subject to a point of order that 
    it shall first be considered in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union if it originated in the House it would be 
    subject to that point of order. I believe there is no question 
    about it being subject to a point of order should it originate here 
    in this House. Until that issue is debated in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the

[[Page 3073]]

    Union I believe that we are violating rule XX of the House rules.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has previously 
    ruled on the point of order raised by the gentleman, and the matter 
    is one that is now before the House for the consideration of the 
    House, and the will of the House.
        For the reasons heretofore stated and now stated, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me under 
    what authority the House can consider this in the House rather than 
    in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, in 
    view of rule XX which says it shall first be considered in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House can change its 
    rules at any time upon a resolution that is properly before the 
    House reported by the Committee on Rules. The present resolution 
    has been put before the House by the Committee on Rules within the 
    authority of the Committee on Rules, therefore the matter presents 
    itself for the will of the House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Special rules from the Committee on Rules and their effect on the 
        order of business are treated in Ch. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-55]                         

[Page 3073-3080]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 54. Committee Procedure

    The rules expressly grant privileged status to certain actions of 
the Committee on Rules. It may sit, without special leave, even while 
the House is reading a measure for amendment under the five-minute 
rule.
    While the Committee on Rules is unique among the House's standing 
committees, it is subject to most of the rules' provisions affecting 
them.
    The committee is completely exempt, however, from a number of 
provisions affecting most standing committees. Thus, the Committee on 
Rules is not obliged to provide time for, or even to include at all, in 
its reports any supplemental, minority, or additional views of its 
members.(14) Similarly, the committee is under no obligation 
under House rules ``to make public announcement of the date, place, and 
subject matter of any hearing'' it plans to conduct.(15) 
Moreover, the committee is exempt from certain rule provisions which 
pertain solely to standing committees with legislative jurisdiction. 
For example, the requirements of Rule XIII clause 7 (16) 
pertaining to the inclusion, in reports accompanying public bills, of

[[Page 3074]]

certain estimates of costs arising under said bills are specifically 
made inapplicable to the Committee on Rules. Similarly, privileged 
reports from the Committee on Rules are exempted from the provisions of 
Rule XI clause (2)(l)(6) (17) requiring that measures 
reported by committees not be considered in the House until the third 
calendar day on which the committee report on such measure has been 
available to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Rule XI clause 2(1)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979).
15. See Rule XI clause 2(g)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 708 (1979).
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 748(b) (1979).
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Rules

Sec. 54.1 The Committee on Rules having adopted rules of procedure, the 
    chairman of the committee inserted them in the Record.

    On Feb. 28, 1967,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, Chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, who then stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 4774, 4775, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, rule XI of the House provides that all committees 
    of the House of Representatives other than the Committee on 
    Appropriations shall have regular meeting days during the sessions 
    of the Congress.
        The same rule also provides that the committees of the House 
    may adopt additional rules not inconsistent with the rules of the 
    House.
        In conformity with and carrying out the provisions of rule XI, 
    the Committee on Rules today unanimously adopted the following 
    rules of procedure for the Committee on Rules:

        Rules for the Committee on Rules, Adopted Unanimously February 
                                    28, 1967

                                rule 1. meetings

            The Committee on Rules shall meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday 
        of each week while the Congress is in session. Meetings shall 
        be called to order and presided over by the Chairman or, in the 
        absence of the Chairman, by the ranking Majority Member of the 
        Committee present as acting chairman.
            Meetings and hearings of the Committee shall be open to the 
        public except when a majority of the Committee determine that 
        testimony received may bear upon matters affecting the national 
        security. Executive sessions of the Committee shall be closed.
            For the purpose of hearing testimony, a majority of the 
        Committee shall constitute a quorum.
            A printed transcript of any hearing or public meeting of 
        the Committee may be had if the Chairman decides it is 
        necessary, or if a majority of the Members request it.
            A Tuesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with 
        where, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need 
        therefor, and additional meetings may be called by the Chairman 
        or by written request of a majority of the Committee duly filed 
        with the counsel of the Committee.

                                 rule 2. voting

            No measure or recommendation shall be reported or tabled by 
        the Committee unless a majority of the Committee is actually 
        present.

[[Page 3075]]

            A roll call vote of the Members of the Committee may be had 
        upon the request of any Member.

                               rule 3. reporting

            Whenever the Committee authorizes the favorable reporting 
        of a bill or resolution from the Committee, the Chairman or 
        acting Chairman shall report the same or designate some Member 
        of the Committee to report the same to the House, as provided 
        in the Rules of the House.

                           rule 4. committee staffing

            The professional and clerical staffs of the Committee shall 
        be under the general supervision and direction of the Chairman, 
        who shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities 
        of the members of the staffs and delegate such authority as the 
        Chairman deems appropriate, with the exception of the Minority 
        staff, who shall be selected by and under the general 
        supervision and direction of the Ranking Minority Member of the 
        Committee.

                             rule 6. miscellaneous

            The Committee shall prepare, maintain, and publish for the 
        Members of the Committee, so far as practicable, a calendar 
        listing all matters formally before it. Information on the 
        Calendar shall include the numbers of the bills or resolutions, 
        a brief description of a bill's contents, including the 
        legislative committee reporting it and the name of the 
        principal sponsoring Member. For purposes of this rule, matters 
        formally before the Committee include: bills or resolutions 
        over which the Committee has original jurisdiction, and bills 
        or resolutions from other committees concerning which the 
        chairman or designated member of such committee has requested a 
        hearing in writing and forwarded to the Committee on Rules a 
        copy of such bill or resolution as reported, together with the 
        final printed committee report.
            Upon adoption of the rules and procedures of the Committee 
        at the opening of each Congress, the Chairman may have these 
        rules and procedures printed in an early issue of The 
        Congressional Record.

Calling Meetings

Sec. 54.2 The Chairman of the Committee on Rules is under no obligation 
    to call a meeting thereof, but where he declines to call a meeting, 
    a majority of the committee members may do so pursuant to those 
    rules applicable to all standing committees.

    On May 27, 1946,(19) the House received a message from 
the Senate to the effect that that body had passed an amended version 
of the so-called Case bill (H.R. 4908), which was entitled, ``An act to 
provide additional facilities for the mediation of labor disputes, and 
for other purposes.'' The message also requested House concurrence in 
the Senate's amended version of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 92 Cong. Rec. 5848, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later in the day, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, a member of the Committee on Rules, who 
asked the following question: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 5863.

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

[[Page 3076]]

        Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules all day long has been 
    seeking to get a meeting of that committee. This morning I made the 
    unanimous-consent request that the Committee on Rules be given 
    until tomorrow night to file its report on the so-called Case bill. 
    Objection was made by the gentleman from New York to that request. 
    So that the situation now is that unless the committee meets this 
    afternoon it will not be possible to carry out the previously 
    agreed upon schedule of the House to take up the Case bill on 
    Wednesday morning. My parliamentary inquiry is whether when the 
    chairman of the Committee on Rules absents himself from the floor 
    of the House and from the office of the committee and declines to 
    call a meeting of the committee to transact important business for 
    the country it is within the province of a majority of the members 
    of the committee to themselves call a meeting and report whatever 
    legislation they desire to the floor of the House.

    The Speaker responded by stating:

        The Chair will read clause 48 of rule XI: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. This provision has changed very little in substance since 1946. The 
        1979 rules [Rule XI clause 2(c)(2), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 705 (1979)], require that the committee chairman be 
        notified of the filing of a request for the meeting and that he 
        be provided with three calendar days within which to call it 
        himself, before the committee majority may file its notice 
        mandating such a meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A standing committee of the House shall meet to consider 
        any bill or resolution pending before it: (1) on all regular 
        meeting days selected by the committee; (2) upon the call of 
        the chairman of the committee; (3) if the chairman of the 
        committee, after 3 days' consideration, refuses or fails, upon 
        the request of at least three members of the committee, to call 
        a special meeting of the committee within 7 calendar days from 
        the date of said request, then, upon the filing with the clerk 
        of the committee of the written and signed request of a 
        majority of the committee for a called special meeting of the 
        committee, the committee shall meet on the day and hour 
        specified in said written request. It shall be the duty of the 
        clerk of the committee to notify all members of the committee 
        in the usual way of such called special meeting.

        That is the answer of the Chair to the parliamentary inquiry of 
    the gentleman from Virginia.

    Mr. Smith then elaborated on his initial inquiry, prompting the 
following exchange: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 5863, 5864, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, may I submit a further 
    inquiry?
        Under those circumstances, is it possible for the chairman of 
    the committee of his own volition to prevent the House from taking 
    action on legislation vital to the Nation until the time set forth 
    in the rule has elapsed?
        The Speaker: Under the rules of the House, the chairman of a 
    committee does not have to call a meeting of the committee. The 
    answer to the question as to how the committee can get together if 
    the chairman does not desire

[[Page 3077]]

    to call the committee together or refuses to call them together is 
    contained in the rule just read.

Sec. 54.3 Any Member may request that the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules call a meeting of that committee to consider reporting a 
    resolution making in order the disposition of a House bill with 
    Senate amendments thereto.

    On Aug. 13, 1957,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, who requested unanimous 
consent to take a civil rights bill (H.R. 6127), from the Speaker's 
desk, with Senate amendments thereto, and to disagree to the amendments 
of the Senate and ask for a conference. This request being objected to, 
Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, asked unanimous consent that the House 
concur in the Senate amendments--a request to which Mr. Keating 
objected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 103 Cong. Rec. 14568, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Keating: Would the Speaker recognize me to move to send the 
    bill to the Rules Committee?
        The Speaker: The Chair would not. It is not necessary to do 
    that.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keating: Would the Speaker advise what action is necessary 
    now in order to get the bill to the Committee on Rules?
        The Speaker: Anyone can make the request of the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules to call a meeting of the committee to consider 
    the whole matter.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, if that were done, would the bill 
    which is now on the Speaker's desk be before the Rules Committee?
        The Speaker: It would not be before the Committee on Rules. The 
    Committee on Rules could consider the matter of what procedure to 
    recommend to the House for the disposition of this whole matter.

Absence of a Quorum

Sec. 54.4 The Chairman of the Committee on Rules has withdrawn a report 
    presented from the floor where a question arose as to whether a 
    quorum of the committee was present at the time the resolution was 
    ordered reported.

    On Feb. 2, 1951,(4) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath of Illinois, a 
member of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 97 Cong. Rec. 876, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3078]]

the Committee on Rules, sought to file a privileged report (H. Res. 
95), authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct studies and 
investigations relating to matters within its jurisdiction.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, made the point 
of order that the resolution was not properly reported by the committee 
whereupon the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I think an inquiry by the Chair will 
    determine there was not a quorum present, and that the resolution 
    was not before the committee at that time.
        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: That is right. That is a 
    correct statement.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I must protest, Mr. Speaker, and I must make 
    the point of order inasmuch as I regret to do so.
        Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, even if a quorum was not present, no 
    point of order has been made. But a quorum was present, and I can 
    give you the names of the seven Members who were present. They were 
    Mr. Cox, Mr. Colmer, Mr. Madden, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. 
    Latham, and myself. Seven of twelve makes a quorum. But I withheld 
    it because the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] objected due to some 
    misunderstanding with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler]. 
    Since that time I have learned that the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Celler] has agreed with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] on 
    the assignment of committees and because the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Celler] assured me that an agreement has been reached 
    with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] as to the number of 
    subcommittees, I present it today. A quorum was present. The 
    committee had jurisdiction.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield there, the 
    gentleman will recall that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] 
    and the gentleman from Texas were not present. There was not a 
    single Republican present.
        Mr. Sabath: There was a Republican present.
        Mr. Cox: Not a single Republican was present. This was not on 
    the agenda but it was called up after the Republicans left, and 
    there was not the majority present.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Sabath withdrew the report.

Presumption of Procedural Regularity

Sec. 54.5 A point of order against a special rule, presumably reported 
    at a properly convened meeting of the Committee on Rules, will not 
    lie on the ground that the measure made in order by the special 
    rule was not properly reported by a standing committee and was the 
    subject of misrepresentations before the Committee on Rules.

    On July 23, 1942,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recog

[[Page 3079]]

nized Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who called up House Resolution 528. The resolution provided for 
a special rule, the adoption of which would enable the House to resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider a bill (H.R. 7416), 
providing a means to vote for wartime servicemen absent from their 
states of residence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 6542, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the Clerk's reading, the following exchange took 
place:

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the rule.
        I make the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that this rule was 
    obtained by fraud; that it was represented to the Rules Committee 
    that the Committee on Election of [the] President, Vice President, 
    and Representatives in Congress [now, the Committee on House 
    Administration] had held a meeting and reported this bill. No such 
    meeting was ever held. The chairman of the committee was in New 
    York, sick, and a majority of the rest of the members was not even 
    notified that any such meeting was contemplated. Fraud vitiates 
    everything, and I cannot believe that the Rules Committee would 
    report this rule out knowing that they were being defrauded. If 
    they did not know it, the fraud vitiates the rule. That is a well-
    known legal maxim that every lawyer is familiar with. So I make the 
    point of order, Mr. Speaker, that this proposition is not legally 
    before the House because it was never legally reported. The members 
    of the Rules Committee were misled into believing it had been 
    reported and therefore were defrauded into reporting this rule, 
    which vitiates the whole proceeding.
        The Speaker: The only thing that interests the Chair is whether 
    or not the Committee on Rules had a formal meeting and reported 
    this resolution. The Chair has no right, as the Chair thinks, in 
    the absence of some evidence to the contrary, to assume that the 
    Committee on Rules had anything but a formal session and reported 
    this special rule. Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order 
    of the gentleman from Mississippi.

Three-day Rule for Filing Reports

Sec. 54.6 The Committee on Rules must present to the House reports 
    concerning rules, joint rules, and orders of business within three 
    legislative days of the time when ordered reported by the 
    committee.

    On Jan. 25, 1944,(6) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, who initiated the 
following exchange in the course of asking a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 675, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on day before yesterday the Committee on Rules 
    voted, I understand unanimously, to report to the

[[Page 3080]]

    House a rule on the soldiers' vote bill, S. 1285. This rule has not 
    been reported to the House.
        My parliamentary inquiry is whether if the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules declines further, or delays further, to report 
    this rule to the House so we may proceed with this legislation, 
    some other member of the Committee on Rules may do so without a 
    resolution.

        I may say to the Chair that it is my definite understanding 
    that unless the chairman of the Committee on Rules does report it, 
    a motion will be in order under the privilege of the House to 
    require the resolution to be brought to the floor of the House, but 
    what I am trying to find out is whether or not some other member of 
    the committee would have the right to report this rule and let us 
    proceed with the legislation.
        The Speaker: The rule provides that the Committee on Rules 
    shall present to the House reports concerning joint resolutions and 
    other business within 3 legislative days of the time when ordered 
    reported by the committee.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Rule XI clause 4(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair does not feel it necessary at this time to answer the 
    parliamentary inquiry further because the Chair believes that 
    action will provide the answer.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-56]                         

[Page 3080-3099]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 55. Reports From the Committee

    A report from the Committee on Rules on rules, joint rules, or 
order of business is privileged.
    It may report at any time on ``rules, joint rules, and order of 
business.'' (8) It is always in order to call up the 
committee's reports providing that the matter reported is within its 
jurisdiction(9) and providing that if a measure is reported 
on the same day it is called up in the House, at least two-thirds of 
the Members present vote affirmatively to consider the 
report;(10) this latter proviso is inapplicable during the 
last three days of a session.(11) Pending the consideration 
of the report, the Speaker may entertain one motion to adjourn, but 
after the result is announced, no dilatory motion is permissible. The 
rule expressly prohibits the committee from reporting any special rule 
which ``shall operate to prevent the motion to recommit'' as provided 
elsewhere [Rule XVI clause 4] in the rules, although it should be noted 
that a motion to recommit a special rule from the committee, itself, is 
not in order. The committee is also expressly prohibited from reporting 
a special rule which sets aside business under the Calendar Wednesday 
provi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
 9. The inclusion of nonprivileged matter vitiates the privilege.
10. Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979).
11. See Sec. 56.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3081]]

sions(12) of the rules by a vote of less than two-thirds of 
the Members present. Although the rule grants privileged status to the 
committee's reports, they yield to questions of privilege and are not 
in order after the House has voted to go into the Committee of the 
Whole. Moreover, a conference report takes precedence over a committee 
report.(13) No rule reported by the committee providing a 
special order of business is divisible.(1) The privileged 
status of a measure may be lost through the inclusion of nonprivileged 
matter.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. A resolution making this ultimate result possible has been held in 
        order, however; see House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(b) (1979).
            For the Calendar Wednesday rule, see Rule XXIV clause 7, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1979).
13. See Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979).
 1. Rule XVI clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 791 (1979).
 2. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 727 (1979) and Sec. 55.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XI (3) mandates that the committee ``present to the 
House reports concerning rules, joint rules, and order of business, 
within three legislative days of the time when ordered reported by the 
committee.'' This rule additionally provides that if a special rule is 
not considered immediately, ``it shall be referred to the calendar and, 
if not called up by the Member making the report within seven 
legislative days thereafter, any member of the Rules Committee may call 
it up as a privileged matter and the Speaker shall recognize any member 
of the Rules Committee seeking recognition for that purpose (emphasis 
supplied).'' The rule also provides that an adversely reported 
resolution may be called up for consideration by any Member of the 
House on those days set aside for motions to discharge committees, and 
the Speaker is obliged to recognize the Member seeking recognition for 
that purpose ``as a question of the highest privilege.'' (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Clause 4(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1979).
 4. For extensive treatment of committee procedure with respect to 
        special orders and the order of business, generally, see Ch. 
        21, infra. See also Ch. 18, infra, with respect to motions to 
        discharge matters from the 
        committee.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Privileged Status of Reports

Sec. 55.1 A resolution establishing a standing (or a select) committee 
    [but not specifically amending the rules of the House], is reported 
    and called up as privileged by the Committee on Rules.

[[Page 3082]]

    On Apr. 6, 1967,(5) the Record reveals that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 8622, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi] from the Committee on 
    Rules, filed a privileged report (H. Res. 418, Rept. No. 178) which 
    was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

    One week later, on Apr. 13, 1967,(6) the following 
exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 9425, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 418 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That there is hereby established a standing 
        committee of the House of Representatives to be known as the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (hereafter referred 
        to as the ``committee''). The committee shall be composed of 
        twelve Members of the House of Representatives. Six members of 
        the committee shall be members of the majority party and six 
        shall be members of the minority party.
            Sec. 2. The jurisdiction of the committee shall be to 
        recommend as soon as practicable to the House of 
        Representatives such changes in laws, rules, and regulations as 
        the committee deems necessary to establish and enforce 
        standards of official conduct for Members, officers, and 
        employees of the House.
            Sec. 3. The committee may hold such hearings and take such 
        testimony as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this 
        resolution.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from 
    Mississippi is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 8, 1969,(8) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Illinois, 
introduced a resolution (H. Res. 472), creating a select committee to 
be known as the Committee on the House Restaurant. The resolution was 
referred to the Committee on Rules which reported it on July 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 18714, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two days later, on July 10, 1969,(9) Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Madden who proceeded to 
make the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 19080, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up 
    House Resolution 472 and ask for its immediate consideration.

    The resolution was then read by the Clerk, as follows:

                                H. Res. 472

        Resolved, That (a) there is hereby created a select committee 
    to be known as the ``Committee on the House Restaurant,'' which 
    shall be composed of five Members of the House of Representatives 
    to be appointed by the Speaker, not more than three of whom shall 
    be of the majority party, and one of whom shall be designated as 
    chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the committee 
    shall be

[[Page 3083]]

    filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was 
    made.
        (b) On and after July 15, 1969, until otherwise ordered by the 
    House, the Architect of the Capitol shall perform the duties vested 
    in him by section 208 of Public Law 812, 76th Congress (40 U.S.C. 
    174k) under the direction of the select committee herein created.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A resolution creating a standing or a 
select committee is deemed to be the equivalent of a new rule. Hence, 
the privileged status which attaches to such a measure when reported 
out by the Committee on Rules.

Privileged Status of Report on Rules, Joint Rules, or Order of Business

Sec. 55.2 A resolution from the Committee on Rules was not privileged 
    for consideration before the call of committees on Calendar 
    Wednesday.

    On Aug. 21, 1935,(10) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, recognized John J. O'Connor, of New York, Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, who called up the following resolution (H. Res. 
358) which had been reported from his committee on the previous day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 14038, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the remainder of the first session of the 
    Seventy-fourth Congress it shall be in order for the acting 
    majority leader or the Chairman of the Committee on Rules to move 
    that the House take a recess, and said motion is hereby made of the 
    highest privilege; and it shall also be in order at any time during 
    the remainder of the first session of the Seventy-fourth Congress 
    to consider reports of the Committee on Rules, as provided in 
    clause 45, rule XI, except that the provision requiring a two-
    thirds vote to consider such reports is hereby suspended during the 
    remainder of this session of Congress.

    A brief discussion ensued, after which the Chair recognized Mr. 
Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, who initiated the following exchange: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 14039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, this is Calendar Wednesday, and I object to the 
    consideration of the resolution as not being privileged on Calendar 
    Wednesday.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not think the resolution is 
    privileged on Calendar Wednesday.
        Mr. Snell: Then, Mr. Speaker, ask for the regular program.
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The regular order is, This is Calendar Wednesday.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House rules (12) [Rule XI clause 
4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979)], provide that the Com

[[Page 3084]]

mittee on Rules shall have leave to report at any time ``on rules, 
joint rules, and order of business.'' The rules (13) also 
provide, however, that every Wednesday a procedure commonly referred to 
as ``Calendar Wednesday'' shall be followed unless the House decides 
otherwise by a two-thirds vote on a motion to dispense therewith. 
Briefly stated, ``Calendar Wednesday'' provides that the Speaker shall 
call the committees in order [i.e., the order in which listed in the 
rules], and each committee when named may call up any reported bill on 
the House or Union Calendar except those bills which are privileged 
under the rules.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. At the time, Rule XI clause 45; see H. Jour. 1277, 74th Cong. 1st 
        Sess. (1935).
13. Rule XXIV clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 889 (1979); Rule 
        XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1979).
14. For further discussion of calendars, see Ch. 22, infra. Special 
        orders are taken up in Ch. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 55.3 While legislation creating a joint investigative committee is 
    customarily accorded the same privileged status as any other 
    measure within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules, where 
    the proposed legislation includes material or matters not 
    privileged for consideration if reported by the Committee on Rules, 
    that privilege is destroyed. And, in such an instance, the 
    Committee on Rules had to report a special rule making in order the 
    consideration of the measure.

    On June 2, 1937,(15) Mr. Robert L. Doughton, of North 
Carolina, unsuccessfully sought unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 155), to create a Joint 
Congressional Committee on Tax Evasion and Avoidance and to have the 
resolution considered immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 5243-45, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senate Joint Resolution 155 read, in part, as follows:

        Resolved, etc., That (a) there is hereby established a joint 
    congressional committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Tax 
    Evasion and Avoidance (hereinafter referred to as the joint 
    committee).
        (b) The joint committee shall be composed of six Members of the 
    Senate who are members of the Committee on Finance, appointed by 
    the President of the Senate, and six Members of the House of 
    Representatives who are members of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. . . .
        Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the joint committee to 
    investigate the methods of evasion and avoidance of income, estate, 
    and gift taxes, pointed out in the message of the President

[[Page 3085]]

    transmitted to Congress on June 1, 1937, and other methods of tax 
    evasion and avoidance, and to report to the Senate and the House, 
    at the earliest practicable date, and from time to time thereafter, 
    but not later than February 1, 1938, its recommendations as to 
    remedies for the evils disclosed by such investigation.
        Sec. 3. (a) The joint committee, or any subcommittee thereof, 
    shall have power to hold hearings and to sit and act at such places 
    and times, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of 
    such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and 
    documents, to administer such oaths, to take such testimony, to 
    have such printing and binding done, and to make such expenditures, 
    as it deems advisable. . . .
        (b)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury and any officer or 
    employee of the Treasury Department, upon request from the joint 
    committee, shall furnish such committee with any data of any 
    character contained in or shown by any return of income, estate, or 
    gift tax.
        (2) The joint committee shall have the right, acting directly 
    as a committee or by or through such examiners or agents as it may 
    designate or appoint, to inspect any or all such returns at such 
    times and in such manner as it may determine.
        (3) The joint committee shall have the right to submit any 
    relevant or useful information thus obtained to the Senate, the 
    House of Representatives, the Committee on Ways and Means, or the 
    Committee on Finance, and shall have the right to make public, in 
    such cases and to such extent as it may deem advisable, any such 
    information or any such returns. The Committee on Ways and Means or 
    the Committee on Finance may submit such information to the House 
    or to the Senate, or to both the House and the Senate, as the case 
    may be.

        Sec. 4. The joint committee shall have power to employ and fix 
    the compensation of such officers, experts, and employees as it 
    deems necessary for the performance of its duties, but the 
    compensation so fixed shall not exceed the compensation fixed under 
    the Classification Act of 1923, as amended for comparable duties. 
    The joint committee is authorized to utilize the services, 
    information, facilities, and personnel of the departments and 
    agencies in the executive branch of the Government and of the Joint 
    Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation.
        Sec. 5. The joint committee may authorize any one or more 
    officers or employees of the Treasury Department to conduct any 
    part of such investigation on behalf of the committee, and for such 
    purpose any person so authorized may hold such hearings, and 
    require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses 
    and the production of such books, papers, and documents, administer 
    such oaths, and take such testimony as the committee may authorize. 
    In any such case subpenas shall be issued under the signature of 
    the chairman of the joint committee and shall be served by any 
    person designated by him.
        Sec. 6. All authority conferred by this joint resolution shall 
    expire on February 1, 1938.

    Several days later,(16) Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New 
York,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 5369, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 7, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3086]]

raised a point of order against its referral to the Committee on 
Rules,(17) stating, in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. S.J. Res. 155 was taken from the Speaker's table and referred to 
        the Committee on Rules on June 2, 1937. See 81 Cong. Rec. 5262, 
        75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This resolution is much more than an investigation; it is just 
    full of legislation. In the first place, it authorizes an 
    appropriation. It places new duties on the Secretary of the 
    Treasury. It provides for the repeal of the law for publicity of 
    income-tax returns under certain circumstances. It allows this 
    committee to create positions, fix compensation, and so forth. It 
    also delegates new authority to the employees of the Department of 
    the Treasury.

    Commenting on the point of order at the time, Mr. John J. O'Connor, 
of New York, noted:

        This Senate Joint Resolution 155, not being a privileged 
    matter, because it contains provisions as to expenditures required 
    the reporting of a separate House resolution for its consideration.

    As the discussion proceeded, however, Mr. O'Connor did appear to 
concede that the joint resolution may have trespassed in part on the 
jurisdiction of, at least, one standing committee [the Committee on 
Appropriations] as the following exchange indicates:

        Mr. Snell: . . . Would the gentleman maintain that the Rules 
    Committee would have jurisdiction over matter such as is contained 
    in Senate Joint Resolution 155?
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Oh, no; of course it would not. It 
    would not have jurisdiction over appropriations

    Following brief debate, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
overruled the point of order, as follows: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 5370, 5371, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] raises the point of 
    order that Senate Joint Resolution 155 was improperly referred to 
    the Committee on Rules for consideration by that committee. The 
    gentleman from New York further makes the suggestion that although 
    the Rules Committee had reported this resolution back to the House 
    and that it had gone on the calendar, this is his first opportunity 
    to raise a point of order against the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Rules.
        With reference to that particular phase of the gentleman's 
    statement, section 2113 of volume 7 of Cannon's Precedents of the 
    House of Representatives, states:

            After a public bill has been reported, it is not in order 
        to raise a question of jurisdiction.

        Although it may be true, as stated by the gentleman from New 
    York, that this is his first opportunity to raise that question, in 
    view of the fact the bill has already been reported by the 
    committee to which it was referred, the Chair rules it is too late 
    to raise that question.
        On the general proposition raised by the gentleman from New 
    York, the

[[Page 3087]]

    Chair may say this is not a matter of first impression. The 
    question as to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules over 
    joint resolutions creating joint committees to make investigations 
    was decided by Speaker Longworth on April 1, 1930. On that occasion 
    the gentleman from New York, Mr. Snell, Chairman of the Committee 
    on Rules, reported from that committee House Joint Resolution 251, 
    which authorized the appointment of a commission to be composed of 
    Senators, Representatives, and persons to be appointed by the 
    President. The commission was empowered to study the feasibility of 
    equalizing the burden and to minimize the profits of war.
        The report on this joint resolution was referred to the 
    calendar and the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
    Union.
        On April 1, 1930, when Mr. Snell called up the resolution for 
    consideration, Mr. Stafford, of Wisconsin, raised the question as 
    to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules to consider and 
    report on the matters therein contained. In debating the point of 
    order the gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell], among other things, 
    stated:

            We propose setting up a special committee to do a special 
        piece of work, and that comes under the general provision of 
        the rules, because it is a change of the rules for a specific 
        purpose. As far as I know, there has never been any decision 
        against it, and I believe it is entirely in accordance with the 
        rules, because we are changing the rules for a specific 
        purpose, namely, setting up a special committee to do a 
        specific piece of work. As far as I know, all the decisions 
        have been to the effect that such matters are privileged to 
        come from the Committee on Rules.

        That is the end of the argument made by the gentleman from New 
    York at that time on this particular question.
        The Speaker, Mr. Longworth, in deciding the point of order, 
    said:

            It has been the common practice of the present occupant of 
        the chair, and I think of many of his predecessors, to 
        invariably refer bills and joint resolutions which create a 
        joint commission, particularly composed of Members of the 
        House, to the Committee on Rules. There is no other committee 
        to which they could possibly go. It is a change in the rules 
        insofar as it permits and provides that Members of the House 
        shall serve on the commission which it creates.

        It appears to the Chair that the reasoning of the gentleman 
    from New York, enunciated at that time, and the decision of the 
    then Speaker, Mr. Longworth, are sound in principle and in 
    precedent. Acting upon that decision as authority, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While Mr. Snell's point of order was 
overruled,(19) the Committee on Rules did report a special 
rule (H. Res. 226),(1) for the consideration of Senate Joint 
Resolution 155 waiving all points of order against that resolution. 
Hence, the mere fact that the Committee on Rules had primary 
jurisdiction of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 5371.
 1. 81 Cong. Rec. 5442, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3088]]

joint resolution was not sufficient, in itself, to grant the privilege 
normally accorded such matters under the rules.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discharging Resolution From the Committee by Petition

Sec. 55.4 Under the discharge rule, where the Committee on Rules is 
    discharged from further consideration of a resolution, the House 
    immediately votes on adoption of the resolution and amendments are 
    not in order.

    On Jan. 24, 1944,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, who called up a motion 
to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of a 
resolution (H. Res. 29), amending the rules of the House (4) 
for the purpose of extending the jurisdiction of the Committee on World 
War Veterans' Legislation to cover veterans of World War II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 90 Cong. Rec. 629, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Because the resolution was written prior to the adoption of the 
        rules of of the 78th Congress, the measure actually called for 
        an amendment of the rules of the 77th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the ensuing debate, Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North 
Carolina, raised a parliamentary inquiry, thereby initiating the 
following exchange: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 90 Cong. Rec. 631, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I wish to be advised for my own information and for the 
    information of the House as to whether or not this resolution will 
    be subject to amendment in the event of an affirmative vote on the 
    motion to discharge. There seems to be some uncertainty about it.
        The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule,(6) which 
    is very clear:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            If the motion should prevail to discharge the Committee on 
        Rules from any resolution pending before the committee the 
        House shall immediately vote on the adoption of said 
        resolution, the Speaker not entertaining any dilatory or other 
        intervening motions except one motion to adjourn.

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: That is on the resolution 
    itself, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: On the resolution itself.
        Mr. Cooley: My parliamentary inquiry was about the resolution 
    after the discharge of the committee.
        The Speaker: That is exactly what the Chair was reading. It 
    reads: ``On the resolution.'' When the House votes to discharge the 
    committee then the resolution is before the House for a vote.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Cooley again addressed himself to this 
issue:

[[Page 3089]]

        Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the Chair, I should like to 
    invite the attention of the Chair to a provision contained in 
    chapter 5 of rule 24,(7) which provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Mr. Cooley was referring to Rule XXVII clause 4 [H. Jour. 704, 78th 
        Cong. 2d Sess. (1944); see Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 908 (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            If the motion prevails to discharge one of the standing 
        committees of the House from any public bill or resolution 
        pending before the committee it shall then be in order for any 
        Member who signed the motion to move that the House proceed to 
        the immediate consideration of such bill or resolution, such 
        motion not being debatable; and such motion is hereby made of 
        high privilege, and if it shall be decided in the affirmative 
        the bill shall be immediately considered under the general 
        rules of the House and if unfinished before adjournment of the 
        day on which it is called up it shall remain the unfinished 
        business until it is fully disposed of.

        If it is going to be considered under the general rules of the 
    House it occurs to me it will be subject to amendment.

    The Chair replied, as follows:

        It is not considered under the general rules of the House; and, 
    further than that, a legislative committee is not being discharged. 
    The Committee on Rules is not a legislative committee.
        The Chair is going to hold that the resolution is not subject 
    to amendment within the rule we are operating under today. We must 
    do it according to the special rule adopted for discharge.

Ramseyer Rule and Reports of the Rules Committee

Sec. 55.5 A report from the Committee on Rules pertaining to a special 
    rule providing for the consideration of a bill amending existing 
    law was not subject to the provisions of the Ramseyer rule.

    On May 23, 1935,(8) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, recognized Mr. Lawrence Lewis, of Colorado, who called up 
the following resolution (H. Res. 215):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 8094, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
    consideration of H.R. 3019, a hill to amend sections 1, 3, and 15 
    of the act entitled ``An act to stop injury to the public grazing 
    lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, and so 
    forth'', approved June 28, 1934. That after general debate, which 
    shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 1 
    hour to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Public Lands, the bill 
    shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the 
    conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment, the committee 
    shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be consid

[[Page 3090]]

    ered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or 
    without instructions.

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, rose 
to a point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the report does not 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule because it does not show the changes 
    in the law by the proposed bill. I will read the rule which will be 
    found in the Manual on page 338, 2a:

            Whenever a committee reports a bill or joint resolution 
        repealing or amending any statute or part thereof it shall 
        include in its report or in an accompanying document--
            (1) The text of the statute or part thereof which is 
        proposed to be repealed; and
            (2) A comparative print of that part of the bill or joint 
        resolution making the amendment and of the statute or part 
        thereof proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through 
        type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate 
        typographical devices the omissions and insertions proposed to 
        be made.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979), 
        where the identical language may be found as well as this 
        additional clause: ``Provided, however, That if a committee 
        reports such a bill or joint resolution with amendments or an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill, 
        such report shall include a comparative print showing any 
        changes in existing law proposed by the amendments or 
        substitute instead of as in the bill as introduced.'' For 
        further information about the Ramseyer rule, generally, see 
        Sec. 60, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker ruled as follows:

        . . . The Chair will state that the point of order raised by 
    the gentleman may be good as to reports by a legislative 
    committee.(10) But this is a special rule from the 
    Committee on Rules which merely makes in order the consideration of 
    a bill. The Chair does not think the point is well taken when made 
    against the report of the Committee on Rules and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also Sec. 55.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 55.6 Reports of the Committee on Rules on resolutions amending the 
    rules of the House were not subject to the Ramseyer rule in the 
    74th Congress.

    On Mar. 26, 1935,(11) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, recognized John J. O'Connor, of New York, Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, who called up House Resolution 172, a measure 
amending the Private Calendar rule (12) which sets forth the 
days and conditions pursuant to which private bills or resolutions are 
considered in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 79 Cong. Rec. 4480, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. See Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1979), 
        which resulted from the passage of this resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following a point of order pertaining to the privileged status of

[[Page 3091]]

the resolution, the Chair recognized Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
who made the following parliamentary inquiry: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 79 Cong. Rec. 4482, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is this resolution subject to the Ramseyer rule? 
    (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. At the time, the ``Ramseyer rule'' read as follows:
            ``Whenever a committee reports a bill or a joint resolution 
        repealing or amending any statute or part thereof it shall 
        include in its report or in an accompanying document--(1) The 
        text of the statute or part thereof which is proposed to be 
        repealed; and (2) A comparative print of that part of the bill 
        or joint resolution making the amendment and of the statute or 
        part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-
        through type and italics, parallel columns, or other 
        appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions 
        proposed to be made.'' [H. Jour. 1278, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. 
        (1935)].
            Since then [see Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 745 (1979)], the following language has been added: 
        ``Provided, however, That if a committee reports such a bill or 
        joint resolution with amendments or an amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute for the entire bill, such report shall include 
        a comparative print showing any changes in existing law 
        proposed by the amendments or substitute instead of as in the 
        bill as introduced.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If it is, I make the point of order that the report does not 
    comply with that rule.
        The Speaker: The Ramseyer rule, to which the gentleman refers, 
    has to do with reports of committees on bills which amend the 
    statutes. This resolution proposes to amend the rules of the House, 
    and therefore does not come within the provisions of clause 2a of 
    rule XIII, the so-called ``Ramseyer rule.'' The Chair, therefore, 
    does not think that the Ramseyer rule applies to this report of the 
    Committee on Rules.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For more information about the Ramseyer rule, generally, see 
        Sec. 60, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: See Rule XI clause 4(d) applicable to 
resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules proposing permanent 
repeal or amendment (but not temporary waiver) of rules of the House 
requiring comparative print to be included in accompanying report 
(effective Jan. 3, 1975, H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.).

Typographical Error in Report

Sec. 55.7 Where the print of a resolution from the Committee on Rules 
    implied that it was reported by a Member not a member of that 
    committee, the Chair indicated that since the evidence was to the 
    contrary, the incorporation of the erroneous name would be regarded 
    as a mere typographical error, not fatal to

[[Page 3092]]

    the measure's consideration were a point of order to be raised.

    On Aug. 1, 1939,(16) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, recognized Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, a member of the 
Committee on Rules, who called up a resolution (H. Res. 286), and asked 
for its immediate consideration. House Resolution 286 was a special 
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 7120, a bill to provide 
for the construction and financing of self-liquidating projects, among 
other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 10710, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the Clerk read the resolution, Mr. Carl E. Mapes, 
of Michigan, rose to a point of order, which prompted the following 
exchange with the Chair:

        Mr. Mapes: . . . [F]or the protection of the Committee on Rules 
    I think I should call attention to the fact that this rule is 
    reported by the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency 
    [Mr. Steagall].
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Michigan now making a point 
    of order against the resolution?
        Mr. Mapes: I make a point of order for the purpose really of 
    submitting a parliamentary inquiry to the Speaker. Frankly, I do 
    not care to press the point of order, but I desire to call 
    attention to the matter. I knew there was no member of the 
    Committee on Rules who was enthusiastic about this rule or the 
    legislation.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman submit his parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Mapes: But I did not know there was no member who was 
    willing to attach his name to the report of the committee. May I 
    ask the Speaker if it is proper procedure, or parliamentary, for a 
    Member of the House not a member of the Rules Committee to report a 
    rule from the Committee on Rules?
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule on the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The attention of the Chair has been called to this matter. It 
    appears from the print of the resolution that the gentleman from 
    Alabama [Mr. Steagall], ``of the Committee on Rules,'' reported the 
    resolution. The record shows, however, that the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules [Mr. Sabath] did, as a matter of fact, report 
    the rule. It is evident to the Chair that the incorporation of the 
    name ``Mr. Steagall'' was a clerical or typographical error, and 
    the Chair would so hold if a point of order were against it.

Supplemental Reports by Legislative Committees

Sec. 55.8 Where the Committee on Rules reports out a resolution 
    providing for the consideration of a bill at the request of the 
    legislative committee which has reported the bill, and that 
    legislative committee in another session of the same Congress 
    obtains

[[Page 3093]]

    unanimous consent to file a supplemental report recommending that 
    the bill be amended, the filing of the supplemental report does not 
    vitiate the Rules Committee action.

    On May 10, 1939,(17) Joseph J. Mansfield, of Texas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors (now the Committee on 
Public Works), submitted the committee report (H. Rept. No. 76-611), on 
S. 685, an act dealing with water pollution, with an amendment. Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, referred the bill to the Union 
Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 5408, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 10, 1939,(18) Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, acting at the behest of the Committee on Rules, submitted 
the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 249), which was referred 
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 8773, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
    consideration of S. 685, an act to create a Division of Water 
    Pollution Control in the United States Public Health Service, and 
    for other purposes. That after general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 2 hours, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, the bill 
    shall be read for amendments under the 5-minute rule. At the 
    conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the Committee 
    shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    Seven months later, on Feb. 29, 1940,(19) Mr. Colmer 
called up the identical resolution and noted in his introductory 
remarks (20) that the bill had been passed by the Senate and 
was ``amended'' by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors ``before 
reporting it here.'' He was referring to a supplemental report 
(supplemental reps. No. 611, pt. 2), filed by that committee several 
days earlier by unanimous consent.(1) This sequence of 
events was discussed at some length as the House considered the rule 
(H. Res. 249).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 2178, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
20. Id. at p. 2179.
 1. The supplemental report was submitted by Mr. Mansfield on Feb. 20, 
        1940 [86 Cong. Rec. 1720, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At one point in the debate, the Speaker sought to clarify the 
situation, observing: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 2184, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 29, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3094]]

        The resolution now pending provides for the consideration of 
    Senate bill 685. Under the provisions of the rule, if adopted, the 
    Senate bill would be the matter before the House, but under the 
    liberal terms of the rule the Senate bill will be subject to 
    amendment or to amendment by way of substitute from the committee 
    in charge of the bill.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, was 
recognized for a parliamentary inquiry and stated:

        . . . The point was this, that a legislative committee asked 
    for a rule to consider a specific piece of legislation dealing with 
    a specific matter in a particular way. I was not then a member of 
    the committee. After consideration the Rules Committee felt it wise 
    to recommend a rule providing for the consideration of this 
    particular thing in this particular way. Shortly after that the 
    legislative committee secured unanimous consent to file a 
    supplemental report on this original bill, and in their report the 
    legislative committee adopted another bill dealing with the same 
    matter but in an entirely different way and in a way that 
    possibly--and probably--would not have been authorized when the 
    rule was asked for.
        A confidential copy is floating around here of the bill which 
    the committee intends to bring up. My inquiry is whether that can 
    be done under the rules of the House. If that can be done, it is a 
    simple matter for any committee to ask for a rule on a perfectly 
    harmless bill which every one might be for, and then, after they 
    get the rule, bring in another bill in fact, under the same number. 
    This rule was granted on July 10 last year. Then in January, 7 
    months later, they introduce a new bill in a supplemental report 
    and are attempting to bring this new bill dealing with the same 
    subject matter in an entirely different manner before the House 
    under the old rule. Can that be done?

    The Speaker asked a few clarifying questions, after which he 
replied to the inquiry as follows: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at pp. 2184, 2185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Michener], who raises this 
    question by parliamentary inquiry, of course, is familiar with the 
    general principle that all proposed action touching the rules, 
    joint rules, and orders of business shall be referred to the 
    Committee on Rules. Under a broad, uniform construction of that 
    jurisdiction, the Rules Committee, as the Chair understands it, has 
    practically plenary power, unreserved and unrestricted power, to 
    submit for the consideration of the House any order of business it 
    sees fit to submit, subject, of course, to the approval of the 
    House.
        The Chair, of course, knows nothing about what was in the minds 
    of the committee in reference to this legislation. The Chair can 
    only look at the face of the record as it is presented from a 
    parliamentary standpoint. As the Chair construes the resolution now 
    pending, It is very broad in its terms. It provides for the 
    consideration of a Senate bill pending on the Union Calendar and 
    the Chair assumes that the Committee on Rules was requested to give 
    a rule for the consideration of that bill, which was the original 
    basis for any legislation that may be passed

[[Page 3095]]

    touching this subject of stream pollution.
        In conformance with the general power and jurisdiction of the 
    Rules Committee, it did report a resolution providing that in the 
    consideration of the Senate bill any germane amendments may be 
    offered; and, of course, it is not the province of the Chair, 
    presiding over the House, to determine the relevancy or germaneness 
    of any amendment that may be submitted in the Committee of the 
    Whole, whether by way of a substitute or by way of amendment.

        The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the Rules Committee 
    had a perfect right under the general authority conferred upon it 
    to report this resolution providing for this method of 
    consideration of the bill.

Multiple Reports

Sec. 55.9 Only one member of the Committee on Rules may file a report 
    on a resolution.

    On Jan. 17, 1950,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Adoloph J. Sabath, of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who reported a privileged resolution (H. Res. 133, H. Rept. No. 
1477), amending paragraph 2(c) of Rule XI of the rules of the 
House,(5) which resolution was then referred to the House 
Calendar and ordered to be printed. There being a misunderstanding, 
however, as to whether Mr. Sabath intended to call up the resolution in 
the future, Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, also a member of the 
Committee on Rules, sought to report the identical resolution, himself, 
pursuant to committee authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 499, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H. Res. 133, which was not agreed to in that session, was identical 
        to Rule XI clause 24, House Rules and Manual Sec. 732 (1973). 
        The change proposed to be effected was the elimination of the 
        so-called ``twenty-one day rule''; the latter is discussed in 
        Ch. 18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under these circumstances, the following exchange took place: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 96 Cong. Rec. 501, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules I file a privileged resolution; 
    and permit me to make this statement: these differences may be 
    ironed out later.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Georgia if 
    it is the same resolution that has already been reported to the 
    House.
        Mr. Cox: I presume it is the same resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair doubts very seriously whether two 
    reports on the same resolution can be filed at the same time.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the filing of this rule at this time.
        The Speaker: Permit the Chair to handle this matter.

[[Page 3096]]

        Mr. Marcantonio: But I am making a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair was clarifying the situation. The Chair 
    is of opinion that two reports cannot be filed on the same 
    resolution at the same time.

    After the matter was discussed further, Mr. Howard W. Smith, of 
Virginia, made the following request:

        . .  I am wondering if in the interest of harmony and getting 
    this matter straightened out the Speaker would not permit the 
    Committee on Rules to file the resolution which the gentleman from 
    Georgia has attempted to file.
        The Speaker: The Chair is trying to carry out orderly 
    procedure. If two identical resolutions on the same subject matter 
    can be reported, then a number can be reported and the Record would 
    be cluttered up. The Chair hopes the gentleman from Virginia will 
    not say that he hopes the Chair will allow something to be done if 
    he thinks it is unnecessary because the report has already been 
    filed.
        As to the agreement,(7) the Chair knows nothing 
    about that, and the Chair thinks that any agreement that may be 
    worked out between now and tomorrow can as well be worked out 
    without the reporting of an unnecessary resolution as with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Mr. Cox was authorized to file the report by the committee. Mr. Cox 
        stepped aside to let Mr. Sabath file the report, however, when 
        the former gentleman believed the two were in agreement that 
        Mr. Sabath would call the resolution up on the following 
        Thursday (Jan. 19, 1950). This is the ``agreement'' to which 
        the Speaker referred. When it became apparent that the two 
        Members were not in agreement upon that course of action, 
        however, Mr. Cox attempted to file the report himself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling Up Report Providing for Special Order

Sec. 55.10 Only a member of the Committee on Rules designated to do so 
    may call up a report from the committee providing for a special 
    order of business, unless the rule has been on the calendar seven 
    legislative days without action.

    On June 6, 1940,(8) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, 
sought to call up for consideration the report of the Committee on 
Rules providing for the consideration of H.R. 9766, a bill to authorize 
the deportation of Harry Bridges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 86 Cong. Rec. 7706, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, and Mr. Fish then engaged in the 
following exchange:

        The Speaker: The unfinished business, the Chair will state to 
    the gentleman, is the gentleman's resolution offered upon 
    yesterday.
        Mr. Fish: As I understand the parliamentary situation, the 
    gentleman

[[Page 3097]]

    from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] has reported that rule to the House 
    already.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Fish: Now, therefore, under the rules as I have quoted 
    them, rule XI, paragraph 2, clause 45, I am calling up that report 
    for consideration.
        The Speaker: Has the gentleman been authorized by the Rules 
    Committee to call up the rule?
        Mr. Fish: I am calling it up under the rules of the House, 
    realizing that the rules require a two-thirds vote to bring it up 
    for consideration immediately under rule XI. That I consider the 
    privilege of any member of the Rules Committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman from New 
    York to call up the resolution unless the Record shows he was 
    authorized to do so by the Rules Committee. The Chair would be 
    authorized to recognize the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] 
    to call up the rule in the event the resolution offered by the 
    gentleman from New York, which was the unfinished business, is not 
    called up.
        Mr. Fish: Will the Chair permit me to read this rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair would be glad to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Fish: Rule XI reads as follows:

            It shall always be in order to call up for consideration a 
        report from the Committee on Rules (except it shall not be 
        called up for consideration on the same day it is presented to 
        the House, unless so determined by a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting).

        I submit, according to that rule and the reading of that rule, 
    Mr. Speaker, that any member of the Rules Committee can call up the 
    rule, but it would require the membership of the House to act upon 
    it by a two-third vote in order to obtain consideration.
        The Speaker: The precedents are all to the effect that only a 
    Member authorized by the Rules Committee can call up a rule, unless 
    the rule has been on the calendar for 7 legislative days without 
    action.

Discharging Measure Not Yet Reported by Committee to Which Referred

Sec. 55.11 The Committee on Rules reported and the House adopted a 
    resolution making in order the immediate consideration of a bill 
    which had not been reported by the committee to which referred.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(9) Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 845 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution provided that 
upon its adoption, the House would resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 11926), to limit 
jurisdiction of federal courts in reapportionment cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 20212, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan,

[[Page 3098]]

was recognized by the Speaker. The following exchange took place: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 20212, 20213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against the consideration of House Resolution 845 on the grounds 
    that the Committee on Rules is without jurisdiction to bring such 
    resolution to the floor of the House under the provisions of rule 
    16 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and I ask 
    permission to be heard on the point of order.

        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a review of the precedents 
    of this House reveals occasions on which the House has permitted 
    the Committee on Rules to bring before it resolutions making in 
    order the consideration of bills that have been improperly referred 
    to legislative committees, bills that had not yet been referred to 
    the Committee on Rules, and possibly even a bill not yet 
    introduced. In addition, a decision of the Speaker of the House 
    permitted the consideration of resolution of the Committee on Rules 
    of a bill that had not been placed on the calendar at the time the 
    resolution was reported by the Committee on Rules. However, Mr. 
    Speaker, I can find no occasions on which the House has clearly 
    permitted the Committee on Rules to report to it a resolution 
    making in order the consideration of a bill that had been 
    introduced in the House of Representatives and referred by it--
    properly referred by it--to one of its legislative committees and 
    not yet reported out or acted upon by that legislative committee to 
    which the bill had been referred.
        Mr. Speaker, I move to make this point of order after noting 
    the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules, which reported out House Resolution 845, is on record 
    strongly opposing such action by the Committee on Rules as 
    unprecedented and unwarranted. The Congressional Record of June 29, 
    1953, reports the gentleman's opposition to a resolution reported 
    from the Committee on Rules which would have brought to the floor a 
    bill pending before the Committee on Ways and Means and not yet 
    reported by that committee.
        The gentleman from Virginia did not follow up the point of 
    order in that matter, but he was persuasive in effecting a 
    recommittal of the resolution and a return to the regular order of 
    business.
        The only comparable incident I can find which might provide a 
    precedent for this, Mr. Speaker, was the action taken by this 
    Congress on the price control legislation in the 79th Congress, 2d 
    session, found at page 8059 of the Congressional Record. This, 
    however, it might be pointed out, was emergency legislation and a 
    similar version had earlier been reported by a legislative 
    committee, acted upon by the House and vetoed by the President.
        I point out that in that instance the request for the rule was 
    based on the fact that the legislation was about to expire and it 
    was impossible to get action through the ordinary channels.

[[Page 3099]]

    The request for the rule was made by the chairman of the committee 
    having legislative jurisdiction over the Price Control Act, a 
    situation distinctly different from the one in which we find 
    ourselves today, where we are asked to consider a rule making in 
    order the consideration of a bill which was referred to a 
    legislative committee, not yet reported by that committee and with 
    no request made for its consideration by the chairman of the 
    committee I to which it was referred.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker. The rules are 
    perfectly clear. The Committee on Rules, under the rules of the 
    House, may report a rule on any pending bill. This is a pending 
    bill before the Rules Committee and the precedents for that are 
    well established. The rule itself is very plain.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair finds a precedent in volume 5 of ``Hinds' Precedents 
    of the House of Representatives'' at section 6771. On February 4, 
    1895, a similar point of order was raised against an action taken 
    by the Rules Committee. The Speaker at that time, Speaker Crisp, of 
    Georgia, ruled on a point of order made by Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, 
    of Pennsylvania. The point of order was the same as that made by 
    the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara], that the bill had not 
    been reported from the Committee on War Claims and therefore it was 
    not in order for the Committee on Rules to report a resolution for 
    its consideration in the House.
        Speaker Crisp overruled the point of order, holding that the 
    Committee on Rules had jurisdiction to report a resolution fixing 
    the order of business and the manner of considering a measure, even 
    though the effect of its adoption would be to discharge a committee 
    from a matter pending before it, thereby changing the existing rule 
    relative to the consideration of business.
        Speaker Crisp further said that it was for the House to 
    determine whether the change in the mode of consideration should be 
    made, as recommended by the committee.
        The rules of the House provide that--

            The following-named committees shall have leave to report 
        at any time on the matters herein stated, viz: The Committee on 
        Rules, on rules, joint rules, and order of business.

        The Chair also desires to state that in 1929 a similar point of 
    order was raised. In 1946 and again in 1953 the Committee on Rules 
    reported similar resolutions and on each occasion the precedent 
    established by Speaker Crisp was followed and adhered to.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For similar instances, see 107 Cong. Rec. 5267, 87th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Mar. 29, 1961 [H. Res. 238]; and 92 Cong. Rec. 8059, 
        79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 1, 1946 [H. Res. 689].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: See Chapter 21, Sec. Sec. 16.15-16.18, 
infra, for a complete discussion of the authority of the Committee on 
Rules to discharge bills pending before other committees.

[[Page 3100]]



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-57]                         

[Page 3100-3104]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 56. Same-day Consideration of Reported Resolution

Rule as to Same-day Consideration

Sec. 56.1 A vote of not less than two-thirds of the Members voting is 
    required for the consideration of a resolution on the same day that 
    it is reported by the Committee on Rules [except during the last 
    three days of a session].

    On Aug. 16, 1962,(12) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, who, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, was about to report a privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 763, H. Rept. No. 87-2242), and then to ask for its 
immediate consideration when the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 16759, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that the 
    gentleman from California is moving for the consideration of the 
    rule, and if this is approved by a two-thirds vote, then we wil1 
    consider the rule. . . .
        The Speaker: The resolution has not been reported as yet, and 
    the gentleman from California has not yet made a motion; but, 
    assuming the gentleman from California offers a motion for the 
    present consideration of the resolution, the question of 
    consideration would be submitted to the membership without debate 
    and a two-thirds vote would be necessary to consider the 
    resolution.(13) If the question of consideration was 
    decided in the affirmative the resolution would then be considered 
    under the regular rules of the House, providing 1 hour of debate, 
    one-half of the time to be assigned to the member of the Rules 
    Committee on the minority side in charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The rules provide that the calling up for consideration of a report 
        from the Committee on Rules on the same day presented is not in 
        order ``unless so determined by a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting''; this provision, however, does 
        not apply during the last three days of the session. See Rule 
        XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979), and 
        Sec. 56.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Sisk called up House Resolution 763, which 
was read by the Clerk, and the Speaker put the question on its 
consideration. The question was taken; and two-thirds having voted in 
favor thereof, the House considered the resolution.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For similar examples, see 97 Cong. Rec. 10479, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Aug. 21, 1951 [H. Res. 397]; 95 Cong. Rec. 12287, 81st Cong. 
        1st Sess., Aug. 25, 1949 [H. Res. 346, H. Res. 319]; and 92 
        Cong. Rec. 5746, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., May 25, 1946 [H. Res. 
        640].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3101]]

Consideration During Last Three Days of a Session

Sec. 56.2 The requirement that a report from the Committee on Rules may 
    not be called up for consideration on the same day it is reported 
    without an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members voting 
    does not apply during the last three days of a session.

    On Thursday, Dec. 31, 1970,(15) Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, Chairman of the Committee on Rules, who, by direction of 
that committee, reported a privileged resolution (H. Res. 1337, H. 
Rept. No. 91-1804), prescribing a rule for the consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 1421, making further continuing appropriations for the 
fiscal year 1971. Mr. Colmer then called up House Resolution 1337 and 
asked for its immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 44292, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this juncture Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, initiated the 
following exchange with the Speaker: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 44292, 44293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this is a rule that 
    was reported by the Committee on Rules today.
        In view of rule XI, section 22,(17) will approval of 
    this rule require a two-thirds vote, in view of the fact that the 
    rule provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            It shall always be in order to call up for consideration a 
        report from the Committee on Rules (except it shall not be 
        called up for consideration on the same day it is presented to 
        the House, unless so determined by a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting, but this provision shall not 
        apply during the last three days of the session).

        The parliamentary inquiry I address to the Chair is: Are we 
    within the last 3 days of the session or without them and is this 
    rule subject to approval by a majority vote or a two-thirds vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair is holding that we are within the last 3 
    days of the session and that consideration of this resolution is 
    not subject to the two-thirds vote requirement.
        Mr. Yates: Rather than a two-thirds vote?
        The Speaker: In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, a two-thirds 
    vote is not required to consider the resolution during the last 3 
    days of a session of Congress.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The last three days of a session are 
determined either by adoption by both Houses of a sine die adjourn

[[Page 3102]]

ment concurrent resolution or by remaining in session until within 
three days of the constitutional termination at noon on Jan. 3. In this 
instance, House Concurrent Resolution 799 providing for a sine die 
adjournment on Jan. 2, 1971, was adopted by the House on Dec. 31, 1970, 
but was not agreed to in the Senate until Jan. 2.

Determining the Last Three Days of a Session

Sec. 56.3 Where a session of Congress is required by the 20th amendment 
    to the Constitution to end at noon on Sunday, Jan. 3, that Sunday 
    is considered a ``non dies'' under the rules in computing the final 
    three calendar days within which the Committee on Rules may call up 
    a resolution on the same day it is reported.

    On Thursday, Dec. 31, 1970,(18) William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up and asked 
for the immediate consideration of a rule (H. Res. 1337), providing for 
the consideration of a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1421), making 
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1971. Since the 
Committee on Rules had just reported House Resolution 1337 moments 
earlier, Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, inquired of Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, whether or not a two-thirds vote would be 
required to consider the resolution.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 44292, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
19. See Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979); 
        see also Sec. Sec. 56.1, 56.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker replied as follows: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 44293, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, a two-thirds vote is not 
    required to consider the resolution during the last 3 days of a 
    session of Congress.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Under the provisions of the 20th amendment, ``the terms of Senators 
        and Representatives [shall end] at noon on the 3d day of 
        January,'' [U.S. Const. amend. 20, Sec. 1].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair's response elicited a further inquiry from Mr. Yates:

        Will the Chair enlighten me by defining the 3-day period? Are 
    they 3 legislative days or 3 calendar days?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Illinois in response to his parliamentary inquiry that there are 
    only 3 days remaining; which would be Thursday, Friday, and 
    Saturday
        Mr. Yates: Well, it is not within the 3 days end under that 
    definition, is it, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that Sundays 
    are not

[[Page 3103]]

    counted within the purview of the rule. Former Speaker Longworth 
    held that Sunday was ``non dies'' (2) in a ruling in 
    1929--see also Cannon's Precedents, vol. VII, 994 and 995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. ``Non dies,'' literally nonday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker considered both of the 
precedents cited, as well as several other critical factors in arriving 
at his decision. The first precedent [7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 994] 
states that ``In counting the three days required by the Consent 
Calendar rule,(3) holidays or days on which the House is not 
in session are not construed as legislative days and are not 
included.'' The second precedent [7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 995] 
declares that ``In counting the three days required under the consent 
rule, Sunday is not included.'' Also, Sundays are not counted in 
determining a constitutional adjournment ``for not more than three 
days'' (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.  6673). Thus, these ``legislative 
days'' precedents were persuasive on this ``calendar day'' issue 
insofar as they accorded a ``non dies'' status to Sundays. Moreover, 
the House met daily at noon, pursuant to a standing order; the 91st 
Congress could not then meet on Sunday, Jan. 3, 1971, unless it changed 
this standing order. Finally, at the time Mr. Yates made his 
parliamentary inquiry on Thursday, Dec. 31, there were less than 72 
hours remaining in the 91st Congress even if it did meet on the morning 
of Sunday, Jan. 3, and chose to remain in session up to the 
constitutional limit (4) of noon on that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1979). 
        This rule, it should be noted, expressly refers to 
        ``legislative days.''
 4. U.S. Const. amend. 20, Sec. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver of Two-thirds Vote Requirement by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 56.4 The House has agreed by unanimous consent that it would be in 
    order on the following day to consider a report from the Committee 
    on Rules without the rules-prescribed requirement of a two-thirds 
    vote.

    On Jan. 24, 1955,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 625, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on 
    tomorrow to consider a report from the Committee on Rules as 
    provided in clause 21, rule XI,(6) except that the 
    provision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Rule XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973), 
        which provides, in part, that ``It shall always be in order to 
        call up for consideration a report from the Committee on Rules 
        (except it shall not be called up for consideration on the same 
        day it is presented to the House, unless so determined by a 
        vote of not less than two-thirds of the Members voting.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3104]]

    requiring a two-thirds vote to consider said reports is hereby 
    waived.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Sec. 56.5 The House has agreed by unanimous consent that during the 
    remainder of a session it would be in order to consider reports 
    from the Committee on Rules without a two-thirds vote.

    On July 30, 1955,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, who made the 
following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 101 Cong. Rec. 12362, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the remainder 
    of this session it shall be in order to consider at any time 
    reports from the Committee on Rules as provided in clause 21, rule 
    XI,(8) except that the provision requiring a two-thirds 
    vote to consider such reports shall be waived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Rule XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973), and 
        Sec. 56.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous 
consent.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For a similar instance in a later Congress, see 104 Cong. Rec. 
        19174, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 22, 1958, where the House 
        granted unanimous consent that reports from the Committee on 
        Rules could be considered at any time ``during the remainder of 
        the week.'' Where unanimous consent has not been obtainable, 
        the House has, on occasion, waived the two-thirds vote 
        requirement by adoption of a special rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-58]                         

[Page 3104-3119]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 57. Consideration and Adoption by House of Resolutions Reported 
    From the Committee

Hour Rule for Debate on Resolutions and on Amendments

Sec. 57.1 Debate on resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules 
    providing for investigations is under the hour rule and no 
    amendments are in order [unless the Member in charge yields for 
    that purpose or the House votes down the previous question when 
    moved at the expiration of the hour].

[[Page 3105]]

    On Apr. 8, 1937,(10) Mr. Arthur H. Greenwood, of 
Indiana, a member of the Committee on Rules, called up for immediate 
consideration a resolution that would have authorized the Speaker to 
appoint a special committee to investigate subversive activities of 
groups or individuals operating within the United States. Mr. Carl E. 
Mapes, of Michigan, immediately propounded the following parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 3283, 3290, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, this resolution and the one to follow it, the Dies 
    resolution, provide for the appointment of investigating 
    committees. Each resolution is somewhat extensive and contains 
    separate paragraphs and sections that relate to different subject 
    matters. My inquiry is, Will there be opportunity to read the 
    resolutions section by section and to offer amendments to them?
        The Speaker: (11) The resolution is being considered 
    in the House under the rules and precedents, and it will be 
    considered in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mapes: To construe the Speaker's ruling----
        The Speaker: If the previous question is ordered, of course, 
    there will be no opportunity to offer amendments to the resolution.
        Mr. Mapes: There will be no opportunity for amendments?
        The Speaker: Not if the previous question is agreed to.
        The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Greenwood] is recognized.

    Following an hour of debate on the merits of the resolution, Mr. 
Greenwood then moved the previous question, which was defeated. In 
response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker pro tempore Fred M. 
Vinson, of Kentucky, had stated that this left the resolution open to 
amendment, but the House immediately agreed to a motion to lay the 
resolution on the table. A motion to reconsider the vote to table the 
resolution was also laid on the table.
    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. Greenwood: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Malley: If the motion for the previous question is 
    defeated, the resolution will then be open for amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is well informed.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: If we vote down the motion for the previous 
    question, then, the Speaker states, the resolution will be open for 
    amendment. Will we then be under the 5-minute rule? Will the rest 
    of us who are opposed to the reso

[[Page 3106]]

    lution be enabled to speak on it or offer amendments?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Being in the House, its consideration 
    will be under the 1-hour rule.
        Mr. Rankin: Then every Member who rose to speak would be 
    recognized for 1 hour? I am for that.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Any Member recognized by the Chair 
    would be entitled to recognition for 1 hour.
        The gentleman from Indiana moves the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    the noes seemed to have it.
        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to lay the resolution upon the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is upon the preferential 
    motion of the gentleman from North Carolina to lay the resolution 
    on the table.
        The question was taken; and there were on a division (demanded 
    by Mr. Greenwood)--ayes 184, nays 38.
        So the motion to lay the resolution on the table was agreed to.
        On motion of Mr. Warren, a motion to reconsider the vote by 
    which the resolution was tabled was laid on the table.

Offering Amendment by Direction of Committee

Sec. 57.2 By direction of the Committee on Rules, the Member who called 
    up the resolution offered an amendment.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(12) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, a Member called up a resolution creating a select committee and 
promptly offered an amendment to the resolution, also by direction of 
the Committee on Rules. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713, 27714, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1013) 
    creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, and ask for 
    its present consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution. . . .
        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the able 
    gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for the purpose of debate, 
    and to myself such time as I shall consume.
        Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Rules, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Pepper: Page 2, line 24, strike 
        out the semicolon and insert a period.
            Page 2, line 24, after the word ``occurred'', insert ``any 
        allegation referred to in paragraph (1) shall be made under 
        oath and shall specifically state the facts on the basis of 
        which it is made.''
            Page 2, line 25, capitalize the first word ``The''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Without objection, the 
    committee amendment is agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Technical amendments to resolutions 
reported from the Committee on Rules are normally offered and disposed 
of immediately before debate proceeds under the hour rule.

[[Page 3107]]

Germaneness of Amendments

Sec. 57.3 A resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
    consideration of a measure relating to a certain subject may not be 
    amended by a proposition providing for consideration of another 
    nongermane subject.

    On Sept. 14, 1950,(14) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, who called up House 
Resolution 842 from the Committee on Rules as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 14832, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 842 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill (H.R. 8920) to reduce excise taxes, and for 
        other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the 
        same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate 
        amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to; that the 
        conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of 
        the two Houses on the said bill be, and hereby is, agreed to; 
        and that the Speaker shall immediately appoint conferees 
        without intervening motion.

    Following debate, Mr. Sabath moved the previous question on the 
resolution, which was rejected by a yea and nay vote. Thereupon, Mr. 
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 14842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Eberharter: Strike out all after the 
    word ``Resolved'' and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        ``That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
    bill H.R. 8920 with Senate amendments thereto be, and the same is 
    hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end--
        ``(1) That all Senate amendments other than amendment No. 191 
    be, and the same are hereby, disagreed to and the conference 
    requested thereon by the Senate is agreed to; and
        ``(2) That Senate amendment No. 191 be, and the same is hereby, 
    agreed to with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
    proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert the following:

                     `` `title vii--excess-profits tax

     `` `Sec. 701. Excess-profits tax applied to taxable years ending 
                            after June 30, 1950

        `` `Notwithstanding section 122(a) of the Revenue Act of 1945, 
    the provisions of subchapter E of chapter 2 of the Internal Revenue 
    Code shall apply to taxable years ending after June 30, 1950.

    `` `Sec. 701. Computation of tax in case of taxable year beginning 
            before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950

        `` `Section 710(a) (relating to imposition of excess-profits 
    tax) is hereby

[[Page 3108]]

    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
        `` ` ``(8) Taxable years beginning before July 1, 1950, and 
    ending after June 30, 1950: In the case of a taxable year beginning 
    before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950, the tax shall 
    be an amount equal to that portion of a tentative tax, computed 
    without regard to this paragraph, which the number of days in such 
    taxable year after June 30, 1950, bears to the total number of days 
    in such taxable year.''

             `` `Sec. 703. Specific exemption reduced to 5,000

        `` `Paragraph (1) of section (b) (relating to definition of 
    adjusted excess profits net income) is hereby amended by striking 
    out ``$10,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$5,000.''

                  ``Sec. 704. Unused excess-profits credit

        `` `(a) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: Section 
    710(c)(2) (relating to definition of unused excess-profits credit) 
    is hereby amended to read as follows:
        `` ` ``(2) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: The term 
    `unused excess-profits credit' means the excess, if any, of the 
    excess-profits credit for any taxable year ending after June 30, 
    1950, over the excess-profits net income for such taxable year, 
    computed on the basis of the excess-profits credit applicable to 
    such taxable year. The unused excess-profits credit for a taxable 
    year of less than 12 months shall be an amount which is such part 
    of the unused excess-profits credit determined under the preceding 
    sentence as the number of days in the taxable year is of the number 
    of days in the 12 months ending with the close of the taxable year. 
    The unused excess-profits credit for a taxable year beginning 
    before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950, shall be an 
    amount which is such part of the unused excess-profits credit 
    determined under the preceding provisions of this paragraph as the 
    number of days in such taxable year after June 30, 1950, is of the 
    total number of days in such taxable year.''
        `` `(b) Computation of carry-over: Section 710(c)(4) is hereby 
    amended to read as follows: . . .' ''

    Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, made a point of order against the 
amendment and the following transpired: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 14843, 14844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that the amendment is neither germane to 
    the resolution sought to be amended, nor to the Senate amendment 
    No. 191. The language of the Senate amendment would direct the 
    Committee on Ways and Means of the House and the Finance Committee 
    of the Senate to conduct a study of excess-profits-tax legislation 
    during the Eighty-second Congress, ostensibly to report back to the 
    House and Senate for passage with a retroactive date of July 1, 
    1950, or October 1, 1950.
        The provision of the bill does not in any way attempt to 
    legislate an excess-profit tax in connection with H.R. 8920. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania proposes an 
    excess-profits tax in connection with

[[Page 3109]]

    H.R. 8920. The amendment is a specific provision for an excess-
    profits tax. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not in 
    order, that it is not germane either to the resolution before the 
    House or to the section of the bill on which the instructions are 
    sought to be given. . . .

        Mr. Eberharter: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, this amendment 
    seeks to amend the resolution reported out by the Committee on 
    Rules. This resolution waives points of order with respect to other 
    rules of the House. Under the rules of the House when a bill comes 
    from the other body with amendments containing matter which would 
    have been subject to a point of order in the House then the 
    amendments must be considered in the Committee of the Whole. The 
    resolution reported out by the Committee on Rules seeks to waive 
    that rule.
        If a resolution reported out by the Committee on Rules can 
    waive one rule of the House, why cannot the House by the adoption 
    of a substitute resolution, which this is, waive other rules? I 
    contend, Mr. Speaker, that this substitute for the resolution 
    reported out by the Committee on Rules is just as germane and just 
    as much in order as the actual resolution reported out by the 
    Committee on Rules; they are similar.
        Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is to waive a rule requiring that matter subject 
    to a point of order in the first place in the House if put in the 
    Senate shall be considered in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union. The resolution of the Committee on Rules 
    waives that. It is our contention, Mr. Speaker, that this being so 
    the House has a right by its vote on this substitute resolution to 
    waive the rule pertaining to germaneness, which my substitute 
    amendment attempts to do. It refers to a specific amendment, 
    amendment No. 191. I call the Speaker's attention to the fact that 
    on page 252 of the bill the last heading is ``Excess-profits tax.''
        Mr. Speaker, there is an excess-profits tax Senate amendment in 
    the bill.
        All I seek to do is to amend the provision calling for 
    different language in respect to excess-profits taxation. I 
    believe, Mr. Speaker, that if the point of order is sustained that 
    in the future the Committee on Rules will be so bound by this 
    precedent that its authority will be very, very much restricted. It 
    seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that for years the Committee on Rules has 
    been reporting out resolutions waiving points of order. When you 
    come down to the last analysis this is the same thing. If the 
    Committee on Rules can waive a point to order, a substitute 
    amendment can waive a point of order. That is all I seek to do. I 
    say in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, if a point of order is sustained, 
    the authority of the Committee on Rules is going to be very, very 
    much restricted in the future.
        I hope the point of order will be overruled and that the 
    membership of the House will be permitted to express their decision 
    on the question of the imposition of an excess-profits tax 
    effective July 1, 1950.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair agrees with a great deal that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania

[[Page 3110]]

    and the gentleman from Colorado say about history, but that is not 
    the question before the Chair to decide at this time.
        It is a rule long established that a resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill 
    relating to a certain subject may not be amended by a proposition 
    providing for the consideration of another and not germane subject 
    or matter.
        It is true that in Senate amendment No. 191 to the bill, which 
    came from the Senate, there is a caption ``Title VII,'' which 
    states ``Excess Profits Tax.'' But in the amendment which the 
    Senate adopted to the House bill there is no excess-profits tax.
        The Chair is compelled to hold under a long line of rulings 
    that this matter, not being germane if offered to the Senate 
    amendment it is not germane here. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Majority Vote Required for Adoption

Sec. 57.4 Only a majority vote is required for the adoption of a 
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules whether or not such 
    vote is taken on the same day the resolution is reported.

    On Aug. 16, 1962,(17) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, who by 
direction of the Committee on Rules was about to offer a privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 763), and to ask for its immediate consideration 
when the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 16759, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that the 
    gentleman from California is moving for the consideration of the 
    rule,(18) and if this is approved by a two-thirds vote, 
    then we will consider the rule, which also has to be approved by a 
    two-thirds vote. Also is the rule granted by the Committee on Rules 
    in reference to H.R. 12333 a closed rule with a motion to recommit 
    with instructions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Reference to ``the rule,'' in this context, actually denotes the 
        resolution since its purpose was to prescribe the framework 
        within which the House would consider a bill (H.R. 12333), to 
        amend title 38, United States Code, to permit the granting of 
        national service life insurance to certain veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The resolution has not been reported as yet, and 
    the gentleman from California has not yet made a motion; but, 
    assuming the gentleman from California offers a motion for the 
    present consideration of the resolution, the question of 
    consideration would be submitted to the membership without debate 
    and a two-thirds vote would be necessary to consider the 
    resolution. If the question of consideration was decided in the af

[[Page 3111]]

    firmative the resolution would then be considered under the regular 
    rules of the House, providing 1 hour of debate, one-half of the 
    time to be assigned to the member of the Rules Committee on the 
    minority side in charge. At the termination of the hour, there 
    would be a majority vote on the adoption of the 
    rule.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. For a similar instance, see 92 Cong. Rec. 5924, 79th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., May 29, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.5 The Speaker indicated that a majority vote and not a two-
    thirds vote would be required for the adoption of a resolution 
    reported by the Committee on Rules providing a special order of 
    business, despite provisions in that resolution which were 
    inconsistent with the standing rules and procedure of the House.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(20) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, who, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 661 and asked for its 
immediate consideration. The measure 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 (H.R. 7248), to 
amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts 
dealing with higher education. Among the provisions of the resolution 
was the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 37765, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education 
    and Labor now printed in the bill as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, said substitute 
    shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections . . . 
    and further, all titles, parts, or sections of the said substitute, 
    the subject matter of which is properly within the jurisdiction of 
    any other standing committee of the House of Representatives, shall 
    be subject to a point of order for such reason if such point of 
    order is properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 7248.

    As discussion on the resolution proceeded, Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, 
of Hawaii, addressed the following question to Mr. Bolling: 
(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at p. 37767.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When a bill containing matters belonging properly to the 
    jurisdiction of two committees is referred to one of the two 
    committees, and that committee does act upon the bill and reports 
    such bill out on to the floor of the House, the House rules as they 
    now exist provides that jurisdiction was properly exercised over 
    all matter in the bill by the committee to which the bill was 
    referred.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1973), 
        where the commentary provides, in part, that ``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 (4 [Hinds' Precedents] Sec. Sec. 4365-
        4371; 7 [Cannon's Precedents] Sec. Sec. 1489, 2108-2113; 8 
        [Cannon's Precedents] Sec. 2312). And it is too late to move a 
        change of reference after such committee has reported the bill 
        (7 [Cannon's Precedents] Sec. 2110; 8 [Cannon's Precedents] 
        Sec. 2312).''

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

[[Page 3112]]

        Now, my question is: Because the rule, now being proposed by 
    House Resolution 661, in effect contravenes that House rule and in 
    effect is an amendment to the House rules, would it not take a two-
    thirds majority for the passage of the resolution,(2) in 
    order that the section pertaining to jurisdiction might be legally 
    effective?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XXVII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1973) 
        which provides, in part, that ``No rule shall be suspended 
        except by a vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum 
        being present.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Bolling yielded, at Mr. Matsunaga's request, for the following 
parliamentary inquiry:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 37768, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Speaker, at this point is it proper for the 
    Speaker to determine whether a two-thirds veto would be required 
    for the passage of this resolution, House Resolution 661, or merely 
    a majority?
        The Speaker: The resolution from the Committee on Rules makes 
    in order the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7248) and a majority 
    vote is required for that purpose.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Even with the reference to the last section, Mr. 
    Speaker, relating to the raising of a point of order on a bill 
    which is properly reported out by a committee to which the bill was 
    referred, which would in effect contravene an existing rule of the 
    House?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules proposes to make in order 
    in its resolution (H. Res. 661) the opportunity to raise points of 
    order against the bill on committee jurisdictional grounds, but as 
    is the case with any resolution reported by the Committee on Rules 
    making a bill a special order of business, only a majority vote is 
    required.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. It should be noted, however, that a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting (a quorum being present), is 
        required for the consideration of a resolution on the same day 
        that it is reported by the Committee on Rules (except during 
        the last three days of a session). See Sec. Sec. 56.1, 56.2, 
        supra, and Rule XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Recommit

Sec. 57.6 A motion to recommit a resolution reported by the Committee 
    on Rules is not in order after the previous question has been 
    ordered.

    On Feb. 2, 1955,(5) Speaker pro tempore Robert C. Byrd, 
of West
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 1076, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3113]]

Virginia, recognized Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, who, acting by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up a resolution (H. Res. 
63), and asked for its immediate consideration. House Resolution 63 
authorized the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to conduct an 
investigation into various programs benefiting veterans, their 
survivors and dependents. The proposed committee amendment to the 
resolution contained language intended to prevent any duplication of 
investigatory work undertaken by other House committees.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p.1077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the measure's consideration, time allocated to Mr. 
Madden was yielded to Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts,(7) who sought an amendment striking out the 
language relating to investigatory duplication. Mr. Madden then 
indicated, however, that it was not his intent to yield to Mrs. Rogers 
for the purpose of an amendment. Debate resumed, the previous question 
was ordered, and the Chair put the question on the committee amendment 
which was agreed to. The Chair then recognized Mrs. Rogers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 1079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a motion to recommit 
    striking out the language on line 15 beginning with ``The 
    committee'' and ending with ``House.'' (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The language proposed to be struck was that segment of the 
        committee amendment which stated: ``The committee shall not 
        undertake any investigation of any matter which is under 
        investigation by another committee of the House.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) Under the rules, a motion to 
    recommit a resolution from the Committee on Rules is not in 
    order.(10)

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rules (11) provide that ``It 
shall always be in order to call up for consideration a report from the 
Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule, or the order of business . . 
. and, pending the consideration thereof, the Speaker may entertain one 
motion that the House adjourn; but after the result is announced the 
Speaker shall not entertain any other dilatory motion until the report 
shall have been fully disposed. . . .'' The motion to commit or 
recommit after the ordering of the previous question has been excluded 
in the later practice, based upon the initial ruling of Speaker
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
10. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2753. See also 97 Cong. Rec. 11398, 
        82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 14, 1951, for a similar ruling.
11. Rule XI clause 4 (b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3114]]

Charles F. Crisp,(12) of Georgia, to the effect that this 
rule requires the House to vote directly on the report of the Committee 
on Rules since the previous question has been ordered. But earlier 
rulings were to the contrary.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5594, as affirmed by 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5597, 5601, and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2750-
        54.
13. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5593, 5595, 5596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.7 A motion to recommit a joint resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules, creating a joint committee of Congress, can be 
    made in order by a special order reported by that committee, 
    whether or not the joint resolution is privileged under Rule XI 
    clause 23 (prohibiting a motion to recommit).

    On May 25, 1970,(14) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up as privileged House 
Resolution 1021, which resolution provided as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 16973, 16994, 16995, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1117) to establish a Joint 
    Committee on Environment and Technology. After general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall continue 
    not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the 
    joint resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the joint 
    resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    joint resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
    on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    After the House agreed to the adoption of the preceding resolution, 
Mr. Sisk then moved that the House resolve into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 1117 and the 
House agreed to the motion. At the conclusion of consideration and 
amendment in the Committee of the Whole, the Committee rose and the 
House agreed to the amendments and adopted the joint resolution.

Voting Down Previous Question on Privileged Resolution; Effect

Sec. 57.8 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised 
    that if the

[[Page 3115]]

    previous question of a privileged resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules were voted down: (1) the resolution would be 
    open to further consideration, amendment, and debate; (2) a motion 
    to table would be in order and would be preferential; and (3) the 
    Chair, under the hour rule, would recognize the Member who appeared 
    to be leading the opposition.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(15) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, called up House Resolution 
1013, creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. After an 
hour of debate on the resolution, Mr. Pepper moved the previous 
question. Prior to putting the question, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered several parliamentary inquiries as to the 
effect of defeating the motion for the previous question. The 
proceedings were as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Id. at p. 27725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is refused, is 
    it true that then amendments may be offered and further debate may 
    be had on the resolution?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the 
    resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, is it 
    not equally so that a motion to table would then be in order?
        The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a 
    preferential motion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the previous question is rejected, the 
motions specified in Rule XVI clause 4 are in order in the order 
specified.
    Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, then sought recognition for a 
further parliamentary inquiry:

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Chair would suggest that parliamentary inquiries be in the 
    nature of inquiries seeking information as to the parliamentary 
    procedure. Of course, the statement of the Chair is not directed to 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the previous 
    question is re

[[Page 3116]]

    fused and the resolution is then open for amendment, under what 
    parliamentary procedure will the debate continue? Or what would be 
    the time limit?
        The Speaker: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be 
    the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
        The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in 
    opposition would have 1 hour at his disposal, or such portion of it 
    as he might desire to exercise.
        Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gallagher: If the previous question is voted down we will 
    have the option to reopen debate, the resolution will be open for 
    amendment, or it can be tabled. Is that the situation as the Chair 
    understands it?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down on the 
    resolution, the time will be in control of some Member in 
    opposition to it, and itwould be open to amendment or to a motion 
    to table.

    Ultimately, the previous question was refused on House Resolution 
1013, and, after an unsuccessful motion by Mr. Waggonner to lay the 
resolution on the table, the Speaker recognized Mr. Hays for one hour 
of debate on the resolution. The House subsequently agreed to an 
amendment offered by Mr. Hays to the resolution and adopted the 
resolution as Amended.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 27725-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.9 Where the previous question was voted down on a resolution 
    reported by the Committee on Rules providing for an investigation 
    of sit-down strikes, a motion to lay the resolution on the table 
    was agreed to.

    On April 8, 1937,(18) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, 
called up a resolution from the Committee on Rules, which resolution 
provided for an investigation of an ``epidemic of sit-down strikes . . 
. sweeping the Nation. . . .'' At the conclusion of debate on the 
resolution, Mr. Cox moved the previous question on the resolution, but 
the motion was defeated. The House agreed to a subsequent preferential 
motion to lay the resolution on the table. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 3291, 3301, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(19) The question is on 
    ordering the previous question on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Fred M. Vinson (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Dies) there were--ayes 117, noes 179.

[[Page 3117]]

        Mr. [Dewey J.] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move the resolution be laid on the table.
        Mr. [Martin] Dies [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Malley: This vote is on ordering the previous question 
    and not on the resolution?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The vote is on ordering the previous 
    question.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 150, nays 236, not 
    voting 44 . . . .
        So the motion to order the previous question was rejected.
        The Clerk announced the following pairs: . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
        Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution (H. Res. 162) upon 
    the table.
        The motion to lay the resolution (H. Res. 162) on the table was 
    agreed to.

Use of Special Rule Following Defeat of Motion to Suspend Rules

Sec. 57.10 The failure of a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
    does not prejudice the status of a bill and the Committee on Rules 
    may subsequently bring in a special rule providing for its 
    consideration and requiring only a majority vote for its passage.

    On June 5, 1933,(20) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 5767, to authorize 
the appointment of the Governor of the Territory of Hawaii without 
regard to his residency or citizenship there. At the conclusion of 40 
minutes' debate, the yeas and nays were ordered upon demand and there 
were less than two-thirds voting, in favor of the motion to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill. The motion having been rejected, Mr. Thomas L. 
Blanton, of Texas, then inquired as to whether the Committee on Rules 
could nevertheless bring in a rule to take up consideration of H.R. 
5767. Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, assured him that the 
Committee on Rules could report such a rule.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 77 Cong. Rec. 5015, 5022, 5023, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
21. Parliamentarian's Note: On June 6, 1933, the following day, the 
        Committee on Rules reported out a special rule [H. Res. 176], 
        providing for the consideration of H.R. 5767, which was adopted 
        by the House. The bill itself was passed by a majority of the 
        House on June 7, 1933.

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

[[Page 3118]]

Sec. 57.11 The Committee on Rules may report a special rule making in 
    order the consideration of a joint resolution previously defeated 
    the same day on a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Aug. 24 (legislative day of Aug. 23), 1935,(1) 
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. Schuyler Otis 
Bland, of Virginia, who moved to suspend the rules and pass Senate 
Joint Resolution 175, which read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 1. 79 Cong. Rec. 14593, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That section 5 of the Independent Offices 
    Appropriation Act, 1934, as amended, be amended by striking out 
    ``October 31, 1935,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``March 31, 
    1936'': Provided That the right of the United States to annul any 
    fraudulent or illegal contract or to institute suit to recover sums 
    paid thereon is in no manner affected by this joint resolution.

    After debate, however, the question was taken, and on a roll call 
vote, the motion to suspend the rules was lost.(2) The House 
then moved to other business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 14600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later in the day, the Speaker recognized Mr. John J. O'Connor, of 
New York, who by direction of the Committee on Rules, presented a 
privileged report on House Resolution 372 and asked for its immediate 
consideration. The resolution read as follows:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 14652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of (S.J. Res. 175), a 
    joint resolution to extend the time within which contracts may be 
    modified or canceled under the provisions of section 5 of the 
    Independent Offices Appropriation Act 1935, and all points of order 
    against said joint resolution are hereby waived.

    Mr. O'Connor then proceeded to explain the measure, leading to the 
following discussion and resultant response from the Speaker:

        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which was 
    considered today under suspension of the rules but failed of 
    passage. It is a matter about which there was some confusion. It is 
    a very simple matter and has nothing to do with ship subsidies. It 
    merely extends the time within which the President can determine 
    whether or not to cancel or modify the contracts. The President has 
    before him this important situation: Many of these contracts will 
    expire between October of this year and January of next year. I am 
    authorized to say that the President feels he needs this authority.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page 3119]]

        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Maverick: After a bill has been passed on, can it be 
    brought up again the same day? What about the Puerto Rico bill, 
    which failed? If we can again bring up the bill made in order by 
    this resolution, we can do it with the Puerto Rico bill, or with 
    any other bill that has been defeated once duringthe day. This bill 
    was defeated a few hours ago.
        The Speaker: The Chair will answer the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry. This is an effort on the part of the 
    gentleman from New York, Chairman of the Rules Committee, to bring 
    this bill up under a special rule.
        The question is up to the House as to whether or not that can 
    be done.
        Mr. Maverick: I did not hear the Chair.
        The Speaker: This is a special rule which is under 
    consideration and is in order.

    Parliamenitarian's Note: Under Rule XI clause 4, the two Houses 
having agreed to a sine die adjournment resolution and the last three 
days of the session being in effect, the requirement of a two-thirds 
vote to consider the rule the same day reported was inapplicable.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-59]                         

[Page 3119-3136]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 58. In General


    This division takes up the subject of committee reports as used in 
the reporting of bills and resolutions to the House for floor 
consideration.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Commentary and editing by John T. Fee, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House rules provide that ``. . . [A]ll bills, petitions, 
memorials, or resolutions reported from a committee shall be 
accompanied by reports in writing. . . .'' (5) It is the 
duty of each committee chairman to promptly report approved measures to 
the House.(6) Moreover, by virtue of a change brought about 
by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act,(7) if the report 
is not filed by the chairman of the committee, the report may be filed 
by special direction of the committee. The rules provide that a 
majority of the members of a committee may sign a written request for 
the filing of a report on a measure it has approved. This request is 
filed with the committee clerk, who then imme
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 821 (1979).
 6. Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a (1979).
 7. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3120]]

diately notifies the committee chairman of the request. Within seven 
calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is not in session) 
after the filing of the request, the committee report itself is to be 
filed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(B), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a (1979). 
        The rule also provides that it does not apply to a report of 
        the Committee on Rules, whose reports are to be presented to 
        the House within three legislative days after being ordered 
        reported by the committee, under Rule XI clause 4(c), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a record vote is taken in committee on a motion to report a 
public bill or resolution, the total number of votes cast for and 
against the reporting of such bill or resolution is to be included in 
the committee report.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. This requirement was added by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization 
        Act, Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970). It is 
        incorporated in Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(B), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 713d (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A change brought about by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act 
is the requirement that reports accompanying a public bill or joint 
resolution contain an estimate, made by the committee, of the costs 
anticipated in carrying out the measure, over a specified time, and a 
comparison of this estimate with that submitted by a government 
agency.(10) However, a bill may be reported without specific 
recommendations on the part of the reporting committee as to the 
passage or defeat of the proposed bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XIII clause 7(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 748(b) (1979). 
        See Sec. 61, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act also added the requirement 
that the committee report include supplemental, additional or minority 
views of any committee member who gives notice, at the time of the 
committee approval of the report, of his intent to file such views 
within three days.(11) Previously, such views were published 
either through informal agreements within the committee or by obtaining 
the unanimous consent of the House to have them included after the 
report was filed.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979). 
        This provision does not apply to the Committee on Rules.
12. See Sec. Sec. 64.1-64.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A further requirement for committee reports is that they comply 
with the Ramseyer rule, which provides that changes in existing law 
that would be brought about by the proposed measure are to be printed 
or shown in the report in distinctive typography.(l3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 60, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3121]]

    Unless a report is privileged for immediate 
consideration,(14) it is delivered to the Clerk for printing 
and reference to the proper calendar under the direction of the 
Speaker. Privileged reports are filed from the floor while the House is 
in session (unless filed by unanimous consent while the House is not in 
session), and referred to the appropriate calendar and ordered printed 
by the Speaker.(15) Assuming that the report is apparently 
valid and shows nothing on its face to impeach its 
authenticity,(16) the Speaker assigns the report, with its 
accompanying bill, to one of three calendars, for consideration in the 
future.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Privileged reports are discussed in Sec. 63, infra.
15. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1979).
16. See 111 Cong. Rec. 27407, 27481, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 
        1965, where a report on a bill (S. 1698), was referred to the 
        Union Calendar, although the Chairman of the Committee on 
        Banking and Currency, Wright Patman (Tex.), later expressed 
        reservations about irregularities in the manner in which the 
        committee had considered and filed a report on the bill
17. Rule XIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 742 (1979). See Ch. 
        22 (calendars), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair does not rule on the sufficiency, insufficiency, or legal 
effect of reports.(18) However, the Chair does rule on 
points of order against consideration of a measure based on an alleged 
failure of a committee report to comply with the Ramseyer rule, the 
cost estimate requirement, or raising some question as to the alleged 
privileged status of the report. Even if it appears that a point of 
order would lie, defects in the reporting of a bill by a standing 
committee may be remedied in a proper case by adoption of a special 
rule from the Committee on Rules waiving that point of 
order.(19) Alternatively, the House may grant unanimous 
consent for the consideration of a bill and thereby waive all points of 
order against consideration of the bill and its
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sec. Sec. 58.3, 58.4, infra.
19. Sec. 58.6, infra. report or consider the bill under suspension of 
        the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 imposed, effective Jan. 3, 
1975, several new requirements for inclusion of matter in committee 
reports [Rule XI clause 2(l)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(e) 
(1975); Rule XI clause 2(l)(4), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(f) 
(1975)]: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (3) The report of any committee on a measure which has been 
    approved by the committee (A) shall include the oversight findings 
    and recommenda

[[Page 3122]]

    tions required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X separately set 
    out and clearly identified; (B) the statement required by section 
    308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out 
    and clearly identified, if the measure provides new budget 
    authority or new or increased tax expenditures; (C) the estimate 
    and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
    Office under section 403 of such Act, separately set out and 
    clearly identified, whenever the Director (if timely submitted 
    prior to the filing of the report) has submitted such estimate and 
    comparison to the committee; and (D) a summary of the oversight 
    findings and recommendations made by the Committee on Government 
    Operations under clause 4(c)(2) of Rule X separately set out and 
    clearly identified whenever such findings and recommendations have 
    been submitted to the legislative committee in a timely fashion to 
    allow an opportunity to consider such findings and recommendations 
    during the committee's deliberations on the measure.
        (4) Each report of a committee on each bill or joint resolution 
    of a public character reported by such committee shall contain a 
    detailed analytical statement as to whether the enactment of such 
    bill or joint resolution into law may have an inflationary impact 
    on prices and costs in the operation of the national] economy.

    Furthermore, Rule XI clause 2(l)(5) [House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 714 (1979)], as amended by the Committee Reform Amendments 
requires that a report bear upon its cover a recital that any 
supplemental, minority, or additional views, and any material submitted 
pursuant to Rule XI clause 2(l)(3)(C) from the Congressional Budget 
Office and (D) from the Committee on Government Operations, are 
included as part of the 
report.                          -------------------

Form and Content of Report

Sec. 58.1 The form and content of a committee report is governed by the 
    rules of the House and not by a law requiring the submission of 
    certain reports by executive agencies. Thus, a point of order will 
    not lie against a committee report on the ground that an executive 
    agency has failed to report to Congress in accordance with law.

    On July 12, 1967,(1) following a motion by Mr. Harold T. 
Johnson, of California, that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill establishing a 
commission, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of order against 
consideration of the bill. Mr. Gross con
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 18558, 18559, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was S. 20, to establish a National Water 
        Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3123]]

tended that an executive communication found in the report failed to 
comply with executive agency reporting requirements with respect to the 
legislation. Thereupon Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, sought 
recognition to be heard on the point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from Iowa.
        The point of order, if it is a point of order at all, should 
    have come at the time the Executive communication was received. It 
    should not be made against the report which is now before the 
    Congress. The bill which we are considering is a bill from the 
    other body, received by this body in due course, and referred to 
    the committee which has jurisdiction over these matters, and it was 
    properly before the committee. It is now here in conformity with 
    the rules of the House.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of 
    order?
        The Speaker: (2) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the issue is plain.
        That is the issue in the point of order. No report accompanying 
    the bill conforms to the requirement of Public Law 801.
        Mr. Speaker, I do not know how, as suggested by the gentleman 
    from Colorado, a point of order could be made against a committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The law referred to by the gentleman from Iowa places the 
    obligation upon the executive departments or agencies or 
    independent offices to prepare their recommendations with respect 
    to the information contained in the law referred to. However, this 
    does not change any rule of the House of Representatives, and this 
    matter is before the House in accordance with the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Filing of Multiple Reports

Sec. 58.2 Two reports may not be filed from the Committee on Rules on 
    the same resolution.

    On Jan. 17, 1950,(3) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, 
attempted to report a resolution proposing an amendment to Rule XI to 
repeal the 21-day rule, which resolution had just been filed by the 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois. 
However, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated that the second 
report was not necessary, and said that two reports could not be filed 
on the same resolution at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 499-501, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendment of Paragraph (2)(c) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House 
                             of Representatives

        Mr. Sabath, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 133, Rept. No. 1477), which was 
    referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

[[Page 3124]]

            Resolved, That paragraph (2)(c) of Rule XI of the Rules of 
        the House of Representatives is hereby amended to read as 
        follows:
            ``(c) The Committee on Rules shall present to the House 
        reports concerning rules, joint rules, and order of business, 
        within three legislative days of the time when ordered reported 
        by the committee. If such rule or order is not considered 
        immediately, it shall be referred to the calendar and, if not 
        called up by the Member making the report within seven 
        legislative days thereafter, any member of the Rules Committee 
        may call it up as a question of privilege and the Speaker shall 
        recognize any member of the Rules Committee seeking recognition 
        for that purpose. If the Committee on Rules shall make an 
        adverse report on any resolution pending before the committee, 
        providing for an order of business for the consideration by the 
        House of any public bill or joint resolution, on days when it 
        shall be in order to call up motions to discharge committees it 
        shall be in order for any Member of the House to call up for 
        consideration by the House any such adverse report, and it 
        shall be in order to move the adoption by the House of said 
        resolution adversely reported notwithstanding the adverse 
        report of the Committee on Rules, and the Speaker shall 
        recognize the Member seeking recognition for that purpose as a 
        question of the highest privilege.''

        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution concerning which 
    instructions were given by the Rules Committee this morning to the 
    effect that I should file it. I am stepping aside with the 
    understanding that the chairman file it and that he will ask the 
    Speaker to recognize him on Thursday to call it up, and in the 
    event he the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath] is not present 
    that I may call it up or some member of the committee favorable to 
    the resolution shall call it up. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Sabath: To be candid, I did not hear the statement. I did 
    not hear the gentleman's statement.
        Mr. Cox: I said that the understanding between the chairman and 
    the committee is that I am stepping aside as the member designated 
    to file the report, leaving it to the chairman to file it and he 
    files it with the understanding that he will ask the Speaker to 
    recognize him on Thursday to call it up; and in the event the 
    chairman is not present, the understanding is that I shall call it 
    up or some other member of the committee favorable to the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has considered 
    the rule on the fair employment practices bill today. The committee 
    ordered reported the resolution, House Resolution 133, introduced 
    by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox], on Friday, January 13, 
    which would eliminate the procedure under the rule which we adopted 
    on the first day of this Congress giving the committees the right, 
    when the Committee on Rules fails to act within 21 days, to file a 
    resolution to discharge the Committee on Rules.
        Today we were considering a rule for the FEPC bill, this being 
    the third day of its deliberations on this measure. The rule on the 
    Cox resolution was granted, over my protest, of course, last 
    Friday. Under the rules of the House, the chairman of the Committee 
    on Rules has 3 days within which to file a report on a rule. I 
    intended to file the report within this time because I have never 
    violated the rules of the

[[Page 3125]]

    House in my 44 years of service and 20 years as a member of the 
    Committee on Rules.
        But today some members of the Committee on Rules thought the 
    report on the Cox resolution should be filed immediately and that 
    the right to file should be taken away from the chairman, and that 
    the rule should be called up by the gentleman who introduced it, 
    the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox]. I felt that that was a 
    violation of the rules of the House, because the Rules of the House 
    plainly state as follows:

            It shall be the duty of the chairman of each such committee 
        to report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate or 
        House of Representatives, as the case may be, any measure 
        approved by such committee--

        The word ``promptly'' means within the rules--within 3 days--
    which I did intend to do. I thought originally that the motion of 
    the gentleman from Georgia was out of order and so ruled, but it 
    being 12 o'clock we adjourned, but nevertheless some of the members 
    remained and wanted to act upon it.
        In order to avoid any controversy that might develop I agreed 
    to file it today instead of tomorrow, and I am filing the report 
    today on the resolution.
        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] approached me on 
    the floor and wanted to know if I was not present Thursday, whether 
    the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] could call up the resolution. 
    I said if I were not here Thursday, I would have no objection to 
    Mr. Cox calling it up.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Sabath: I yield.
        Mr. Cox: I have no desire to air publicly what took place in 
    the Rules Committee this morning. It is the understanding that the 
    gentleman will file the rule today and will ask the Speaker to 
    recognize him on Thursday to call it up, and, in the event he is 
    not here, it is agreeable that some other member of the committee 
    do so.
        Mr. Sabath: That was an afterthought. I do not know. I know 
    that the committee agreed and the House agreed to take up another 
    bill in which I and the House are very much interested. I have 
    filed my report. As to the other procedure, I do not know whether 
    it would be in order for me to agree to call it up Thursday, 
    because I do not know whether that will give time enough for 
    Members to be here on this important question.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, that is not in accord with the agreement. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules I file a privileged resolution; and permit 
    me to make this statement; these differences may be ironed out 
    later.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Georgia if 
    it is the same resolution that has already been reported to the 
    House.
        Mr. Cox: I presume it is the same resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair doubts very seriously whether two 
    reports on the same resolution can be filed at the same time.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the filing of this rule at this time.

[[Page 3126]]

        The Speaker: Permit the Chair to handle this matter.
        Mr. Marcantonio: But I am making a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair was clarifying the situation. The Chair 
    is of opinion that two reports cannot be filed on the same 
    resolution at the same time. . . .
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Members are 
    fully informed as to the rule governing the calling up of 
    resolutions reported by the Rules Committee. Am I correct in my 
    understanding that the gentleman from the Rules Committee who files 
    a rule is the only one permitted to call up the resolution for a 
    period of seven legislative days?
        The Speaker: That is true unless the committee directs 
    otherwise.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, do not the rules of the House 
    provide that the gentleman who files a resolution with the Speaker 
    is the only one permitted to call up the resolution and does the 
    Speaker mean that the Committee on Rules can by a majority vote 
    override what is provided in the rules of the House?
        The Speaker: Of course, the chairman could request another 
    member of the committee to call up a resolution in his absence. 
    That certainly could be done. Otherwise, if the chairman of the 
    Rules Committee were out of town continuously the Committee on 
    Rules could not offer a resolution and, as a matter of fact, the 
    House could not function either.
        Mr. Eberharter: I beg the Chair's pardon?
        The Speaker: If it were otherwise, and if the chairman of the 
    committee were out of town the whole session, the Committee on 
    Rules could not operate, neither could the House.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, my point is that the gentleman who 
    files a petition has the privilege for seven legislative days to 
    call up the resolution and failing to call it up within that time, 
    after the 7 days any member of the Rules Committee can call it up; 
    is that correct?
        The Speaker: That is what the rule says but that is not what we 
    have been talking about for the last half hour. The Chair trusts no 
    more parliamentary inquiries will be addressed to the Chair for the 
    simple reason that he would like to see these misunderstandings 
    composed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this case, Mr. Cox was authorized to 
file the report because it was evidently feared that the Chairman of 
the Rules Committee, Mr. Sabath, would not immediately do so, and, if 
he did file it, would not call it up within the seven days allowed him 
under the rule. Mr. Cox stepped aside to permit Mr. Sabath to file the 
rule under an alleged understanding that the chairman would call it up 
on a specified day. During discussion of the matter, Mr. Cox attempted 
to file a report on the same resolution and the Speaker expressed 
serious doubt whether two reports

[[Page 3127]]

on the same resolution could be filed at the same time and declined to 
recognize Mr. Cox. The question then arose as to whether the resolution 
could be called up in the seven-day period in the absence of the 
chairman by any other member of the committee. The Speaker stated that 
in this event the chairman could designate another member of the 
committee to call it up or the Committee on Rules could otherwise 
provide.

Sufficiency of Report

Sec. 58.3 The sufficiency of a report of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities relating the contempt of a witness was for the House and 
    not the Speaker to decide.

    On June 26, 1946,(4) after Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, 
by direction of the Committee on Un-American Activities, presented a 
privileged report declaring that a witness, Corliss G. Lamont, was in 
contempt of the House of Representatives. Mr. Vito Marcan- tonio, of 
New York, made a point of order against the report on the ground that 
it did not contain all of the transcript of what transpired before the 
committee with respect to the witness, but only what the committee 
determined to be material. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that it 
was for the House to determine the sufficiency, not the Speaker, and 
overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 7589-91, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against 
    the report on the ground that it does not contain all of the 
    transcript of what transpired before the committee with respect to 
    this witness. On page 2 of the report, at the end of the first 
    paragraph, the committee concedes that this is not a full 
    transcript. It states: ``The material parts of his testimony 
    follow.'' In other words, the House has before it only that portion 
    of the testimony which the committee conceives to be material. This 
    deprives the House of having the full proceedings before it; 
    consequently, the House will be asked to vote on whether or not 
    this witness is to be cited for contempt and whether or not the 
    House is to recommend prosecution of this witness, without having 
    the full story before it, without having all of the testimony 
    before it. All that is given is part of the testimony which the 
    committee describes as material.
        I respectfully submit in support of my point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker, that what is material and what is not material should be 
    determined by the House, because the House has to pass on this 
    question and the majority of the Members of this House must vote in 
    the affirmative in order to rec

[[Page 3128]]

    ommend these contempt proceedings. To do so it must have the entire 
    transcript before it. Consequently I submit that the report is 
    defective and that the report should be referred back to the 
    committee by the Speaker, directing it to produce the full 
    transcript of what transpired so that the House may have the entire 
    proceedings before it before the House Members cast their votes.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks that the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Marcantonio] has stated the point exactly, and that is that 
    this is not a matter for the Chair to pass upon but is a matter for 
    the House to pass upon. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Construing Restrictions in Report

Sec. 58.4 The Chair does not pass on the legal effect of restrictions 
    set forth in a report on an appropriations bill, but not spelled 
    out in the bill itself. This is a matter for the Committee of the 
    Whole to decide in its considerations of the bill.

    On Apr. 14, 1955,(5) Mr. Robert C. Wilson, of 
California, questioned certain limitations on spending for various 
programs, which limitations were contained in the report on an 
appropriation bill but not in the bill itself. Mr. Wilson questioned 
whether such limitations would be legally effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 4463, 4464, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 5502, an appropriations bill for the Department of 
        State and certain other agencies for fiscal 1956. The committee 
        report contained recommendations as to maximum amounts to be 
        available to the U.S. Information Agency for certain specified 
        functions, as, for example, not to exceed $200,000 for exhibits 
        for which $334,000 was requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, replied that the omission of 
the limitations from the bill was unimportant because the limitations 
were expected to become law, Mr. Wilson inquired of Chairman Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, whether the limitations were binding. As the 
following exchange shows, Chairman Cooper was of the opinion that the 
question was one to be resolved by the Committee of the Whole.

        Mr. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wilson of California: Are limitations written in a 
    committee report such as this, but not written into the wording of 
    the legislation, binding?
        The Chairman: That is not a parliamentary inquiry. That is a 
    matter to be settled by the members of the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Wilson of California: I merely wanted it for my own 
    understanding and information, for I am fairly new here. It seems 
    to me rather unusual to

[[Page 3129]]

    consider matter written into a report of the same finding effect on 
    an administrator as though written into the law itself.
        The Chairman: It is not the prerogative of the Chair to pass 
    upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of a committee report.

Separate Committee Approval of Report

Sec. 

     58.5 A point of order that a committee did not vote to approve a 
    report accompanying a bill as required by its rules is properlymade 
    in the committee and not in the House, since no rule of the House 
    requires committees to separately approve legislative reports, and 
    because such reports are in the nature of argument and are not 
    directly acted upon by the House.

    On Oct. 12, 1971,(6) after Mr. Chet Holifield, of 
California, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of a bill to establish an office of 
consumer affairs, Mr. Benjamin S. Rosenthal, of New York, made a point 
of order against the consideration of the bill. Speaker pro tempore 
Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, heard the point of order, which Mr. Rosenthal 
stated was based on a rule of the Committee on Government Operations 
providing that every committee report be approved by majority vote of 
the committee at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Mr. Rosenthal 
stated that the accompanying report was not approved by a majority vote 
of the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 117 Cong. Rec. 35820-24, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 10835, the Consumer Protection Act of 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rosenthal: . . . Mr. Speaker, it is my humble view that 
    implicit in that House rule is the requirement that the report 
    accompanying the legislation be a valid report and if that report 
    is in violation of the rules of the committee and, thus, invalid, 
    the report being deficient, the entire legislative package is 
    deficient and thus cannot be considered by the House. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, to restate my point as concisely and clearly as I 
    can, the Committee on Government Operations has a specific rule 
    requiring specific approval of every report. This legislative 
    package is deficient by virtue of the powers of that rule, and I 
    raise a point of order against the consideration of this 
    legislation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard?
        Mr. Holifield: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        The Spearer Pro Tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Holifield: Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Rosenthal) has no valid basis for his argument. I shall 
    make my points briefly:

[[Page 3130]]

        First. The gentleman from New York does not validly interpret 
    the committee rule in question. . . .
        Second. The action of the committee in approving H.R. 10835 and 
    directing the chairman to bring it to the floor governs in the 
    present situation. The motion to approve and report H.R. 10835 
    occurred as follows:

            Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill H.R. 10835, 
        as amended, be reported to the House and that the Chairman take 
        the necessary steps to bring it to the floor.
            Chairman Holifield: Is there a second?
            Mr. Erlenborn: Second.
            The Chairman: It has been moved and seconded that the bill 
        be approved and that the Chairman take the usual steps to bring 
        it up for consideration on the floor. We will have a roll call 
        vote on this.

        The motion was made and voted upon without objection and 
    thereafter arrangements were made to allow Members 3 calendar days 
    to file additional views, again without objection.
        The motion and the other arrangements reflect the committee's 
    longstanding understanding that House Rule XI, 27(d)(1) governs the 
    reporting of legislation rather than Committee Rule 4.
        In any event, the motion was accepted and voted upon without 
    any objection having been made and with a quorum present and 
    voting. Every provision of the House rules was complied with. The 
    chairman is bound by the terms of the motion adopted by the 
    committee. Even if a timely point of order on the failure to vote 
    on the report under the committee rule would have been in order, it 
    was not raised until 3 days after the committee accepted and 
    adopted the motion without objection.
        The precedents of the House hold that where a motion not in 
    order under the rules is made without objection and agreed to by 
    the House by majority vote, the action is binding on the House and 
    the Speaker and is no longer subject to a point of order. In fact, 
    it is the duty of the Speaker to proceed to the business as 
    indicated by the House--IV Hinds' sec. 3177; V Hinds' sec. 6917.
        These precedents are applicable to the committee action on H.R. 
    10835.
        Third. Where a committee action violates certain rules of the 
    House, for example-voting to report a measure without a quorum 
    being present, Rule XI, 27(e)--a point of order may be made at an 
    appropriate time on the House floor. In some situations such as 
    violation of a House rule governing the conduct of hearings, the 
    rules specifically require that the point of order be first made in 
    the committee (House Rule XI, 27(f)(5)).
        In the present instance, if any rule was violated--and we 
    believe this did not occur--it was a committee rule and not a House 
    rule. Under these circumstances the point of order should have been 
    made before and decided upon by the committee. All House rules 
    having been met, the forum for deciding the issue is the committee, 
    not the House.
        The Speaker has repeatedly ruled against points of order based 
    upon alleged irregularities in Committee procedures which did not 
    violate a rule of the House. See IV Hinds' Precedents sections 
    4592, 4593, and 4594.
        Fourth. Finally, I would not want it to be thought that the 
    desires of the

[[Page 3131]]

    committee members are ignored in the preparation of the chairman's 
    report. The suggestions of at least four Members, including the 
    gentleman from New York, were taken into account and included in 
    the report. Very often points to be included in the report are 
    discussed at the subcommittee and full committee meetings and 
    almost always the suggestions are adopted. I note that other 
    committees of the House have various types of procedures to allow 
    members to make similar suggestions. In no case, however, have I 
    found that the committees actually vote on the reports themselves. 
    As the precedents point out--IV Hinds' sec. 4674--the report of a 
    committee is in the nature of an argument or explanation and does 
    not come before the House for amendment or other action. There is 
    wisdom behind the rule and precedents here, because if the 
    committee had to come to agreement on every word in the legislative 
    report, very little business would get done. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Rosenthal) care to be heard further?
        Mr. Rosenthal: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard 
    further on this, briefly.
        Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that as I interpret the rules, 
    there is no burden on me, on this Member or any other Member, to 
    see to it that the rules are appropriately enforced. It would seem 
    to me that that burden rightfully is placed on the chairman of the 
    respective committee and it is his obligation to abide by the 
    rules.
        Second, my distinguished chairman said that this rule has been 
    in existence since 1953 and we have been violating it since 1953--
    we have never complied with it since 1953. So far as I am concerned 
    that is most regrettable.
        The chairman went on to say that what the committee rule means 
    is that only investigative reports should be voted on by the 
    committee. . . .

        Mr. Speaker, I again assert the position I have stated that the 
    rule is precise and clear and that no Member of the Congress has 
    the right to waive that rule.
        If the rule needs to be changed, then the change ought to have 
    been made at the appropriate time and place.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York has raised a point of order against 
    the consideration of H.R. 10835 on the ground that the Committee on 
    Government Operations did not meet to approve the report on that 
    bill, House Report No. 92-542, as allegedly required by rule 4 of 
    that committee.
        The Chair has listened carefully to the arguments on this point 
    of order and has referred to the committee rule cited by the 
    gentleman from New York. The Chair has also reexamined the 
    provisions of rule XI of the rules of the House with respect to the 
    procedures for reporting bills to the House. He has also examined 
    the precedents cited in the argument. The ruling of the Chair is in 
    three parts:
        First, the right of members of the Committee on Government 
    Operations to file minority views, as guaranteed by clause 27(d)(4) 
    of rule XI, was protected in this instance. The bill was ordered 
    reported on Monday, September

[[Page 3132]]

    27. The chairman did not file the report until late on Thursday, 
    September 30. Those members wishing to file minority views were 
    afforded the opportunity to do so.
        Second, the gentleman from California has stated that in the 
    more than 18 years since this rule was first adopted in the 
    Committee on Government Operations, the consistent interpretation 
    of the committee has been that while investigative reports require 
    committee approval, legislative reports on bills or resolutions do 
    not. This interpretation conforms with that of the House, where the 
    report accompanying a bill or resolutions is in the nature of an 
    argument or explanation of the reported measure, the committee 
    report itself is not brought before the House for action or 
    amendment.
        The Chair might also add that even if the committee wishes to 
    put a different interpretation of its rule, it is a matter which 
    should be decided in the committee. The record seems clear that the 
    point was not raised at the time this bill was ordered reported. 
    Finally, the Chair would like to point out that even if the 
    committee rule were to be construed as applicable to reports on 
    legislative matters, the motion directing the chairman of the 
    committee to report the bill to the House was a later expression of 
    the committee's will. The chairman of the Committee on Government 
    Operations before submitting the motion to the committee, stated 
    the question as follows:

            It has been moved and seconded that the bill be approved 
        and that the Chairman take the usual steps to bring it up for 
        consideration on the floor.

        This motion carried in the committee by a vote of 24 to 4. 
    Subsequently, the Chair did, in fact, take the usual steps to bring 
    the matter to the floor. His actions were in accord with the 
    established practices of the committee and were taken in compliance 
    with the rules of this House.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Remedying Defects in Reporting of Bill

Sec. 58.6 Defects in reporting a bill by a standing committee may be 
    remedied by adoption of a special rule from the Committee on Rules 
    making in order consideration of such bill and waiving appropriate 
    points of order.

    On May 2, 1939,(7) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
made a point of order against House Resolution 175, which provided that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House for 
consideration of H.R. 5643 (a bill giving federal circuit courts 
jurisdiction over orders of deportation of aliens). Mr. Dickstein 
contended that the bill did not have a hearing before the appropriate 
legislative committee, and that there was no proper report from the 
committee authorized to conduct the hearings. Mr. Dickstein argued that 
although the bill was
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052-55, 76th Cong. 1st Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3133]]

``100 percent immigration,'' it was referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary instead of the Committee on Immigration.

    Following debate on the point of order, Speaker William B. Bank 
head, of Alabama, overruled the point of order on the ground that Mr. 
Dickstein had ``slept upon his rights'' and should have provoked a 
motion to rerefer the bill from the Committee on the Judiciary to the 
Committee on Immigration before it was reported. An additional basis 
for overruling the point of order was then suggested by Mr. Carl E. 
Mapes, of Michigan, who stated:

        Mr. Speaker, in order to protect the rights of the Committee on 
    Rules, will the Chair permit this observation? The gentleman from 
    New York slept on his rights further until the Committee on Rules 
    reported a rule making the consideration of this measure in order. 
    Even though the reference had been erroneous and the point of order 
    had been otherwise made in time, the Committee on Rules has the 
    right to change the rules and report a rule making the legislation 
    in order. This point also might be taken into consideration by the 
    Speaker, if necessary.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the statement 
    made by the gentleman from Michigan, although not necessary to a 
    decision of the instant question, is sustained by a particular and 
    special decision rendered by Mr. Speaker Garner on a similar 
    question. The decision may be found in the Record of February 28, 
    1933. In that decision it is held, in effect, that despite certain 
    defects in the consideration or the reporting of a bill by a 
    standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a special rule 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion to consider 
    such bill. The Chair thinks that that decision by Mr. Speaker 
    Garner clearly sustains the contention made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. For a full discussion of special rules, see Ch. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waivers of Points of Order

Sec. 58.7 Where the House grants unanimous consent for consideration of 
    a bill and provides that all points of order against the bill shall 
    be considered as waived, such waiver applies also to the committee 
    report on the bill.

    On July 19, 1947,(9) after Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of H.R. 4214, providing for a Secretary of 
Defense and other national defense measures, Mr. W. Sterling Cole, of 
New York, made a point of order against consideration of the bill on 
the ground that at least 24 hours had not intervened between the time 
the bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 93 Cong. Rec. 9396, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3134]]

was available and the time the bill was called up.

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, overruled the 
point of order, noting that all points of order against the bill had 
been waived by a unanimous-consent agreement by the 
House.(10) Mr. Cole then raised several parliamentary 
inquiries as to whether a point of order would lie against the 
committee report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 93 Cong. Rec. 9095, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1947, where 
        Mr. Charles A. Halleck (Ind.), asked unanimous consent, in 
        pertinent part, as follows: ``Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
        consent that it may be in order on Friday next and thereafter 
        to consider the bill H.R. 4214, that all points of order 
        against the said bill be considered as waived.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. I am further 
    advised that although the bill is available this morning, the 
    report accompanying the bill is not. Would it be in order to raise 
    a point of order against the motion of the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Hoffman] upon the ground that the report is not now available?
        The Speaker: It would not be in order because the same ruling 
    would apply. All points of order were waived under the unanimous-
    consent agreement.
        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Speaker a further parliamentary 
    inquiry. I am informed that the report does not comply with the 
    rules of the House in that it does not set forth alterations 
    proposed by the bill to existing law. My inquiry is whether the 
    request of the gentleman from Indiana, the majority leader, that 
    points of order against the bill be waived also carried with it the 
    waiving of points of order against the report which is supposed to 
    accompany the bill.
        The Speaker: The Chair is compelled to make the same ruling in 
    this instance also. All points of order were waived under the 
    unanimous-consent agreement and, therefore, the raising of that 
    point of order at this time would not be in order.
        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Speaker without undertaking to 
    dispute the decision, I call your attention to the fact that the 
    request for waiving points of order was directed to the bill 
    itself. Does the Speaker rule that the waiving of points of order 
    against the bill carried with it the waiving of points of order 
    against the report?
        The Speaker: Yes.                          -------------------

Improper Action in Committee as Affecting Reporting

Sec. 58.8 The Chair has overruled, on the ground that the Chair had no 
    information as to what occurred in a committee, a point of order 
    alleging that a bill was not properly before the House because it 
    had not been read for amendment in committee prior to reporting.

    On Apr. 23, 1934,(11) the Committee on Banking and 
Currency
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 78 Cong. Rec. 7151-61, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3135]]

reported a bill, H.R. 7908,(12) which was on the Calendar of 
Motions to Discharge Committees. Despite the reporting of the measure 
by the Committee on Banking and Currency, Mr. Clarence J. McLeod, of 
Michigan, attempted to call up the motion to discharge the committee of 
H.R. 7908. It developed in the debate that Mr. McLeod and Mr. Jesse P. 
Wolcott, of Michigan, viewed the reporting of the bill by the committee 
as void ab initio on the grounds that the committee ordered the 
reporting of the measure at a time when it sat during a session of the 
House without the permission of the House and also because the measure 
reported was not read before the committee. In fact, argued the 
proponents of the discharge motion, the bill that was reported by the 
committee was a committee substitute, the former H.R. 9175, which the 
committee had inserted after striking all but the enacting clause of 
the original bill that had been the subject of the discharge petition 
signed by the requisite number of Members.(13) After Speaker 
Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, sustained a point of order against the 
calling up of the motion to discharge the committee, on the basis that 
``inasmuch as the Committee on Banking and Currency has reported the 
bill, that the effect of that action nullifies the motion to discharge 
and makes it inoperative,(14) Mr. Carroll L. Beedy, of 
Maine, then raised a point of order against the bill as reported by the 
committee because it had never been read for amendment in the committee 
and was, he argued, not regularly before the House. Mr. Beedy stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The bill concerned payments of assets in closed banks.
13. At that time, only 145 signatures were required on a discharge 
        petition. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual (1934). 
        See also Ch. 18, infra.
14. 78 Cong. Rec. 7161, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 23, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment to 
    the McLeod bill, so called, was not introduced in the House until 
    the 17th of April subsequent to the time when any bill of the kind 
    was ever read for amendment in the committee. This fact is 
    undenied.
        The bill that was reported never was read for amendment in the 
    committee. It is not legally or validly upon the calendar of the 
    House. While the decision of the Chair well presents the fact, 
    assuming that the bill were legally before the House, the Chair has 
    not touched upon the question as to whether it may be in order to 
    call up the discharge rule if the bill attempted to be reported by 
    the committee concerned was not regularly before the House, not 
    having been considered according to the rules of the House.

[[Page 3136]]

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order, therefore, that the 
    bill alleged to have been reported is not legally reported, is in 
    violation of the rules of the House and of the committees of the 
    House and has no valid standing in the House.(l5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In overruling the point of order, the Speaker advised that he had 
no knowledge as to what had occurred in committee, stating:

        The House passed on that question a few moments ago in a 
    resolution raising the question of the privileges of the House, and 
    passed upon the question adversely to the position taken by the 
    gentleman from Maine.
        The Chair has no information as to what occurred in the 
    committee. The only thing the Chair knows is that the McLeod bill, 
    bearing the number it has always borne and with the same title, and 
    with some amendments in which the Chair is not interested, has been 
    reported out, is on the calendar, and can be taken up under the 
    general rules of the House when an opportunity presents itself.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An appeal from the Speaker's ruling was laid on the table.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Beedy's contention that the bill was 
not properly before the House, since it had not been read for amendment 
in committee prior to reporting, had been raised on the resolution 
referred to by the Speaker (see H. Res. 349, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 
23, 1934, H. Jour. 429). The contention was based on the requirement of 
Jefferson's Manual (see House Rules and Manual Sec. 412 [1979]) that, 
in the case of bills originating with or referred to committees, ``in 
every case the whole paper is read . . . by paragraphs, pausing at the 
end of each paragraph, and putting questions for amending, if 
proposed.''
    A point of order based on this requirement, however, lies only in 
committee, not in the House, in accordance with the general principle 
that a point of order does not ordinarily lie in the House against 
consideration of a bill by reason of defective committee procedures 
occurring prior to the time the bill was ordered reported to the House. 
Determinations as to proper committee procedure are for the committee 
to make, except where the House rules specifically permit such 
objections to consideration.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-60]                         

[Page 3136-3144]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 59. Form; Printing

    The rules of the House require that measures reported to the House 
by committees be accompanied by reports in writing and that such 
reports be printed. This

[[Page 3137]]

rule is strictly observed, and verbal reports on bills are not accepted 
by the House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule XVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 821 (1979).
            The form for conference reports is discussed in Ch. 33, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A committee report is ordinarily delivered to the Clerk for 
printing at the time that it is filed, but reports on resolutions 
adversely reported are not printed, under the rules, unless a request 
is made that they be referred to a calendar.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sec. 59.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To remedy waste or inefficiencies in public printing, the Joint 
Committee on Printing, pursuant to its authorized powers, adopted a 
rule prohibiting the duplicate printing of committee reports in both 
the Congressional Record and as a separate House report.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 59.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One question which has recently arisen with respect to the printing 
and distribution of committee reports is the scope of congressional 
immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, 
article I, section 6, clause 1, as it concerns potentially tortious 
material published in committee reports. In a 1973 decision by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in Doe v McMillan (1) the court held that the 
members and staff of an investigative committee, a consultant, and a 
committee investigator, were absolutely immune under the Speech or 
Debate Clause insofar as they engaged in the legislative acts of 
compiling the report, referring it to the House, or voting for its 
publication.(2) The Court also held that the Public Printer 
and the Superintendent of Documents were protected by the doctrine of 
legislative immunity for publishing and distributing the report to the 
extent that they served a legitimate legislative function in so 
doing.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 412 U.S. 306, wherein the parents of certain District of Columbia 
        schoolchildren brought an action seeking damages and 
        declaratory and injunctive relief for an invasion of privacy 
        that they claimed resulted from the dissemination of a 
        congressional report on the District of Columbia school system 
        that included derogatory information on students. The 
        defendants included the members of a House investigatory 
        committee, committee employees, a committee investigator, a 
        consultant, the Public Printer, the Superintendent of 
        Documents, and various school officials.
 2. Id. at pp. 311-13.
 3. Id. at pp. 318-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reports on Resolutions Adversely Reported

Sec. 59.1 Reports of committees are ordinarily delivered to

[[Page 3138]]

    the Clerk for printing, but reports on resolutions adversely 
    reported under the rules are not printed unless a request is made 
    that they be referred to a calendar.

    On July 15, 1959,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. William H. Meyer, of Vermont, relative to certain 
concurrent resolutions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 105 Cong. Rec. 13493, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Meyer: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule XIII, I request that 
    the following concurrent resolutions, House Concurrent Resolutions 
    245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, and 254, which have been reported 
    adversely, be referred to the calendar.
        The Speaker: The resolutions will be referred to the Union 
    Calendar and the reports printed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: These resolutions were referred and printed 
pursuant to Rule XIII clause 2, which provided:

        All reports of committees, except as provided in clause 21 of 
    rule XI, together with the views of the minority, shall be 
    delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper 
    calendar under the direction of the Speaker, in accordance with the 
    foregoing clause, and the titles or subject thereof shall be 
    entered on the Journal and printed in the Record: Provided, That 
    bills reported adversely shall be laid on the table, unless the 
    committee reporting a bill, at the time, or any Member within three 
    days thereafter, shall request its reference to the calendar, when 
    it shall be referred as provided in clause 1 of this rule. 
    [Emphasis supplied.]

References in Report to Amendments by Page and Line

Sec. 59.2 Where a joint resolution is reported from a committee with 
    amendments, the committee report identifies the amendments by page 
    and line references to the resolution as printed when referred; and 
    such references do not always correspond to the pages and lines of 
    the reported print of the resolution.

    On June 30, 1970,(5) following the Clerk's reading of a 
Senate joint resolution, Chairman John A. Young, of Texas, ordered the 
Clerk to report the amendments made by the Committee on the Judiciary. 
The committee amendments were agreed to. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of 
Colorado, then offered two amendments, with respect to which Mr. 
Charles E. Wiggins, of California, raised a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. 
Wiggins stated that he had before

[[Page 3139]]

him a copy of the bill and that he was unable to find the page and line 
references to the amendments offered by Mr. Rogers. After Mr. Rogers 
cited the page and line numbers, the committee agreed on the amendments 
offered by Mr. Rogers. Confusion continued however, as to which page 
and lines were being referred to because of variations in the House 
prints of the Senate joint resolution as referred and as reported with 
committee amendments therein. The amendments submitted by Mr. Rogers 
referred to the print of the Senate joint resolution as it passed the 
Senate, whereas the report made reference to the resolution as 
originally referred to the committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 22115-17, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was S.J. Res. 88, creating a commission to study U.S. 
        bankruptcy laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wiggins: Since the committee amendments, which were taken 
    from the first page of the report, do not correlate with respect to 
    page and line in Senate Joint Resolution 88, I am fearful that the 
    record is going to be confused. For example, in the report the 
    second committee amendment is shown as page 2, line 20, when there 
    is no line 20 on page 2. It is on page 3.

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: These are amendments to the original 
    Senate joint resolution.
        Mr. Wiggins: If the gentleman will assure me that there is no 
    confusion----
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: There is no intent to confuse. The page 
    and line numbers refer to the print of the Senate joint resolution 
    as it passed the Senate.
        Mr. Wiggins: And this is a House print of that Senate joint 
    resolution, is that correct?
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: That is correct.
        Mr. Wiggins: I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
        The Chairman: The Clerk wild report the preamble of the Senate 
    Joint Resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, with what resolution are we dealing? Are we 
    dealing with Senate Joint Resolution 88, Union Calendar No. 430, 
    Report No. 91-927? What are we here dealing with?
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: The gentleman is correct. That is the 
    Senate joint resolution that we are considering.
        Mr. Gross: How can we amend a line in a joint resolution that 
    does not exist? How can we amend a line in a joint resolution that 
    is not before the House?
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Our answer to that inquiry is simply 
    this. The joint resolution was referred to us by the House, and it 
    is the original Senate joint resolution as reported that we are 
    considering.
        Mr. Gross: I do not understand the procedure at all.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: It is the reported Senate joint 
    resolution that we are considering.

[[Page 3140]]

        Mr. Gross: Yes, but you cannot amend line 20 on page 2 when 
    there is no line 20 on page 2 of the Senate joint resolution.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that, when the report was 
    filed, the committee amendments refer to the original Senate joint 
    resolution as it was referred to the committee. The amendments as 
    offered are applicable to Senate Joint Resolution 88 as referred to 
    the Committee on the Judiciary.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, with all deference to the Chair, I am 
    still confused, and I am sure other Members are confused.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gross: I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
        I wish to propound a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman, would 
    it be in order and appropriate for a unanimous consent request to 
    be made in order by all Members of the House that the technical 
    corrections of Senate Joint Resolution 88 insofar as correlation 
    between the report and the bill before us is concerned, and would 
    this help the situation in engrossing and final drafting of the 
    bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Missouri 
    that the report applies to the resolution as originally referred to 
    the committee.
        The Chair further advises that the unanimous consent request 
    the gentleman suggested would not be in order at this time.
        The Chair also advises that such a request could be in order in 
    the House.

Duplicate Printing

Sec. 59.3 The rule of the Joint Committee on Printing against duplicate 
    printing permits printing of committee activity reports either in 
    the Congressional Record or in pamphlet form as a ``committee 
    print'' but not in both forms.

    On Oct. 13, 1962,(6) the House by unanimous consent 
permitted Mr. Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, to extend his remarks in the 
Record relative to the publication of committee reports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  6. 108 Cong. Rec. 23516, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.; see also 111 Cong. Rec. 
        27801, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 21, 1965. Compare 106 Cong. 
        Rec. 19133, 19139, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1960 (Calendar 
        Day), where, notwithstanding the rule of the Joint Committee on 
        Printing against duplicate printing, the chairman of a 
        committee was, by unanimous consent, granted permission to have 
        printed in the Congressional Record and in pamphlet form the 
        activity report of that committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, with reference to the printing of committee 
    activity reports for the session, as vice chairman of the Joint 
    Committee on Printing, I wish to remind the chairmen of all 
    committees that the Joint Committee on Printing had properly ruled 
    that the printing of such reports, both as committee prints and in 
    the Record, is duplication, the cost of which cannot be justified.

[[Page 3141]]

        It is requested that committee chairmen decide whether they 
    wish these reports printed as committee prints or in the Record, 
    since the Government Printing Office will be directed not to print 
    them both ways.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The pertinent rule of the Joint Committee 
on Printing is as follows:

                     Code of Laws of the United States

        Title 44, Section 901. Congressional Record: Arrangement, 
    Style, Contents, and Indexes.--The Joint Committee on Printing 
    shall control the arrangement and style of the Congressional 
    Record, and while providing that it shall be substantially a 
    verbatim report of proceedings, shall take all needed action for 
    the reduction of unnecessary bulk. It shall provide for the 
    publication of an index of the Congressional Record semimonthly 
    during and at the close of sessions of Congress. (Oct. 22, 1968, c. 
    9, 82 Stat. 1255.)
        Title 44, Section 904. Congressional Record: Maps; diagrams; 
    illustrations.--Maps, diagrams, or illustrations may not be 
    inserted in the Record without the approval of the Joint Committee 
    on Printing. (Oct. 22, 1968, c. 9, 82 Stat. 1256.)

        To provide for the prompt publication and delivery of the 
    Congressional Record the Joint Committee on Printing has adopted 
    the following rules, to which the attention of Senators, 
    Representatives, and Delegates is respectfully invited: . . .
        The Public Printer shall not publish in the Congressional 
    Record the full report or print of any committee or subcommittee 
    when the report or print has been previously printed. This rule 
    shall not be construed to apply to conference reports. However, 
    inasmuch as House of Representatives Rule XXVIII, Section 912, 
    provides that conference reports be printed in the daily edition of 
    the Congressional Record, they shall not be printed therein a 
    second time.

Filing After Adjournment Sine Die

Sec. 59.4 The House normally authorizes investigative reports filed 
    with the Clerk by committees following adjournment of Congress sine 
    die to be printed as reports of that Congress.

    On Dec. 17, 1971,(7) the House considered a unanimous-
consent request by Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, relative to the 
printing of certain reports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 47676, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 118 Cong Rec. 
        37062, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Oct. 18, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that reports filed with 
    the clerk following the sine die adjournment by committees 
    authorized by the House to conduct investigations may be printed by 
    the clerk as reports of the 92d Congress.

    There was no objection to Mr. Boggs' request.

Filing During Adjournment to a Day Certain

Sec. 59.5 By unanimous consent, committee investigative re

[[Page 3142]]

    ports filed with the Clerk during an adjournment to a day certain 
    were authorized to be printed.

    On Aug. 18, 1972,(8) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, made the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 29136, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that reports filed with 
    the House following the adjournment of the House until September 5, 
    1972, by committees authorized by the House to conduct 
    investigations, may be printed by the Clerk as reports of the 92d 
    Congress.
        The Speaker: (~9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Effect of Court Order Restraining Printing

Sec. 59.6 The Chairman of the Committee on Internal Security announced 
    to the House that the U.S. District Court for the District of 
    Columbia had issued an order temporarily restraining the Public 
    Printer from printing a report to be submitted to the House, 
    pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction against its 
    publication. The chairman also announced his intention to 
    distribute the report to Members despite the court order. The House 
    adopted a resolution directing the Public Printer and the 
    Superintendent of Documents to distribute this report.

    On Oct. 14, 1970,(10) Mr. Richard H. Ichord, of 
Missouri, asked and was given permission to address the House. In his 
remarks, Mr. Ichord related that the House Committee on Internal 
Security had authorized a limited voluntary study of educational 
institutions to obtain information on the extent to which honoraria was 
being used to finance revolutionary activities. Mr. Ichord said that a 
suit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia to enjoin the committee from publishing its report on the 
subject. Mr. Ichord stated that such an order, if issued and permitted 
to stand, would be in disregard of the ``speech and debate'' clause of 
the Constitution--article I, section 6. He went on to state that 
regardless of what hap

[[Page 3143]]

pened in the suit, there would be copies furnished the Members of the 
House because the proposed court order did not preclude reproduction of 
the report for Members of the House but only enjoined the Public 
Printer from printing the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 36680, 36770, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H. Rept. No. 91-1607, which included a survey 
        of honoraria given guest speakers for engagements at colleges 
        and universities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 14, 1970,(11) Mr. Ichord rose to a question of 
the privileges of the House and submitted a resolution (H. Res. 1306), 
setting out the subsequent history of the litigation and resolving that 
the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents should forthwith 
print and distribute the committee report and ordering all persons, 
whether or not acting under color of office, to refrain from punishing 
any person because of his participation in or performance of such work. 
The resolution, as shown below in part, in the Congressional Record 
provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 41355-57, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas, the Constitution of the United States vests all 
    legislative powers in a Congress of the United States, consisting 
    of a Senate and House of Representatives (Article I, Section 1);
        And whereas, the said Constitution authorizes the House to 
    determine the rules of its proceedings (Article I, Section 5); . . 
    .
        Resolved, That--
        (1) In accordance with the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives and the acts of Congress made and provided, the 
    Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents shall forthwith 
    print, publish, and distribute, and they are hereby ordered 
    forthwith to print, publish, and distribute to and for the use of 
    the House of Representatives, the Committee on Internal Security of 
    said House, and those entitled to receive them, the usual number of 
    copies of the report (No. 91-1732) of said Committee on Internal 
    Security titled, ``Report of Inquiry Concerning Speakers' Honoraria 
    at Colleges and Universities,'' which has this day been duly 
    reported to the House.
        (2) All persons, whether or not acting under color of office, 
    are hereby advised, ordered, and enjoined to refrain from doing any 
    act, or causing any act to be done, which restrains, delays, 
    interferes with, obstructs, or prevents the performance of the work 
    ordered to be done by paragraph numbered (1) hereof; and all such 
    persons are further advised, ordered, and enjoined to refrain from 
    molesting, intimidating, damaging, arresting, imprisoning, or 
    punishing any person because of his participation in, or 
    performance of, such work.
        (3) Copies of this resolution shall be forthwith furnished by 
    the Clerk of the House to the Public Printer, Superintendent of 
    Documents, and the clerks of the United States District Court and 
    of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

    On Dec. 16, 1970, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, laid 
before the House a communication from the Public Printer 
(l2) advising that he had pub
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 41940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3144]]

lished and distributed the report from the Committee on Internal 
Security pursuant to the resolution adopted by the House and served 
upon him.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-61]                         

[Page 3144-3170]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 60. Comparative Prints; The Ramseyer Rule

    The Ramseyer rule provides that whenever a committee reports a bill 
or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part thereof, 
the committee report is to include the text of the statute or part 
thereof to be repealed, as well as a comparative print showing the 
proposed omissions and insertions by stricken-through type and italics, 
parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
devices.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979). The 
        rule dates from Jan. 28, 1929, when the House passed H. Res. 
        278, 70 Cong. Rec. 2371-74, 70th Cong. 2d Sess.
            The rule is commonly known as the ``Ramseyer rule'' in 
        honor of its sponsor, Mr. Christian W. Ramseyer, of Iowa, who 
        served in the House from 1915 to 1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the Ramseyer rule is to inform Members of any 
changes in existing law to occur through proposed legislation. The rule 
was adopted by the House on Jan. 28, 1929, at which time Mr. Ramseyer 
explained its import and meaning as follows:

        The proposal in this new rule is simply this: Many bills which 
    are introduced are to amend statutes. Such bills are reported back 
    to the House, and there is nothing either in the bill or in the 
    report accompanying the bill to advise Members of the House just 
    what specific changes the bill proposes to make in the statute 
    under consideration. If this amendment to Rule XIII is adopted, 
    then hereafter a committee which reports a bill to amend an 
    existing statute must show in the report just what changes are 
    proposed. Suppose a bill is to amend a statute--we will just call 
    it section 100--by omitting some words and adding thereto other 
    words. The proposal is that the report shall show by stricken-
    through type the words to be omitted and by italics the words that 
    are added, so that a Member who is interested in knowing just what 
    changes it is proposed to make in the statute under consideration 
    can get the report, read it, and have before him exactly the 
    changes which are proposed to be made.

    Despite some criticism of the resolution on the basis that it did 
not go far enough,(14) the House adopted the measure and it 
has survived with only one change in the succeeding decades. That
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Mr. Henry Allen Cooper (Wisc.), preferred passing a bill that would 
        have amended the United States Code to require a comparative 
        printing of all bills and resolutions introduced in both the 
        House and Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3145]]

change, added Sept. 22, 1961,(15) provides that ``[I]f a 
committee reports such a bill or joint resolution with amendments or an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill, such 
report shall include a comparative print showing any changes in 
existing law proposed by the amendments or substitute instead of as in 
the bill as introduced.'' (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 20823, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. See Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the doctrine of ``substantial compliance,'' the Speaker has 
overruled points of order against committee reports, based on the 
Ramseyer rule, on the rationale that the committee had substantially 
complied with the requirements of the rule and the deviations were 
minor and inconsequential.(17) Also, the rules now provide 
that committees may submit supplemental reports to correct technical 
errors in a previous report.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sec. Sec. 60.11-60.14, infra.
18. Rule XI clause 2(1)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979). 
        This change in the rules was brought about by the 1970 
        Legislative Reorganization Act; see Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 
        Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Points of order based on the Ramseyer rule must be raised at the 
proper time. A point of order based on the rule must be made when the 
bill is called up in the House and before the House resolves itself 
into the Committee of the Whole.(19) The point of order 
comes too late after the House has resolved itself into the Committee 
of the Whole for the purpose of consideration of the measure and debate 
has begun.(20) Compliance with the Ramseyer rule may be 
waived by unanimous consent or by special rule. This can be 
accomplished either by a general waiver of all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, or by an express waiver of the provisions of 
the Ramseyer rule.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 60.16, infra.
20. Sec. 60.18, infra.
 1. Sec. Sec. 60.19, 60.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Ramseyer Rule Generally

Sec. 60.1 The Ramseyer rule requires that when reporting a bill 
    repealing or amending existing law, the committee must include a 
    comparative print showing, by italic or other typographical device, 
    the changes proposed; but if the reported measure does not 
    specifically amend existing law, a point of order based on the 
    Ramseyer rule will not lie.

[[Page 3146]]

    On Oct. 1, 1963,(2) after Mr. Armistead I. Selden, Jr., 
of Alabama, moved the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 7044), Mr. Frank T. Bow, of 
Ohio, raised a point of order that the report on the bill violated the 
Ramseyer rule. Mr. Bow stated that section 2 of the bill provided ``The 
Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission shall cease to exist upon 
completion of the construction authorized by this act, or on May 6, 
1967, whichever shall first occur.'' Mr. Bow stated that this language 
was not contained in the italic required under the Ramseyer rule, and 
did not show a change in the existing law. Mr. Bow further stated that 
the same language was in a 1958 law giving the time as to when the 
commission was to cease to exist, and that the present bill amended 
that law by setting a different date for the expiration of the 
commission. In response, Mr. Selden contended that section 2 did not 
make a specific change in the provisions of the law. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 109 Cong. Rec. 18412, 88th Cong.1st Sess. For other illustrations, 
        see 103 Cong. Rec. 8484, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 6, 1957 
        [H.R. 6127]; and 79 Cong. Rec. 11051, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 11, 1935 [H. Res. 240].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(3) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, the report on this bill violates rule 
    XIII, the so called Ramseyer rule. I shall not read the rule as I 
    know the Speaker is familiar with it.
        Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the bill, H.R. 7044, is a 
    bill to amend Public Law 193, 83d Congress, relating to the 
    Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission.
        I further point out in the bill under section (i) there is a 
    change in the plans for the memorial, changing it into the type 
    that is set forth in the bill; and that in the report under changes 
    in existing law made by the bill, as reported, the report does show 
    in italic that portion of the amendment.
        I further call the Chair's attention to the fact that section 2 
    of the bill now pending provides ``The Corregidor-Bataan Memorial 
    Commission shall cease to exist upon completion of the construction 
    authorized by this act, or on May 6, 1967, whichever shall first 
    occur.''
        I further call attention to the report of the committee in 
    which they attempt to comply with the Ramseyer rule and in that, 
    although they do comply in the one instance with the italics on the 
    construction, later, in the next paragraph of the report, is this 
    language: ``and the Commission shall cease to exist 90 days after 
    such submission of such final report.'' This is contained in roman 
    printing. It is not

[[Page 3147]]

    in the italic required under the Ramseyer rule. It does not show 
    that this is a change in existing law and, inasmuch as section 2 
    says that the Commission shall cease to exist upon the completion 
    of the construction authorized, the Speaker will find the same 
    language in the bill of 1958 giving the time as to when the 
    Commission will cease to exist. This bill does amend that law by 
    setting a different date for the expiration of the Commission and 
    it does not comply with the Ramseyer rule.
        I desire, if I may, to point out the precedents of the House 
    appearing in volume 8 from page 2236 on, and particularly that 
    precedent that says, ``Although a bill proposed one minor and 
    obvious change in existing law, the failure to indicate this 
    change'' is ``in violation of the law.'' Admittedly this is in a 
    minor and rather obvious position. Nevertheless the report of the 
    committee does not show in italic and it is a change in existing 
    law, and I submit it is a violation of the Ramseyer rule.

        Mr. Selden: Mr. Speaker, I contend that section 2 does not make 
    a specific change in the provisions of the law. Therefore the 
    report of the committee does comply with the Ramseyer rule....
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the gentleman from 
    Alabama?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
        Mr. Bow: . . . I further point out that there is a complete 
    change in the law as to the time of the expiration of the Bataan-
    Corregidor Commission.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. In connection with 
    section 2 that the gentleman from Ohio referred to, that is, 
    section 2 of the pending bill, the Chair will state that this 
    section does not amend existing law specifically and applies only 
    to this bill. Therefore, the report does not, in that respect, have 
    to meet the requirements of the Ramseyer rule. The portion of the 
    bill which specifically amends existing law, as the Chair sees it, 
    is paragraph (i) starting on page 1 and finishing on line 19 of 
    page 2 of that section, and it is very clear that the committee has 
    complied with the Ramseyer rule in connection with that paragraph. 
    So, for the reason stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Effect of Noncompliance With Rule

Sec. 60.2 Where a report failed to comply with the provisions of the 
    Ramseyer rule and a point of order is sustained on that ground, the 
    bill is recommitted to the committee reporting it.

    On May 3, 1937,(4) after the Clerk read the title of a 
bill about to be considered, Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, raised 
a point of order against the consideration of the bill on the ground 
that the report did not comply with the Ramseyer rule. When Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, sustained the point of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 4123, 4124, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was S. 709, a bill to incorporate the National Education 
        Association of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3148]]

order, the bill was recommitted to the Committee on Education, which 
had reported it.

        The Clerk called the next bill, S. 709, to amend the act 
    entitled ``An act to incorporate the National Education Association 
    of the United States'', approved June 30, 1906, as amended.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Speaker, if it appears from the report that 
    subsection 2 (a) of rule XXIII, commonly known as the Ramseyer 
    rule, has not been complied with, is the bill automatically 
    recommitted to the committee from which it was reported?
        The Speaker: If the point of order should be sustained, under 
    the provision governing such cases the bill would automatically be 
    recommitted to the committee from which it was reported.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill (S. 709) that the so-called Ramseyer rule 
    has not been complied with.
        The Speaker: A very casual reading of the report on the bill 
    indicates the Ramseyer rule has not been complied with. .
        Does the gentleman from Michigan insist on the point of order?
        Mr. Wolcott: I insist on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained, and the bill is 
    recommitted to the Committee on Education.

Purpose of Rule

Sec. 60.3 The purpose of the Ramseyer rule is to require that committee 
    reports furnish information relating to changes the bill proposes 
    to make in existing law.

    On Dec. 3, 1963,(5) following a motion by Mr. Harold D. 
Cooley, of North Carolina, that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for consideration of a bill (H.R. 6196), Mr. H. 
R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a point of order against consideration of the 
bill. Mr. Gross' point of order was that House Report No. 88-336 
accompanying the bill did not comply with the requirements of Rule XIII 
clause 3, the Ramseyer rule. Following debate on the point of order, 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled on the point of 
order and commented on the purpose of the Ramseyer rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 109 Cong. Rec. 23038, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6196, to encourage increased consumption of cotton; see H. 
        Rept. No. 88-366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the report of the committee 
    complies with the Ramseyer rule, the purpose of which is to give 
    Members information in relation to any change in existing law.
        If a report includes some other references to other laws which 
    in a sense would be surplusage or unnecessary, it is the Chair's 
    opinion that the committee was attempting to give to the

[[Page 3149]]

    Members of the House as full information as was possible.
        The Chair rules that the report does comply with the Ramseyer 
    rule, and the point of order is overruled.

Showing Changes Proposed by Bill as Amended

Sec. 60.4 In the 87th Congress, the Ramseyer rule was amended to 
    provide that where a committee reports a bill with amendments the 
    comparative print required by the rule must show the changes in 
    existing law proposed by the bill, as amended, instead of by the 
    bill as introduced.

    On Sept. 22, 1961,(6) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, called up House Resolution 407, 
amending Rule XIII clause 3. Following the Clerk's reading of the 
resolution Mr. Smith and Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, explained the 
purpose of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 20823, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

        Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives are 
    hereby amended as follows: In rule XIII, clause 3, strike out the 
    period at the end thereof, insert a colon, and add ``Provided, 
    however, That if a committee reports such a bill or joint 
    resolution with amendments or an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for the entire bill, such report shall include a 
    comparative print showing any changes in existing law proposed by 
    the amendments or substitute instead of as in the bill as 
    introduced.''
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] and at this time yield myself such 
    time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a change in the so-
    called Ramseyer rule of the House of Representatives. The Ramseyer 
    rule provides that when a bill is reported by a legislative 
    committee, the committee report on the bill shall contain a 
    statement in comparative print, setting forth the changes in 
    existing law that are supposed to be made by the new bill. The way 
    that that rule has been construed and the way it has operated in 
    the past has been that if a bill is introduced and referred to a 
    legislative committee, then when the bill is reported by that 
    committee, the changes in the law are pointed not at the bill which 
    is reported, but are pointed at the original bill, as introduced. 
    It, therefore, causes confusion and is not of any use to the 
    Members who are trying to find out what the changes are because, as 
    I said, the comparative print explaining the changes are not 
    pointed toward the bill you are really going to consider. So this 
    change which has been worked out by the Parliamentarian in 
    connection with the Committee on Rules and which has the unanimous 
    approval of the Committee on Rules would make it so that in order 
    to comply with the Ramseyer

[[Page 3150]]

    rule, the report would have to print in comparative columns or 
    italic or other distinguishing symbols the changes in existing law 
    which would be made by the bill which is under consideration and 
    not by the bill which was originally introduced
        Mr. Speaker, I hope that explanation is clear to the Members, 
    but if it is not, I will be glad to yield or any questions to any 
    Member who may wish to ask about it.
        If there are no questions, Mr. Speaker, I yield now to my 
    colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
        Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use.
        Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of 
    the Committee on Rules, Mr. Smith, has explained, this resolution 
    provides for an amendment to rule XIII, clause 3, through an 
    amendment which I believe is very much needed, has been requested 
    by many Members of the House, and which, as the gentleman from 
    Virginia has stated, would simply provide, instead of following the 
    present procedure of printing in a committee report the original 
    bill and the changes in the present law made by the original bill, 
    the report would carry the bill, as amended, and the differences 
    between the present law as provided in the final bill as presented.
        In other words, the adoption of this resolution making this 
    change in the rules will eliminate a great deal of confusion and 
    make it much easier for all Members of Congress, even members of 
    the Committee on Rules itself, in considering legislation to 
    understand just exactly what is in the bill that may be before them 
    and what changes are made by such legislation from existing law. 
    This has been long needed. It is a very good amendment of the rule.
        This resolution was reported unanimously from the Committee on 
    Rules, and I hope it will have the unanimous support of the House.
        Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no further requests 
    for time.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.

Supplemental Reports Complying With Rule

Sec. 60.5 By unanimous consent, a committee may be permitted to file a 
    supplemental report on a bill so as to conform to the Ramseyer rule 
    and show the changes in existing law proposed by the committee 
    amendments as well as by the provisions of the bill as introduced.

    On Jan. 11, 1962,(7) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Education 
and Labor be permitted to file a supplemental report on a bill 
(H. R. 8890). Mr. Powell stated to Speaker John W. McCormack, of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 67, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3151]]

Massachusetts, that he was making the request so that the committee 
report would comply with the Ramseyer rule, which Mr. Powell noted had 
been amended by the House since the filing of the original report on 
the bill.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Parliamentarian's Note: Today, unanimous consent is not required to 
        file a supplemental report correcting a technical error, such 
        as a violation of the Ramseyer rule, in a previous report. See 
        Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Rule to Subsections

Sec. 60.6 Where a bill amends one subsection of existing law but does 
    not affect other parts of the section, a comparative print which 
    shows only the affected subsection is in substantial compliance 
    with the Ramseyer rule.

    On July 25, 1966,(9~) Mr. John Bell Williams, of 
Mississippi, made a point of order against consideration of H.R. 14765, 
on the ground that the report of the Committee on the Judiciary 
accompanying the bill did not comply with the requirements of the 
Ramseyer rule. In response to the point of order, Mr. Emanuel Celler, 
of New York, stated that the report disclosed no information with 
respect to certain sections of the bill. Mr. Celler explained that 
there were no changes in or amendments to those provisions, so that 
there was no need to set forth explanatory material on them:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 16840-42, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 14765 (H. Rept. No. 89-1678), the Civil Rights Act of 
        1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Since there were no changes, there was no need to make 
    any comment. There was no ambiguity there. There was no 
    misinformation. There is nothing that is misleading. There is no 
    confusion. It is . . . substantial compliance.

    As debate on the point of order continued, Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, 
Jr., of Louisiana, questioned whether substantial compliance was 
sufficient to meet the requirements of the rule, stating:

        Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House of Representatives no 
    provision is made for use of the word ``substantial'' is it deemed 
    sufficient in this case that compliance is only substantial and not 
    technically complete?

    After studying the precedents of the House, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that there was substantial 
compliance, stating:

        Well, as the Chair states . . . the Chair cannot analyze every 
    word, but there are parts here apparent to the Chair that, of 
    course, are not only substantial compliance but which are cer

[[Page 3152]]

    tainly over compliance, which is not violative of the rule, as has 
    been advanced.

    The Chair therefore overruled the point of order.
    On a parliamentary inquiry following the Chair's ruling, Mr. 
Waggonner asked:

        Do I correctly understand the ruling of the Speaker that in 
    this instance . . . ``substantial compliance'' is all that is 
    necessary and technicalities are irrelevant? Is compliance in fact 
    with the rules to be ignored?

    The Speaker replied:

        The Chair will state that substantial compliance, as the Chair 
    is not in a position to analyze every word, would comply with and 
    be in conformance with the rule.

Showing Statutory Waivers and Exemptions

Sec. 60.7 Provisions in a bill, merely waiving certain statutory 
    requirements, were held not to be specially amendatory of existing 
    law and the Ramseyer rule did not apply to language in a bill 
    merely exempting personnel of a proposed agency from conflict of 
    interest statutes.

    On June 6, 1957,(10) after Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New 
York, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of H.R. 6127, a civil rights bill, Mr. 
Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, made a point of order against the bill on 
the basis of noncompliance with the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 8484-88, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The initial exchange went as follows:

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
    the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6127) to provide means of 
    further securing and protecting the civil rights of persons within 
    the jurisdiction of the United States.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against the bill.
        The Speaker:(11) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
    that the report on the bill does not comply with the provisions of 
    the Ramseyer rule, which is rule XIII, clause 3.
        I call the Speaker's attention to the provision of the bill 
    appearing on page 7, line 12, which reads as follows:

            Members of the Commission, voluntary and uncompensated 
        personnel whose services are accepted pursuant to subsection 
        (b) of this section, and members of advisory committees 
        constituted pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, shall 
        be exempt from the operation of sections 281, 283, 284, 434, 
        and 1914 of title 18 of the United States Code, and section 190 
        of the Revised Statutes.

[[Page 3153]]

        Now, Mr. Speaker, I also call attention to the provision of the 
    bill providing on page 9, line 8, for the appointment of another 
    and additional Assistant Attorney General, which changes existing 
    law and which fixes the number of Assistant Attorneys General and 
    which changes the provision of existing law that fixes the 
    qualification of Assistant Attorneys General in that it omits the 
    requirement that an Assistant Attorney General must be a member of 
    the legal profession.
        Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to discuss the matter in some detail 
    unless the gentleman from New York is prepared to concede the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not prepared to 
    concede anything.

        The point of order is not well taken. With reference to the 
    statement referring to the members of the Commission, the gentleman 
    called attention to page 7, lines 12 to 19. That is a waiver of the 
    conflict-of-interest statutes which involves no change whatsoever 
    in those statutes. It simply provides for the waiver of the 
    statutes. That is very frequently done. The Committee on the 
    Judiciary has jurisdiction over matters of that sort; namely, 
    waiver of conflict-of-interest statutes.
        With reference to the gentleman's opinion concerning the part 
    II provision for an additional Assistant Attorney General, lines 6 
    to 14 on page 9, I wish to state that no law is amended. We simply 
    provide for an additional Assistant Attorney General.

    While Mr. Smith and proponents of his view contended that any 
technical defect in the committee report for failure to comply with the 
Ramseyer rule was fatal to the bill, Mr. Celler responded that a waiver 
of conflict of interest statutes did not fall within the requirements 
of the Ramseyer rule. Mr. Celler stated: ``[W]hen you waive the 
provisions of a statute, you do not change the provisions of that 
statute and you do not amend the provisions of that statute.'' 
(12) Mr. Celler further stated that language in the bill 
adding a new assistant attorney general merely created a new position 
and did not amend a statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 8486, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After continued debate on the point of order, Speaker Rayburn 
overruled the point of order as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 8487, 8488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is prepared to rule.
        This question, or parallel questions, has been raised many 
    times. The rulings of the Chair have been uniform. . . .
        Turning to the first part of the bill on page 7, paragraph (d), 
    which reads as follows: ``(d) Members of the Commission, voluntary 
    and uncompensated personnel whose services are accepted pursuant to 
    subsection (b) of this section, and members of advisory committees 
    constituted pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, shall be 
    exempt from the operation of sections 281, 283, 284, 434, and 1914 
    of title 18 of the United

[[Page 3154]]

    States Code, and section 190 of the Revised Statutes (5 U.S.C. 
    99),'' the Chair holds that that is simply a waiver of the statute 
    and not a specific amendment to any existing law. Therefore, the 
    Chair overrules the point of order with respect to that.
        Section 111, page 9, which reads as follows: ``Sec. 111. There 
    shall be in the Department of Justice one additional Assistant 
    Attorney General, who shall be appointed by the President, by and 
    with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall assist the 
    Attorney General in the performance of his duties, and who shall 
    receive compensation at the rate prescribed by law for other 
    Assistant Attorneys General,'' does not amend any specific law, 
    because it does not refer to any. Congress has the right at any 
    time it pleases, the Chair thinks, to provide for an additional 
    Assistant Attorney General or an additional assistant in any other 
    department.
        Now then, we come to the part of the bill where specific 
    statutes are amended. And, the Chair might say here that Mr. Snell, 
    Speaker pro tem on February 7, 1931--Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    VIII, section 2235--made this ruling: In order to fall within the 
    purview of the rule requiring indication of proposed changes in 
    existing law by a typographical device, a bill must repeal or amend 
    the statute in terms, and general reference to the subject treated 
    in a statute without proposing specific amendment is not 
    sufficient.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York on April 13, 1932--Cannon's 
    Precedents, Volume VIII, section 2240--made a ruling on this 
    specific question, and the gist of that is that the bill is not 
    subject to the rule requiring comparative prints unless it 
    specifically amends existing law.
        Now, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Cooper] on April 15, 
    1940, as Speaker pro tempore, went just a little further than that. 
    The substance of his ruling was: In determining whether or not a 
    committee in reporting a bill has complied with the Ramseyer rule, 
    the duty does not devolve upon the Chair of analyzing every word of 
    existing law and the changes sought to be made. Hence, Mr. Cooper 
    held that an effort to substantially comply with the rule only was 
    necessary.
        Now, let the Chair read portions of part III and part IV of the 
    bill, where specific law is specifically amended: . . .
        Remembering what has gone before, the Chair finds on page 16 of 
    the committee report changes in existing law set forth as follows:

            In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the House of 
        Representatives, there is printed below in roman existing law 
        in which no change is proposed by enactment of the bill as here 
        reported; matter proposed to be stricken by the bill as here 
        reported is here enclosed in black brackets: new language 
        proposed by the bill as here reported is printed in italic.

        And there follows then the existing law proposed to be amended.
        The Chair has examined this bill carefully and has examined 
    this committee report very carefully, and must hold that the 
    committee did comply in substance and in fact with clause 3 of rule 
    XIII.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Changes in Court Rules

Sec. 60.8 The Ramseyer rule requirement that a compara

[[Page 3155]]

    tive print be provided in reports on bills reported by a committee 
    is not applicable to a bill changing the rules of evidence for 
    District of Columbia courts.

    On June 12, 1961,(14) Mr. John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, called up the bill (H.R. 7053), providing for the admission 
of certain evidence in the courts of the District of Columbia, and 
asked unanimous consent that the bill be considered in the House as in 
the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, objected 
to the consideration of the bill on the ground that it did not comply 
with the Ramseyer rule, and said that in the report of the committee no 
reference was made to the law which was being amended. In the debate on 
the point of order, Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, argued that the 
change was directed at court rules, not a statute. Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, then overruled the point of order, stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 10068, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For a similar ruling see also 83 Cong. Rec. 1147, 75th 
        Cong. 3d Sess., Jan. 26, 1938, involving H.R. 2890, fixing 
        annual compensation for postmasters of the fourth class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair in examining this bill cannot see where it amends any 
    law or repeals any law specifically, and therefore does not think 
    the report is in violation of the Ramseyer rule, and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

References to Laws Unaffected by Bill

Sec. 60.9 A point of order will not lie against a committee report 
    merely because the comparative print required by the Ramseyer rule 
    incorporates laws which are not affected by the reported bill but 
    which are included to give full information to the Members.

    On Dec. 3, 1963,(15) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a 
point of order against the consideration of H.R. 6196, alleging that 
House Report No. 88-366 accompanying the bill did not comply with the 
requirements of the Ramseyer rule. In debate on the point of order Mr. 
Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, acknowledged that there was 
extraneous and unneeded material in the report but this did not 
constitute a violation of the Ramseyer rule. Mr. Cooley stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 23036-38, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I want to make just one additional observation. I think the 
    Speaker of the House and the Parliamentarian will find that all 
    changes in existing law

[[Page 3156]]

    have been shown in our report under the Ramseyer rule. The rule 
    does not say that you cannot have something else in the report 
    which might be surplus and which might not be needed. But if you 
    will look at section 104 on page 25 that is a strict compliance 
    with the Ramseyer rule insofar as this legislation is concerned.
        The reference to section 330, I think, is irrelevant and 
    immaterial and is not even needed, perhaps, in this report. But we 
    believe this is a meticulous compliance with the Ramseyer rule and 
    we ask that the point of order be overruled.

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then overruled the 
point of order. The Speaker stated:

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the report of the committee 
    complies with the Ramseyer rule, the purpose of which is to give 
    Members information in relation to any change in existing law.
        If a report includes some other references to other laws which 
    in a sense would be surplusage or unnecessary, it is the Chair's 
    opinion that the committee was attempting to give to the Members of 
    the House as full information as was possible.

Application of Rule to Discharged Bills

Sec. 60.10 The Ramseyer rule applies only when a committee reports a 
    bill. Hence, a point of order alleging noncompliance with the rule 
    will not lie where a committee is discharged from consideration of 
    a bill.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(16) Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, 
made a point of order against the consideration of a bill on the ground 
it had not been properly reported and that it purported to amend title 
28 of the United States Code. He contended that there was no 
comparative print of the bill amending the statute. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled the point of order, noting that 
the Ramseyer rule applied only when a committee reports a bill. In this 
case, the Committee on the Judiciary, having been discharged from 
consideration of the bill, did not file a report, and a comparative 
print was not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 20221, 20222, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11926, limiting the jurisdiction of 
        federal courts in apportionment cases, considered pursuant to 
        H. Res. 845.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Substantial Compliance'' With Rule

Sec. 60.11 A point of order raised against a committee report alleged 
    to be in violation of the Ramseyer rule will not lie where there is 
    substantial compliance with the require

[[Page 3157]]

    ment that the report disclose changes in existing law. Thus, a 
    letter from the head of an agency in a committee report, setting 
    out proposed changes in existing law, was held to be a substantial 
    compliance with the Ramseyer rule.

    On Jan. 26, 1938,(17) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, made 
a point of order against H.R. 8176, a bill dealing with retirement pay 
for military officers, based on alleged violation of the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 83 Cong. Rec. 1143-46, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled the point of 
order, finding that the report was in substantial compliance with the 
rule. It appeared that a letter to the committee from an Army General, 
explaining certain changes that the bill would make in existing law, 
substantially satisfied the requirement, although Mr. Patman pointed 
out that the letter had been written a month before the committee 
reported the bill and that some changes in the bill had been made 
subsequent to the date of the letter.

        Mr. Patman: Mr. Speaker, I have a further point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Patman: That is, that the Ramseyer rule is not complied 
    with in the report of the committee in reporting the bill. Section 
    3 of the bill undertakes to amend existing law. The Ramseyer rule 
    requires that a committee report shall disclose where there is an 
    effort made specifically to change existing law and shall set out 
    in parallel columns or in some way make it clear and plain to the 
    Members of the House just exactly how the proposed amendment will 
    affect existing law. I know that rule does not require any 
    particular method to be used. I am aware of the fact that in the 
    committee's report, although the committee's report says nothing 
    about this amendment--that is, it is not set out specifically in 
    italics, brackets, or otherwise--but in the letter from General 
    Hines to the Honorable Lister Hill, commencing on page 4 of the 
    report, there is mention, on page 5 of the report, in that letter, 
    that a certain amendment is proposed but it does not say that that 
    is the only amendment in that particular section. I do not know; I 
    am unable to find out whether or not that is all or just a part 
    that General Hines happens to be discussing. He does not say that 
    is the only way that section is amended. He is just saying that it 
    is amended to that extent. I submit that is not a compliance with 
    the letter and spirit of the Ramseyer rule, which is part of the 
    parliamentary rules of this House, and I make the point of order 
    against the report on that ground.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order. The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order that the 
    report of the committee does not conform to the provisions of the 
    Ramseyer rule. . . .
        With reference to the particular point of order made by the 
    gentleman

[[Page 3158]]

    from Texas, the Chair has examined with some care the report of the 
    committee which accompanies this bill, and, indeed, the gentleman 
    from Texas has referred to the matter occurring in the letter on 
    page 4 of the report, the letter from General Hines to the then 
    chairman of the Military Affairs Committee, in which upon page 5 of 
    the report in subsection (b) of section 212, there is set out in 
    italics the only amendment to the existing law that is proposed in 
    the bill, as the Chair understands it. The Chair is of opinion that 
    if the rule itself had not provided that those changes might be 
    incorporated in the report by citing an accompanying document, very 
    probably the point of order made by the gentleman from Texas would 
    be good, but the Chair feels, upon examination of this matter, 
    inasmuch as the only amendment to existing law is set out in 
    italics in an accompanying document to the report of the committee, 
    that a substantial compliance with the rule has been made. . . .
        The Chair will state--and this is the final statement of the 
    Chair upon this matter--that the Chair has examined the bill with 
    considerable care. The Chair feels justified in saying that section 
    3 of the bill is, as a matter of fact, the only specific change in 
    existing law proposed by the bill.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Texas.

Sec. 60.12 A point of order will not lie against a committee report on 
    the ground that the comparative print required by the Ramseyer rule 
    contains a minor typographical error, where the committee has made 
    a substantial effort to comply with the rule.

    On July 26, 1965,(18) after Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New 
York, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of a bill, Mr. Robert P. Griffin, of 
Michigan, made a point of order against the motion on the ground that 
the report (H. Rept. No. 89-540), on the bill failed to comply with the 
provisions of the Ramseyer rule (Rule XIII clause 3), in that it did 
not correctly indicate the changes proposed in the first proviso of 
section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. Griffin called 
attention to the fact that the matter in italics on page 5 of the 
report read ``or in any constitution of [sic] law of any State or 
political subdivision thereof,'' whereas the same language in the bill 
read ``or in any constitution or law of any State or political 
subdivision thereof.'' The difference was that the report showed the 
word ``of,'' where the bill used the word ``or.'' Mr. Griffin argued 
that the failure to re

[[Page 3159]]

port on the bill to indicate this change was in violation of the rule, 
and that the bill should therefore be recommitted to the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 18100, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 77, a bill to repeal Sec. 14(b) of the National Labor 
        Relations Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts overruled the point of 
order, stating:

        The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair will state that this situation has arisen on several 
    occasions in the past.
        Speaker pro tempore Cooper, on April 15, 1940, having a similar 
    question presented to him on a point of order, ruled that ``it is 
    the opinion of the Chair that the duty does not devolve upon the 
    Chair to analyze every word of existing law or to pass upon the 
    sufficiency or compliance with the provisions of the so-called 
    Ramseyer rule.'' The Chair then was of the opinion that the 
    committee reporting the bill had made an effort to comply with the 
    provisions of the Ramseyer rule, and the present occupant of the 
    Chair expresses the same opinion and makes the same ruling, that 
    is, that the committee made a substantial effort to comply with the 
    requirements of the rule.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 60.13 Where a point of order is raised against consideration of a 
    bill on the ground that the report thereon does not adequately 
    reflect all the changes in existing law as required by the Ramseyer 
    rule, the Speaker may overrule the point of order on the ground 
    that the committee has ``substantially complied'' with the rule.

    On July 30, 1968,(19) Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, 
raised a point of order against a motion by Mr. William R. Poage, of 
Texas, that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
for the consideration of a bill. Mr. Findley's point of order against 
consideration of the bill was based on the grounds the committee report 
failed to comply with the provisions of the Ramseyer rule in that the 
comparative print required thereby contained errors of four types. He 
stated the report failed to show by ``stars'' the omission of certain 
sections not carried in the Ramseyer print, typographical errors, 
errors of punctuation, and a failure to indicate one out of 28 date 
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 24245, 24252-54, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 17126, with its accompanying committee 
        report, H. Rept. No. 90-1374, the Extension of Food and 
        Agriculture Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, in overruling the 
point of order, stated:

        There appear to be 22 pages in the committee report referring 
    to changes in existing law.

[[Page 3160]]

        A few years ago the Chair passed on the basic question of 
    substantial compliance in connection with another bill. It seems to 
    the Chair that the committee has substantially complied with the 
    requirements of the Ramseyer rule. I have used the words ``at 
    least.'' If a higher test was called for, I could probably say the 
    committee has complied with the requirements of the Ramseyer rule. 
    In any event, it is the opinion of the Chair that the report of the 
    committee at least shows substantial compliance with the provisions 
    of the Ramseyer rule, and accordingly, the Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

Sec. 60.14 Where the comparative print required by the Ramseyer rule 
    contained errors of three types (1) punctuation at variance with 
    that in the bill, (2) capitalization of certain words not 
    capitalized in the bill, and (3) abbreviations which did not appear 
    in the bill--the Speaker held that there was substantial compliance 
    with the provisions of the rule and overruled a point of order 
    against the report.

    On July 25, 1966,(20) Mr. John Bell Williams, of 
Mississippi, made a point of order against consideration of a bill 
(H.R. 14765), on the ground that the report of the Committee on the 
Judiciary accompanying the bill did not comply with the requirements of 
the Ramseyer rule. Mr. Williams stated, in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 112 Cong. Rec. 16840-42, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 14765 and its accompanying report, H. Rept. No. 89-
        1678, the Civil Rights Acts of 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first error I would like to call to the attention of the 
    Chair is set forth on page 49 of the committee report, at the 
    bottom of the page, purporting to show amendments made to section 
    16-1312 of the District of Columbia Code. The bill, in section 
    103(e), found on page 52, lines 1 through 5, states as follows:

            Section 16-1312 of the District of Columbia Code is 
        amended--

        And so on--yet the report does not set out the section 
    amended--it merely sets out selected excerpts from the sections.
        I cannot tell from looking at the material on page 49 of the 
    report just what the amendments to the section accomplish, and I 
    defy any other Member to do so. Subsection (a) of that section sets 
    out the duties of the jury commission, but the matter printed in 
    the report fails to set out all the duties as prescribed by the 
    section. Then the printed matter completely omits subsection (b) of 
    the amended section, and subsection (c) as printed in the report 
    states:

            (c) Except as provided by this section, Chapter 121 of 
        title 28, U.S.C., insofar as it may be applicable, governs 
        qualifications of jurors.

        But how can a Member tell what is provided by the section, when 
    the section is not set out for him to see?
        This section 16-1312 which is amended by the bill also contains 
    a

[[Page 3161]]

    subsection (d), which is not printed in the report.
        Mr. Speaker, this failure of the report to show the law which 
    is changed by the bill makes it impossible for Members to be able 
    to determine just what changes are actually being made in the 
    section, and therefore fails to comply with either the spirit or 
    the letter of the Ramseyer rule. Of course, for that matter, even 
    the material printed in the subsection (c) at the bottom of page 49 
    of the report fails to comply literally with the rule, since the 
    material in italic is not literally the same as the material 
    proposed to be inserted by the bill--the Ramseyer abbreviates to 
    ``U.S.C.'' the words ``United States Code'' appearing in the bill. 
    The same erroneous abbreviation also appears in the amendment made 
    to subsection (a) of that section.
        Another failure to follow the literal text of the bill can also 
    be found on page 52 of the report, Mr. Speaker, where the text of 
    the proposed new section 303 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
    differs substantially in form from the section 303 added to that 
    act by the bill, on page 79, lines 10 through 19.
        Most serious of the deficiencies in this report, however, Mr. 
    Speaker, is the matter appearing on page 53 of the report, where 
    the report purports to show changes in title III of the Civil 
    Rights Act of 1960 made by section 701 of the bill, which appears 
    on page 80, line 9. Section 701 states ``Title III of the Civil 
    Rights Act of 1960 is amended'' and so on--yet the report does not 
    even purport to show title III of that act or any part thereof--all 
    that Members have to guide them as to the provisions of title III 
    is a row of asterisks, which I must confess I do not find very 
    helpful--especially since the proposed new section 307 of the Civil 
    Rights Act of 1960 refers back to section 301 of the Civil Rights 
    Act of 1960 stating--page 80 lines 12 and 13 of the bill--``Any 
    officer of election or custodian required under section 301 of this 
    Act to retain and preserve records and papers may'' and so forth. 
    This portion of the committee's report is completely worthless, in 
    my judgment, in helping Members to understand the changes made in 
    existing law made by the bill.
        The Ramseyer rule requires that the report show, and I quote:

            That part of the bill or joint resolution making the 
        amendment and of the statute or part thereof proposed to be 
        amended.

        I submit, most respectfully, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to 
    title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, there has been a 
    complete failure to comply with the portion of the Ramseyer rule 
    requiring that the statute proposed to be amended be shown. The 
    report does not show the statute, and it does not even show any 
    part of the statute--not even the part of the statute most 
    necessary to understand what the proposed section 307 is all about; 
    namely, section 301 which is cross-referenced to in the proposed 
    section 307.
        Mr. Speaker, on page 43 of the report, sections 1873 and 1874 
    of title 18 of the United States Code are shown as repealed, and 
    new language added in their place; also the Ramseyer on the same 
    page shows two new sections added--sections 1875 and 1876. I have 
    not been able to find any place in the bill which repeals any of 
    these sections, or which adds new text as sec

[[Page 3162]]

    tions 1875 and 1876, although the explanatory matter on page 35 of 
    the report, under the heading ``Changes in existing law'' states as 
    follows:

            Matter proposed to be stricken by the bill as reported is 
        enclosed in black brackets. New language proposed by the bill 
        as reported is printed in italic.

        I, for one, find this very confusing, if the intent is to show 
    the changes in section numbers made by section 103 of the bill, 
    especially since the language preceding the Ramseyer states that 
    ``there is printed below in roman existing law in which no change 
    is proposed.''
        This is, at best, a very odd way to show a renumbering of 
    sections--so odd, in fact, that I think its potential for confusion 
    is such as to render it a violation of the Ramseyer rule.
        In summary, Mr. Speaker, the committee report fails to comply 
    with the Ramseyer rule by showing language in the report as a 
    purported change in existing law which is not the same as language 
    contained in the bill; the report fails to show the entire text of 
    a section which is proposed to be amended by the bill, but leaves 
    Members to guess as to what the amendment actually does; the report 
    fails to show any part whatsoever of a provision of law amended by 
    the bill, even where the setting forth of such provision is 
    essential to understanding of the changes made; and shows 
    nonexistence repeals and amendments as a means of showing 
    renumbering of sections.
        I respectfully submit that this point of order should be 
    sustained and the bill recommitted to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary in accordance with the rules of the House.

    Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, citing the technical and 
insubstantial nature of Mr. Williams' objections, stated with respect 
to sections of title III of the statute not quoted in the report, that 
no changes in those sections were proposed by the bill. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, then overruled the point of order. 
Implicitly adopting the view that only those portions of existing law 
directly affected by a bill need be shown in a comparative print (see 
Sec. 60.6, supra), the Speaker indicated that there had been 
substantial compliance with the Ramseyer rule in the report in 
question, and that substantial compliance was a sufficient basis for 
overruling the point of order under that rule. Citing as a precedent a 
ruling on the same subject on Apr. 15, 1940, by Speaker pro tempore 
Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, Speaker McCormack stated:

        Now, on the pending point of order, the Chair calls attention 
    to the fact that there are approximately 18 pages in the committee 
    report which relate to complying with the Ramseyer rule.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the committee has 
    substantially complied with the Ramseyer rule, and follows the 
    decision which I have referred to, and which was made in 1940 by 
    Speaker pro tempore Cooper, and reaffirms that decision.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

[[Page 3163]]

Timeliness in Invoking Rule

Sec. 60.15 The proper time to raise a point of order that a committee 
    report fails to comply with the Ramseyer rule is when the motion is 
    made to resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider the 
    bill.

    On July 30, 1968,(1) during debate on House Resolution 
1218, which provided that it should be in order to move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
a bill, Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, unsuccessfully attempted to 
raise a point of order against further consideration of the motion on 
the ground that the committee report accompanying the bill did not 
comply with the provisions of the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 24245, 24252, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 17126, the extension of the 1965 Food 
        and Agriculture Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker pro tempore John J. Rooney, of New York, ruled that a point 
of order on that ground was not appropriate at that time. Mr. Findley 
then inquired as to when the point would be in order. The Speaker pro 
tempore replied that it could be raised when the motion was made to 
resolve into the Committee of the Whole. After the previous question 
was ordered on the resolution and the resolution was agreed to, Mr. 
William R. Poage, of Texas, moved that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then heard Mr. Findley on his 
point of order.

Sec. 60.16 A point of order that a committee report fails to comply 
    with the Ramseyer rule will not lie in the Committee of the Whole.

    On July 25, 1966,(2) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, ruled untimely a point of order 
raised by Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi, against consideration 
of a civil rights bill on the ground that the report of the Committee 
on the Judiciary accompanying the bill did not comply with requirements 
of the Ramseyer rule. On appeal, the Chair's ruling was upheld by a 
division vote of 139-101. Mr. Williams had attempted to raise the point 
of order prior to the House's resolving itself into the Committee of 
the Whole, but, as Speaker John W. McCormack,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 16840, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3164]]

of Massachusetts, later acknowledged, the Chair did not hear Mr. 
Williams make his point of order. After the Committee rose on motion of 
Mr. Williams before general debate had commenced, the Speaker stated 
that under the circumstances Mr. Williams could make his point of order 
at that time.

    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    14765) to assure nondiscrimination in Federal and State jury 
    selection and service, to facilitate the desegregation of public 
    education and other public facilities, to provide judicial relief 
    against discriminatory housing practices, to prescribe penalties 
    for certain acts of violence or intimidation. and for other 
    purposes.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler].
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: All those in favor of the motion will let it be 
    known by saying ``aye.'' All those opposed by saying ``no.''
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
    the bill, H.R. 14765, with Mr. Bolling in the chair.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a point of order. I was on my feet----
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was 
    dispensed with.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Celler) will be recognized for 5 hours and the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. McCulloch] will be recognized for 5 hours.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch: Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio 
    rise?
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, I rise for a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCulloch: I would like to know if the resolution 
    unqualifiedly guarantees the minority one-half of the time during 
    general debate and nothing untoward will happen so that it will be 
    diminished or denied contrary to gentlemen's agreements.
        The Chairman: The Chairman will reply by rereading that portion 
    of his opening statement. Under the rule, the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Celler], will be recognized for 5 hours, the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] will be recognized for 5 hours. The Chair 
    will follow the rules.
        Mr. McCulloch: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
    care to use. Mr. Chairman, Negroes propose to be

[[Page 3165]]

    free. Many rights have been denied and withheld from them. The 
    right to be equally educated with whites. The right to equal 
    housing with whites. The right to equal recreation with whites.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        Mr. Celler: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, immediately before the House 
    resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House I was on my 
    feet on the floor seeking recognition for the purpose of making a 
    point of order against consideration of H.R. 14765 on the ground 
    that the report of the Judiciary Committee accompanying the bill 
    does not comply with all the requirements of clause 3 of rule XIII 
    of the rules of the House known as the Ramseyer rule and intended 
    to request I be heard in support of that point of order. I was not 
    recognized by the Chair. I realize technically under the rules of 
    the House at this point, my point of order may come too late, after 
    the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union.

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Williams: But I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I sought to 
    raise the point of order before the House went into session. May I 
    ask this question? Is there any way that this point of order can 
    lie at this time?
        The Chairman: Not at this time. It lies only in the House, the 
    Chair must inform the gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. Williams: May I say that the Parliamentarian and the 
    Speaker were notified in advance and given copies of the point of 
    order that I desired to raise, and I was refused recognition 
    although I was on my feet seeking recognition at the time.
        Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: I appeal the ruling of 
    the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to repeat that the gentleman 
    from Mississippi is well aware that this present occupant of the 
    chair is powerless to do other than he has stated.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as rendered?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Williams) there were--ayes 139, noes 101.
        The decision of the Chair was sustained.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise, and on that I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Celler and Mr. Williams.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were-- ayes 168, noes 144.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Bolling, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 14765) to assure 
    nondiscrimination in Federal and State jury selection and service, 
    to facilitate the desegregation of public education and other 
    public facilities, to provide

[[Page 3166]]

    judicial relief against discriminatory housing practices, to 
    prescribe penalties for certain acts of violence or intimidation, 
    and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Mississippi.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the House resolved itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union a moment 
    ago. When the question was put by the Chair, I was on my feet 
    seeking recognition for the purpose of offering a point of order 
    against consideration of the legislation. Although I shouted rather 
    loudly, apparently the Chair did not hear me. Since the Committee 
    proceeded to go into the Committee of the Whole, I would like to 
    know, Mr. Speaker, if the point of order which I had intended to 
    offer can be offered now in the House against the consideration of 
    the bill; and, Mr. Speaker, I make such a point of order and ask 
    that I be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair did not hear 
    the gentleman make his point of order. There was too much noise. 
    Under the circumstances the Chair will entertain the point of 
    order.

Sec. 60.17 A point of order that a report fails to comply with the 
    requirement that proposed changes in law be indicated 
    typographically, as required by the Ramseyer rule, is properly made 
    when the bill is called up in the House and before the House 
    resolves into the Committee of the Whole.

    On July 13, 1959,(3) immediately after Mr. Thomas G. 
Abernethy, of Mississippi, moved that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, inquired of the 
Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 105 Cong. Rec. 13226, 13227, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6893, a bill to amend the District of 
        Columbia Stadium Act of 1957 with respect to motor vehicle 
        parking areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill and the report. When is the proper time 
    to seek recognition for this purpose?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(4) This is the proper time 
    for the gentleman to make his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereupon, Mr. Gross made a point of order against language found 
in the bill which, under the Ramseyer rule, was not stated in the 
accompanying report in italicized or other distinctive print. Mr. 
Abernethy then withdrew the motion and obtained unanimous consent that 
the bill be recommitted to the committee.

Sec. 60.18 A point of order that a committee report on a measure does 
    not comply with the Ramseyer rule comes too late

[[Page 3167]]

    after the House has resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    to consider the measure and debate has begun.

    On Apr. 29, 1941,(5) after the House had resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole, Mr. John Taber, of New York, made a 
point of order against a measure on the basis that it apparently 
amended an earlier 1938 agriculture act, a change not disclosed in the 
committee report. After some substantiation of Mr. Taber's point of 
order, Mr. Hampton P. Fulmer, of South Carolina, in turn made a point 
of order against the prior point of order, on the ground that it came 
too late and should have been made before the House resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole. Chairman Harry P. Beam, of Illinois, 
then sustained Mr. Fulmer's point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  5. 87 Cong. Rec. 3421, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 149, concerning corn and wheat quotas and loans. See 
        also 87 Cong. Rec. 3585, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 5, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

        The Chairman: All time has expired. The Clerk will read.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    bill and the report of the committee that the report does not 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman on 
    the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Fulmer rose.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from South 
    Carolina rise?
        Mr. Fulmer: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    point of order of the gentleman from New York comes too late. The 
    point of order should have been made in the House instead of in the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The Chairman: The Chairman will be glad to hear the gentleman 
    from South Carolina on the point of order.
        Mr. Fulmer: I do not care to say anything further on the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York has made a point of 
    order that the report on the joint resolution does not comply with 
    the Ramseyer rule. The gentleman referred first to subparagraph 11 
    on page 7 of the joint resolution, which reads as follows:

            The provisions of this resolution are amendatory of and 
        supplementary to the act, and all provisions of law applicable 
        in respect of marketing quotas and loans under such act as so 
        amended and supplemented shall be applicable, but nothing in 
        this resolution shall be construed to amend or repeal section 
        301(b)(6), 323(b) (except as provided in par. (7)), or 335(d) 
        of the act.

        The gentleman from New York has pointed out various other 
    paragraphs

[[Page 3168]]

    of the joint resolution to substantiate his statement that there 
    has been no compliance with the Ramseyer rule.
        Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, volume 8, 
    page 51, section 2243, reads as follows:

            The point of order that a report fails to comply with the 
        requirement that proposed changes in law be indicated 
        typographically is properly made when the bill is called up in 
        the House and it comes too late after the House has resolved 
        into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the 
        hill.

        Again, the Chair points out that on February 10, 1937, the 
    Chairman [Mr. Lanham], while proceeding in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, substantiating the language 
    the Chair has just read, held, in effect, that:

            A point of order that a committee report does not comply 
        with the Ramseyer rule comes too late after the House has 
        resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole for the purpose 
        of considering the bill and debate thereon has begun. Points of 
        order against the consideration of bills on the ground that the 
        reports accompanying said bills do not conform to the Ramseyer 
        rule come too late after the House has resolved itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole and consideration has begun.

        In view of the circumstances of the case and under the 
    precedents and rules of the House, the Chair is of the opinion that 
    the point of order which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] 
    has stated comes too late. The point of order should have been made 
    in the House and for these reasons the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Waiver of Rule by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 60.19 The House granted unanimous consent for the waiving of the 
    provisions of the Ramseyer rule relative to a report to be 
    submitted subsequently by a committee of the House.

    On Mar. 8, 1945,(6) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, by 
direction of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive 
Departments, reported on H.R. 2504, to repeal certain laws requiring 
reports to be made to Congress. Mr. Cochran explained that the bill 
would repeal a total of 64 reports required by law. In order to save 
money, manpower, and paper, Mr. Cochran requested unanimous consent 
that the requirements of the Ramseyer rule be waived, or else all 64 
laws would have to be printed. Mr. Cochran gave assurances that the 
report would fully explain the bill and all items therein. There was no 
objection to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 1922, 1923, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver of Rule by Resolution

Sec. 60.20 Where the House adopts a resolution providing for the 
    consideration

[[Page 3169]]

    of a bill, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
    such action waives the requirement of compliance with the Ramseyer 
    rule.

    On Feb. 15, 1949,(7) after the House had voted to adopt 
House Resolution 99, which provided in part ``That, notwithstanding any 
rule of the House to the contrary, it shall be in order on Tuesday, 
February 15, 1949, to move that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
consideration of the bill'' [H.R. 2632, a deficiency appropriation bill 
for 1949]. Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, made a point of order 
based on the Ramseyer rule against consideration of the bill. Citing 
the above language, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, overruled the point 
of order. The proceedings were as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 95 Cong. Rec. 1214, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Id. at pp. 1218, 1219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that the report accompanying the bill, H.R. 2632, does not 
    comply with the so-called Ramseyer rule.
        I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that although the 
    resolution which has been adopted waives points of order against 
    the bill by the provisions contained therein it does not 
    specifically waive or exempt the so-called Ramseyer rule which 
    requires that a report accompanying a bill, including appropriation 
    bills, shall set forth in appropriate type the text of the statute 
    it is proposed to repeal.
        In this connection I invite the Chair's attention to the fact 
    that on page 8 of the proposed bill, line 6, it is proposed to 
    repeal a title in a previous act of Congress, and again on page 16, 
    lines 15 and 16, the bill carries this language: ``and the first, 
    fourth, and fifth provisos under said head are hereby repealed.''
        I have diligently searched the entire report on the bill and 
    can find no citation of the statute to be repealed in order to 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule.
        I make the point of order which, if sustained, as I understand 
    it, would automatically recommit the bill to the committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule:

            Notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, it 
        shall be in order--

        And so forth--
        and all points of order against the bill or any of the 
        provisions contained therein are hereby waived.

        The Chair overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, will the Chair indulge 
    me for a moment?
        The Speaker: The Chair will indulge the gentleman.

[[Page 3170]]

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Under the rule in the House Manual, a 
    citation is made to a precedent in the Congressional Record of the 
    Seventy-first Congress, second session, page 10595. This citation 
    reads:

            Special orders providing for consideration of bills, unless 
        making specific exemption, do not preclude the point of order 
        that reports on such bills fail to indicate proposed changes in 
        existing law. (Cannon's, sec. 9220a; 71st Cong., 2d sees., 
        Congressional Record, p. 10595.)

        I fail to see any provision in the rule adopted which 
    specifically exempts clause 2a of rule XIII, the Ramseyer rule.
        The Speaker: The Ramseyer rule is a rule of the House, and this 
    resolution states ``all rules to the contrary notwithstanding,'' it 
    shall be in order to consider the bill.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-62]                         

[Page 3170-3173]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 61. Cost-estimate Requirement

    A House rule requires that each public bill or joint resolution 
reported by a committee must contain certain estimates of the costs 
which would be incurred in carrying out such bill or joint resolution. 
The requirement is set forth in Rule XIII clause 7: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 748(b) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a 
    public character reported by any committee shall contain--
        (1) an estimate, made by such committee, of the costs which 
    would be incurred in carrying out such bill or joint resolution in 
    the fiscal year in which it is reported and in each of the five 
    fiscal years following such fiscal year (or for the authorized 
    duration of any program authorized by such bill or joint 
    resolution, if less than five years), except that, in the case of 
    measures affecting the revenues, such reports shall require only an 
    estimate of the gain or loss in revenues for a one-year period; and
        (2) a comparison of the estimate of costs described in 
    subparagraph (1) of this paragraph made by such committee with any 
    estimate of such costs made by any Government agency and submitted 
    to such committee. . . .
        (e) The preceding provisions of this clause do not apply to the 
    Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on House Administration, 
    the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct.

    The requirement is of recent origin, brought about by the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,(10) and became 
effective on the adoption of the rules by the 92d Congress on Jan. 22, 
1971.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140. Sec. 252(b) (Oct. 26, 1970).
11. 11. 117 Cong. Rec. 134-144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As evidenced by the following excerpt from the report of the 
Committee on Rules,(12) the pur
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Rept. No. 91-1215, 116 Cong. Rec. 20276, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 17, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3171]]

pose of the rule is to inform Members of the costs of programs 
recommended by House legislative committees and thus exercise greater 
control over the fiscal operations of government. The report states:

        The responsibility for developing and disseminating fiscal 
    information does not, and should not, rest solely with the revenue-
    raising and Appropriations Committees. Programs and their costs are 
    inextricably interrelated. If Congress is to exercise rational 
    control over the Government's fiscal operations, its Members must 
    be made fully aware of the financial consequences of programs they 
    are considering.
        Here the legislative committees of Congress can play an 
    important role. With the aid of the supplementary staff resources 
    provided for elsewhere in this bill, they should be better able to 
    analyze and evaluate the cost estimates submitted by executive 
    agencies.
        Section 252 [Rule XIII clause 7] places that responsibility 
    upon the legislative committees by requiring that their reports on 
    public bills and joint resolutions shall contain 5-year projections 
    of the estimated costs that would be incurred by adoption of the 
    measures at issue. The committees are further directed to present a 
    comparison of their cost estimates with those submitted by the 
    executive branch.
        Revenue measures are exempted from this requirement, but 
    reports on such proposals will be required to contain an estimate 
    of its impact, in terms of revenue loss or gain, for 1 year.

    Under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, each 
committee was required to include in any report accompanying a bill or 
resolution a cost-estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, 
if the estimate was timely submitted before the report was filed. 
(13) This requirement was incorporated into the rules [Rule 
XI clause 2(l)(3)(C), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713 (e) (1979)], by 
the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974.(14) Even if such a 
cost-estimate is included in the report, the committee must still 
prepare its own cost-estimate pursuant to Rule XIII clause 7 
(15) (or adopt as the committee-estimate the Congressional 
Budget Office estimate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Pub. L. No. 93-344, July 12, 1974; Sec. 403 was made effective on 
        the first day on which the first Director of the Congressional 
        Budget Office was appointed.
14. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
15 House Rules and Manual Sec. 748(b) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of legislation providing new budget authority or tax 
expenditures, the Congressional Budget Act required certain statements 
in committee reports, prepared after consultation with the 
Congressional Budget Office, providing projections and comparisons 
relative to concurrent resolu

[[Page 3172]]

tions on the budget;(16) this requirement was also 
incorporated into the rules [Rule XI clause 2(l)(3)(B), House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 713(e) ( 1979)].(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Pub. L. No. 93-344, July 12, 1974; title III of the law, including 
        Sec. 308 (a), became effective for the fiscal year beginning 
        Oct. 1, 1976.
17. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 
        1975.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver of Cost-of-estimate Requirement

Sec. 61.1 Although the House rules require that each public bill or 
    joint resolution reported by a committee contain certain estimates 
    of the costs which would be incurred in carrying it out, a bill or 
    joint resolution may be called up under a special rule that permits 
    consideration thereof notwithstanding a failure to comply with the 
    cost-estimate requirement, or which waives points of order based 
    thereon.

    On Aug. 18, 1972,(18) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, who, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, called up a resolution and asked for its immediate 
consideration. The Clerk then read the resolution, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 29093, 92d Cong.2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1097

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move, clause 7, rule XIII, to the contrary 
    notwithstanding,(19) that the House resolve itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1227) approving 
    the acceptance by the President for the United States of the 
    interim agreement between the United States of America and the 
    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on certain measures with 
    respect to the limitation of strategic offensive arms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.  Other examples of resolutions couched in the identical language 
        (i.e. ``clause 7 of Rule XIII to the contrary 
        notwithstanding,'') may be found at 118 Cong. Rec. 26584, 92d 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1972 [H. Res. 1071, providing for 
        consideration of H.R. 15989, to establish a Council on 
        International Economic Policy and to extend the Export 
        Administration Act]; and 118 Cong. Rec. 24100, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., July 18, 1972 [H. Res. 1012, providing for consideration 
        of H.R. 14424, establishing a National Institute on Aging].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the ensuing discussion, Mr. Pepper yielded 30 
minutes of time to Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, who observed: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 29094, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 3173]]

        . . . House Resolution 1097 provides an open rule with 1 hour 
    of general debate for consideration of House Joint Resolution 1227, 
    the Agreement on Limitation of Strategic Offensive Weapons. We 
    waived points of order so far as failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 7, rule XIII, because it was impossible to 
    make a cost estimate on House Joint Resolution 1227.

Special Rule Waiving Points of Order for Failure to Comply

Sec. 61.2 A special rule waiving points of order against consideration 
    of bills for failure of the accompanying report to comply with the 
    cost-estimate rule is sometimes provided even though the report 
    states that no additional costs were anticipated.

    On Apr. 11, 1973,(1) Mr. Speedy O. Long, of Louisiana, 
called up for immediate consideration a House resolution which provided 
in part that on the adoption of the resolution it would be in order to 
move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of a bill to amend a provision of the United States 
Code relative to the proper use of franking privileges by Members of 
Congress. The resolution provided for a waiver of points of order 
against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with the cost-
estimate rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 11785, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was H. 
        Res. 349, providing for consideration of H.R. 3180, to amend 
        title 39 of the United States Code relative to franking 
        privileges for Members of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The committee report had stated merely that 
no additional costs were anticipated by the enactment of the bill. But 
since the bill repealed existing provisions of laws relating to the 
franking privilege, and the proposed bill differed in several respects 
from existing law, the cost of reenactment of the law with those 
changes should have been estimated in the report.
    The House agreed to the resolution and went on to consider the 
bill, which the House subsequently passed.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-63]                         

[Page 3173-3180]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 62. Time for Filing Report

    Under the rules, committee reports on a bill or other measure 
reported to the House by a committee must accompany the reported 
measure.(2) However, Members may obtain unanimous consent to 
file their minority or separate views as part II of a 
report.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 821 (1979).
 3. Sec. 64.4, infra (late filing of minority report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3174]]

Unanimous consent of the House may also be obtained to file a committee 
report after adjournment.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sec. 62.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing After Sine Die Adjournment

Sec. 62.1 A standing committee may be authorized, by unanimous consent, 
    to have its investigative reports printed if filed after the sine 
    die adjournment.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Chet Holifield, of California, who made 
the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 5 108 Cong. Rec. 22618, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
            For other examples, see 104 Cong. Rec. 19699, 85th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 23, 1958; 103 Cong. Rec. 16759, 85th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Aug. 30, 1957; 102 Cong. Rec. 15268, 84th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., July 27, 1956; and 94 Cong. Rec. 9348. 80th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., June 19, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that reports filed with 
    the Clerk, following the sine die adjournment,(6) by the 
    Committee on Government Operations or its subcommittees may be 
    printed by the Clerk as reports of the 87th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. For the rules pertaining to adjournment in general, see Ch. 40, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unanimous consent was granted.
    Parliamentarian's Note: In recent Congresses, the form of this 
request has been expanded to permit all committees authorized by the 
House to conduct investigations to file reports with the Clerk 
following sine die adjournment and to print those reports. Such general 
form was also used in some past Congresses, as indicated in Sec. 62.14, 
infra.

Sec. 62.2 A select committee may be authorized, by unanimous consent, 
    to have its investigative reports printed if filed after the sine 
    die adjournment.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(7) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent that reports filed after sine die 
adjournment with the Clerk by the Committee on Government Operations or 
its subcommittees could be printed by the Clerk as reports of the 87th 
Congress. Then Mr. A. Paul Kitchin, of North Carolina, obtained 
unanimous consent that reports filed with the Clerk following the 
adjournment by the Select Committee on Export Control could likewise be 
printed by the Clerk as records of the 87th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 22618, 22619, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 62.3 By unanimous consent, the Committee on Govern

[[Page 3175]]

    ment Operations was permitted to file a report on a bill subsequent 
    to a projected sine die adjournment but on a day prior to 
    expiration of the first session of the 93d Congress under the 20th 
    amendment (Jan. 3).

    On Dec. 20, 1973,(8) the day before the expiration of 
the first session of the 93d Congress, Mr. Chet Holifield, of 
California, obtained unanimous consent that the House Committee on 
Government Operations have until midnight, Jan. 2, 1974, to file a 
report on H.R. 11793, a bill to create a new Federal Energy 
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 119 Cong. Rec. 42916, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leave to File Before Midnight

Sec. 62.4 Leave was granted to a committee to file a privileged report, 
    on a bill for admission of a new state, after adjournment for the 
    day but before midnight.

    On Feb. 11, 1959,(9) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs have until midnight of that day to file a privileged report on 
the bill H.R. 4221, providing for the admission of the State of Hawaii 
into the Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 105 Cong. Rec. 2178, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The authority conferred upon the Committee 
on Interior and Insular Affairs to report statehood bills as privileged 
was removed from the rules effective Jan. 3 1975.

Sec. 62.5 The Committee on Banking and Currency was granted permission 
    by unanimous consent to have until midnight to file a report and an 
    accompanying document showing changes in existing law as required 
    by the Ramseyer rule.

    On July 13, 1966,(10) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, 
obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking and Currency 
have until midnight to file an accompanying document to the report on 
the bill H.R. 15890, a housing bill, in order to comply with the 
requirements of the Ramseyer rule. Later that same day, Mr. Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that some of the material which should have 
been in the report accompanying the housing bill was still not 
available. Therefore, Mr. Albert sought and obtained unanimous consent 
that the Committee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 112 Cong. Rec. 15403, 15476, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3176]]

on Banking and Currency have until midnight on Friday, July 15, 1966, 
to file the supplemental report.

Sec. 62.6 The Committee on Appropriations was given until midnight to 
    file a privileged report.

    On June 3, 1963,(11) Mr. William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, sought and obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Appropriations have until midnight of that day to file the report on 
the bill making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 9916, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where such permission is granted on a 
general appropriation bill, points of order under Rule XXI clause 2 
must be reserved at that time, before the bill is placed on the Union 
Calendar, to permit points of order under that clause to be later made 
against provisions in the bill during consideration in Committee of the 
Whole. Absent such a reservation, the Committee of the Whole would have 
no authority to remove provisions from bills referred to it by the 
House other than by amendment.

Sec. 62.7 A Member from the minority party, acting at the behest of a 
    committee chairman, asked and secured unanimous consent that the 
    committee have until midnight to file a report.

    On June 2, 1966,(12) Mr. Howard H. Callaway, of Georgia, 
a member from the minority party, acting at the behest of the committee 
chairman, obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture 
have until midnight of that day to file a report on H.R. 15089, an 
agriculture bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 12191, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing After Expiration of Select Committee

Sec. 62.8 Where a special investigating committee expires on a 
    specified date, it is not in order seven months later to file a 
    report as a matter of privilege.

    In the 76th Congress, on July 19, 1939,(13) Mr. Ralph E. 
Church, of Illinois, objected to a unanimous-consent request by Mr. 
Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, to file the report of the Select 
Committee to Investigate Bondholders' Reorganizations, which had been 
established by House Resolution 412 of the 73d Congress. In response
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 9531, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3177]]

to an inquiry submitted by Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, as to 
whether the report could be filed by a committee which had ceased to 
exist several months previously, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, declared that such filing would be unauthorized. The Speaker 
stated:

        The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman [Mr. Sabath] 
    would not have the legal authority to file this as a report of the 
    committee because, as the Chair understands, the functions of the 
    committee expired on January 1, 1939.

    Mr. Sabath withdrew his request to file the report.

Where Filing Date Falls on Non-legislative Day

Sec. 62.9 Where an investigative report from a joint committee was due 
    to be filed on a date that fell on a Saturday when the House was 
    not in session, the report was filed on the following Monday with 
    the Clerk.

    On Apr. 3, 1939,(14) Mr. R. Ewing Thomason, of Texas, 
called to the attention of the House the fact that the report of the 
joint committee appointed to investigate the Tennessee Valley Authority 
had been due on a day [Saturday, Apr. 1] when Congress was not in 
session. Mr. Thomason stated that the report was therefore filed with 
the Clerk on Apr. 3, and that there would also be minority views. Mr. 
Thomason explained that his remarks were intended to inform the Members 
why the report had not been filed earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 3727, 3728, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joint Economic Committee

Sec. 62.10 The Joint Economic Committee may be granted additional time 
    in which to file a report.

    On Feb. 26, 1959,(15) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, 
sought unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be given 
eight additional days to file its report. Under the Employment Act of 
1946 [15 USC Sec. Sec. 1021 et seq.; 60 Stat. 23 (1946)], the Joint 
Economic Committee was required to file its report on the economic re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 3049, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. For other extensions, see 
        109 Cong. Rec. 3231, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 28, 1963 [two 
        additional weeks]; 108 Cong. Rec. 2948, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Feb. 26, 1962 [one additional week]; 107 Cong. Rec. 2935, 87th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1961 [two additional months]; and 101 
        Cong. Rec. 2029, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 24, 1955 [115 
        additional days].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3178]]

port of the President on Mar. 1. The committee had voted unanimously to 
request that it be given until Mar. 9 to file its report. Without 
objection, the House granted the additional time.

Sec. 62.11 Instance where the House, by unanimous consent, considered 
    and passed a Senate joint resolution extending the date for 
    transmission to Congress of the report of the Joint Economic 
    Committee.

    On Feb. 7, 1972,(16) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, sought 
and obtained unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of 
Senate Joint Resolution 196, extending the date for the transmission to 
the Congress of the report of the Joint Economic Committee. The Clerk 
read the Senate joint resolution, which provided that the dates for the 
transmission of the economic report of the Joint Economic Committee, 
approved Dec. 22, 1971 (Pub. L. No. 92-216; 85 Stat. 778), be extended 
from Mar. 10, 1972, to Mar. 28, 1972. The Senate joint resolution was 
then read a third time and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid 
on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 2915, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since this reporting requirement is, in 
effect, a joint rule of the House and Senate, unanimous consent of both 
Houses for an extension of time is all that is required and not the 
enactment of a law.

Form of Resolution Authorizing Filing During Adjournment

Sec. 62.12 The House has by resolution authorized a committee to 
    conduct an investigation and to submit a report to the Clerk if the 
    House is not in session.

    On June 20, 1936,(17) Mr. James M. Mead, of New York, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent for the immediate consideration 
of House Resolution 551, which provided that the Committee on the Post 
Office and Post Roads could conduct an investigation and submit its 
report to the Clerk if the House were not in session. The resolution 
was agreed to. It provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 10619, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, 
    as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized and directed to 
    conduct an investigation to determine (1) the fair and proper basis 
    of compensation for postmasters of the fourth class, and (2) the 
    fair and proper basis of compensation for carrying mail on star 
    routes. . . .

[[Page 3179]]

        The committee shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the 
    House if the House is not in session) as soon as practicable the 
    results of its investigation, together with such recommendations 
    for legislation as it deems advisable.

Sec. 62.13 A resolution authorized the appointment of a special 
    committee to investigate old-age pension plans and empowered the 
    committee, in the event the House was not in session, to file its 
    report with the Speaker.

    On Mar. 10, 1936,(18) Mr. C. Jasper Bell, of Missouri, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent for the immediate consideration 
of House Resolution 443, which provided for establishment of a select 
committee to investigate pension plans and authorized the committee to 
submit its report after the adjournment. Specifically, the resolution 
provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 80 Cong. Rec. 3506, 3507, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Speaker appoint a select committee of eight 
    Members of the House and that such committee be instructed to 
    inquire into old-age-pension plans with respect to which 
    legislation has been submitted to the House of Representatives, and 
    particularly that embodied in H.R. 7154. . . . And the committee 
    shall have the right to report to the House at any time the results 
    of its investigations and recommendations for other or additional 
    legislation upon said bill or any other proposed legislation 
    relative to old-age pensions.  . . .
        Resolved further, That in the event the committee transmits its 
    report to the Speaker at a time when the House is not in session, 
    as authorized in House Resolution No. 418, current session, a 
    record of such transmittal shall be entered in the proceedings of 
    the Journal and Congressional Record of the House on the opening 
    day of the next session of Congress and shall be numbered and 
    printed as a report of such Congress.

Form of Request Authorizing Filing and Printing After Sine Die 
    Adjournment

Sec. 62.14 By unanimous consent, special and standing committees may be 
    authorized, notwithstanding sine die adjournment, to file their 
    reports with the Speaker for printing as public documents.

    On Dec. 15, 1942 (1) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 9602, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that notwithstanding the sine die adjournment of 
    the House, special and standing Committees of the House authorized 
    to make investigations may file their reports with the Speaker not 
    later than noon, January

[[Page 3180]]

    3, 1943, for printing as public documents.
        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-64]                         

[Page 3180-3198]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 63. Status as Privileged; Calling Up

    Several types of committee reports are accorded privileged status. 
That is, they may be filed from the floor in the House at any time and 
their consideration is preferential and does not depend upon adoption 
of a special order reported from the Committee on Rules. One basis for 
this privilege of reporting at any time arises upon the precedents 
based upon the essential role imposed upon the Congress by the 
Constitution, as in the case of reports on Presidential vetoes or 
reports on impeachment proceedings.(3) Another basis for the 
privileged status of committee reports arise under the rules of the 
House. Such reports are of two types: (1) those raising questions of 
the privilege of the House under Rule IX such as reports on contempts 
of witnesses before committees, and (2) the reports of certain 
committees on matters specified in the applicable House rule which may 
be brought up at any time subject to the three-day rule on availability 
of reports [Rule XI clause 2(1)(6)] or the one-day rule applicable to 
certain funding resolutions from the Committee on House Administration 
(Rule XI clause 5). Under Rule XI, the Committees on Appropriations, 
House Administration, Interior and Insular Affairs, Public Works, 
Rules, Standards of Official Conduct, Veterans' Affairs, and Ways and 
Means have had leave to report at any time although only on those 
matters specified in the rules of the House.(4) For example, 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has had leave to report at any time 
only on general pension bills.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Ch. 14 (impeachment), supra, and Ch. 24 (vetoes), infra.
 4. See the commentary following Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
 5. See the commentary following Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The right of reporting at any time under Rule XI clause 4 no 
longer-grants the right of immediate consideration on the floor. Rules 
changes adopted since 1971, designed to give Members advance notice of 
floor consideration of measures, have restricted the right of immediate 
consideration. Now only privileged reports from

[[Page 3181]]

the Committee on Rules are granted the right of immediate consideration 
subject to the two-thirds vote required by the rules.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979). See 
        also the commentary following Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (7) incorporated 
into the rules the privileged status of matters reported under the 
Congressional Budget Act by the Committee on the Budget, but removed 
from the rules the privilege of measures reported by the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs, the Committee on Public Works, the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the Committee on Ways and 
Means.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447- 70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
 8. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 
        (1979).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reports Recommending Passage of Bill Over Veto

Sec. 63.1 Reports from committees, to which vetoed bills have been 
    referred, recommending passage of such bills over a veto, are 
    privileged.

    On Aug. 17, 1951,(9) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
submitted a privileged report from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
on H.R. 3193, involving augmented pension benefits for veterans. The 
committee report recommended that the bill be enacted into law, the 
objections of the President (who had vetoed the measure) 
notwithstanding. The House then passed the bill by the necessary two-
thirds majority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 10197, 10202, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exchange went as follows:

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I submit a privileged report from the 
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs on the bill (H.R. 3193) to establish 
    a rate of pension for aid and attendance under part III of 
    Veterans' Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: (10) The question is, Will the House, 
    on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President 
    to the contrary notwithstanding?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the Constitution, this vote must be determined by the 
    yeas and nays. . . .
        So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the bill was 
    passed, the objections of the President to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    On Sept. 25, 1940,(11) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
by di
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 12615-23, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3182]]

rection of the Committee on Military Affairs, called up a privileged 
report on H.R. 3840, which had been referred to the committee after a 
Presidential veto. The House ultimately failed to override the veto on 
the bill, which involved the status of bandmasters in the U.S. Army.

Sec. 63.2 A privileged report submitted by the Committee on the 
    Judiciary on a vetoed bill referred to it recommended passage of 
    the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    On Aug. 5, 1940,(12) Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, 
submitted a privileged report on H.R. 3233, entitled ``An act to repeal 
certain acts of Congress (pocket vetoed)''. The report recommended the 
passage of the bill over the President's veto. The bill in question 
proposed the repeal of pocket-vetoed bills. Mr. Sumners explained that 
the committee desired to prevent certain bills from becoming law in the 
event that the Supreme Court determined that the President's use of the 
pocket veto in a number of instances had been invalid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 86 Cong. Rec. 9885-90, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill did not receive the two-thirds vote required for passage.

Reports on Impeachment

Sec. 63.3 Adverse reports from the Committee on the Judiciary on 
    impeachment proceedings are privileged.

    On Mar. 24, 1939,(13) Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, by 
direction of the Committee on the Judiciary presented a privileged 
report on House Resolution 67, dealing with impeachment proceedings 
against Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins. Mr. Hobbs stated that the 
committee had been unanimously adverse to the resolution, as reflected 
in the report. He then moved that the resolution be laid on the table 
and the House agreed to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 3273, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions Involving the Privilege of the House

Sec. 63.4 A committee report is privileged where it takes up a question 
    involving the privileges of the House. Thus, a committee report 
    relating to the refusal of a witness to produce certain documents, 
    as ordered, is privileged.

    On Feb. 2, 1966,(14) shortly after the House convened, 
Speaker
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 1742, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3183]]

John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Edwin E. Willis, of 
Louisiana, Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 
who stated:

        Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privilege of the House 
    and by direction of the Committee on Un-American Activities, I 
    submit a privileged report (Reps. No. 1214).

    The Clerk then proceeded to read the report which was one of seven 
similar reports (15) to be considered that day. Each report 
documented the failure of an alleged member of the Ku Klux Klan to 
comply with a subpena duces tecum issued by the Committee on Un-
American Activities which required the production of books, documents, 
correspondence, and memoranda relating to the organization. Each report 
was, in turn, followed by the submission of a privileged resolution 
directing the Speaker of the House to certify the report of the 
committee to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia so that 
each individual could be ``proceeded against in the manner and form 
provided by law.'' (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The committee also submitted H. Rept. No. 89-1242 (id. at p. 1763), 
        H. Rept. No. 89-1243 (id. at p. 1770), H. Rept. No. 89-1244 
        (id. at p. 1784), H. Rept. No. 89-1245 (id. at p. 1793), H. 
        Rept. No. 89-1246 (id. at p. 1801), and H. Rept. No. 89-1247 
        (id. at p. 1808).
16. For a discussion of the subject of privilege, generally, see Ch. 
        11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report on Refusal of Witness to Testify

Sec. 63.5 Reports of the standing Committee on Un-American Activities 
    as to the refusal of certain witnesses to produce books and papers 
    under a subpena duces tecum were privileged.

    On Mar. 28, 1946,(17) Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, by 
direction of the Committee on Un-American Activities, presented a 
privileged report which recited that Dr. Edward Barksy and other named 
members of the executive board of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee 
Committee had deprived the Committee on Un-American Activities of the 
opportunity to inspect books, papers, and other materials requested in 
a subpena duces tecum, which actions constituted contempt of the House 
of Rep
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 2743-53, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 100 Cong. Rec. 12825-38, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., July 
        30, 1954; 98 Cong. Rec. 3756-73, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 8, 
        1952; 96 Cong. Rec. 12284-86, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 11, 
        1950; 96 Cong. Rec. 12234-48, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 
        1950; and 93 Cong. Rec. 1127-37, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 18, 
        1947.
            Contempt proceedings instituted against recalcitrant 
        witnesses are discussed in Ch. 15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3184]]

resentatives. After the Clerk read the report, Mr. Wood offered a 
privileged resolution, House Resolution 573, that provided that the 
report be certified to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia 
to the end that the named persons be prosecuted. After argument, the 
resolution was amended so as to describe only the individual who had 
appeared before the House committee and refused to respond in the 
manner directed. The resolution was then agreed to.

Sec. 63.6 A committee report from the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce relating to the refusal of a witness to testify 
    was privileged.

    On Aug. 13, 1958,(1) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, by 
direction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
submitted a privileged report, House Report No. 85-2580, recommending 
that a contempt citation be issued against Bernard Goldfine. Shortly 
afterward, Mr. Harris offered a resolution, House Resolution 684, that 
certified the committee report to the U.S. Attorney for appropriate 
contempt proceedings. The House subsequently agreed to the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 104 Cong. Rec. 17361-86, 85th Cong 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 63.7 Report by a special committee authorized to make an 
    investigation stating that a witness had refused to testify before 
    the committee was privileged.

    On Mar. 29, 1940,(2) Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, by 
direction of the Special Committee to Investigate Un-American 
Activities, presented a privileged report, House Report No. 76-1900, 
stating that the committee had caused to be issued a subpena directing 
James H. Dolsen to appear and testify before the committee with records 
regarding the Communist Party and its activities, and that Mr. Dolsen 
had refused to testify as directed, such refusal being a willful and 
deliberate violation of the subpena. The report stated that the witness 
was in contempt of the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 3694, 3695, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ordered the report to be 
printed and directed the Clerk to report the resolution, House 
Resolution 446, certifying the report, together with all of the facts 
in connection with it, under the seal of the House of Representa

[[Page 3185]]

tives, to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, for 
appropriate proceedings. The resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 63.8 Reports from committees on the refusal of witnesses to 
    testify, if not called up immediately, are referred to the House 
    Calendar and ordered printed.

    On Apr. 8, 1952,(3) Mr. Robert L. Doughton, of North 
Carolina, by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted a 
privileged report, Honse Report No. 82-1748, which was referred to the 
House Calendar and ordered printed. The report cited Henry W. Grunewald 
for failing and refusing to answer pertinent questions propounded to 
him and produce papers, books, and other documents requested by 
committee subpena. The committee had been investigating allegations 
that Mr. Grunewald wrongfully intervened in tax cases and maintained 
close personal relations with several Internal Revenue Service 
officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 98 Cong. Rec. 3756-73, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reports Privileged Under Specific Provisions of House Rules

Sec. 63.9 Privileged reports have been made from the floor on bills 
    providing for statehood; and where the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs reported a privileged bill favoring the admission 
    of a new state [Alaska] and the bill contained matter incidental to 
    its main purpose, the privileged status was not destroyed.

    On June 25, 1957,(4) Mr. Leo W. O'Brien, of New York, 
submitted a privileged report providing for the admission of a new 
state into the Union. It was reported in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4 103 Cong. Rec. 10200, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Brien of New York from the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs submitted a privileged report (Reps. No. 624) on 
    the bill (H.R.7999) to provide for the admission of the State of 
    Alaska into the Union, which was referred to the Union Calendar and 
    ordered to be printed.

    On May 21, 1958,(5) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
by direction of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, moved 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of H.R. 7999, providing for the admission of Alaska into 
the Union. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, then made a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 104. Cong. Rec. 9212-17, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3186]]

point of order that the bill was not privileged and that accordingly, 
the motion was not in order at that time. Mr. Cannon argued that, if 
the bill was privileged at all, it was privileged under Rule 
XI,(6) authorizing the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs to report a bill for admission of a new state. Mr. Cannon 
argued that the bill had to conform in every respect with the rule or 
the privilege was destroyed. Mr. Cannon, Mr. John Taber, of New York, 
and Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, all argued against the privileged 
status of the bill on the basis of early precedents expressing the 
principle that ``the presence of matter not privileged with privileged 
matter destroys the privileged character of the bill.'' (7) 
In response, Mr. Arthur L. Miller, of Nebraska, and Mr. Leo W. O'Brien, 
of New York, argued that the other matters contained in the bill were 
necessarily incidental to the main purpose of the bill and that, were 
the rule given the narrow construction urged by Mr. Cannon and the 
others, it would be impossible in modern times to bring a statehood 
bill to the floor under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Rule XI clause 22, House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973).
 7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4622, 4624, 4633, 4640, 4643; 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In overruling the point of order, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
observed that some of the precedents cited by the Members in support of 
their arguments did not apply to statehood bills. He further stated:

        The bill before us is one to provide for the admission of the 
    State of Alaska into the Union. Upon a close examination of the 
    bill it will be found that all of the provisions contained therein 
    are necessary for the accomplishment of that objective. It may be 
    argued that some of them are incidental to the main purpose, but as 
    long as they tend toward the accomplishment of that end, such 
    incidental purposes do not destroy the privilege of the Committee 
    on Interior and Insular Affairs to report and call up the pending 
    bill.
        It may be said, therefore, that where the major feature--and 
    the Chair hopes the Members will listen to this--that where the 
    major feature of the bill relates to the admission of a new State, 
    lesser provisions incidental thereto do not destroy its privilege 
    when reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 
    and, therefore, for these and many other reasons, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Generally, the inclusion of nonprivileged 
matter in a bill otherwise privileged destroys the privileged status of 
the bill, as where provisions of a bill relate to subjects other than 
the subject which is specifically accorded privileged status under 
House rules. But seemingly nonprivileged provi

[[Page 3187]]

sions do not destroy the privileged status of the bill if they are 
incidental and necessary to the accomplishment of a privileged purpose 
of the bill. See the discussion in Sec. 63.13, infra.

Doctrine of Privileged Reports May Extend to Senate Bills

Sec. 63.10 A special committee having been given the power to study a 
    subject and report to the House, and authorized to report certain 
    bills and resolutions as privileged, may report Senate bills as 
    well as House bills under the privileged status given. Moreover, 
    where a Senate bill is reported by such committee with a committee 
    amendment containing language of House bills previously passed by 
    the House (a motion to reconsider having been tabled), the 
    committee amendment does not comprise such unprivileged matter as 
    would destroy the privileged status given the Senate bill.

    On Mar. 31, 1938,(8) points of order were made against 
consideration of a Senate bill (9) respecting governmental 
reorganization. The bill had been reported by a special committee 
which, under House Resolution 60, was given the privilege of reporting 
at any time with respect to certain matters. A point of order by Mr. 
Samuel B. Pettengill, of Indiana, was based in part on a contention 
that the Senate bill contained unprivileged matter and that therefore 
the bill's privileged status was destroyed. In a subsequent point of 
order against the Senate bill, Mr. Gerald J. Boileau, of Wisconsin, 
raised a question as to whether the authorizing resolution had given 
privileged status only to House bills reported by the committee, and 
not to Senate bills. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 83 Cong. Rec. 4474-77, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
 9. S. 3331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pettengill: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against S. 
    3331, Union Calendar 739, Report 2033, reported March 30, 1938, 
    from the Select Committee on Government Organization.
        The point of order is that the bill includes matters not 
    privileged and the inclusion of such nonprivileged matters destroys 
    the privilege of the whole. . . .
        This House passed H.R. 7730 July 27, 1937, during the present 
    Congress. The Record and the Journal of the House show that a 
    motion was made to reconsider the vote by which the House passed 
    H.R. 7730, and that said motion to reconsider was laid upon the 
    table. . . .
        Despite this action finally disposing of the subject matter of 
    H.R. 7730, S.

[[Page 3188]]

    3331, reported by the Select Committee on Government Organization 
    yesterday, is again reported in haec verba in the form in which it 
    passed the House on July 27, 1937, under title 2, section 201, of 
    S. 3331.

        For this reason, title 2, section 201, is nonprivileged matter, 
    and the inclusion thereof under the rules of the House destroys the 
    privilege of the whole of S. 3331 as reported.
        Similarly, the House on August 13, 1937, during the present 
    Congress, passed H.R. 8202, and the Record and Journal of the House 
    show that on August 13 last a motion was made to reconsider the 
    vote by which said H.R. 8202 passed the House, and that said motion 
    to reconsider was laid on the table. . . .
        An examination of S. 3331 will show that despite this action 
    taken by the House on August 13, 1937, the same subject matter as 
    included in H.R. 8202 in haec verba is contained in S. 3331. . . .
        The matter thus described in S. 3331 having heretofore been 
    finally disposed of by the House, at least pending a conference 
    with the Senate, it is not within the privilege of the Select 
    Committee on Government Organization to include the same in S. 
    3331, and that the inclusion of the same destroys the privilege of 
    all of S. 3331. . . .
        Putting aside, for the moment, the technical question of 
    privilege, I make a further point of order that S. 3331 with 
    reference to the matters therein set forth which I have above 
    described contains matter which it is not within the power of the 
    Select Committee on Government Organization, or any committee of 
    the House, or any member thereof, or the House itself, to report or 
    to receive or to take any committee or legislative action thereon. 
    . . .
        . . . For the reason as above stated, that by taking the action 
    to which I have referred with reference to H.R. 7730 on July 27, 
    1937, and H.R. 8202 on August 13, 1937, this House has divested 
    itself of any further authority, at least at the present time, to 
    take any legislative action whatsoever with respect to the subject 
    matter therein set forth. . . .
        The Speaker: (10) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    points of order raised by the gentleman from Indiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Indiana makes two points of order against 
    the consideration of Senate bill 3331. The first point of order is 
    based upon the ground that the select committee of the House of 
    Representatives appointed to deal with this matter does not have 
    authority to report a bill of this character. Under these 
    circumstances, in order that the whole situation may be presented 
    to the House, in the opinion of the Chair, it is necessary to 
    incorporate in the ruling at least a part of House Resolution 60 
    specifically setting up this select committee and designating 
    certain powers that it might have the right to exercise. The Chair 
    quotes from that resolution the following language:

            Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
        be, and he is hereby, authorized to appoint a select committee 
        of seven Members of the House to be known as the Select 
        Committee on Government Organization, for the purpose of 
        considering and reporting upon the subject matter contained in 
        the message of the

[[Page 3189]]

        President of the United States of January 12, 1937. All bills 
        and resolutions introduced in the House proposing legislation 
        concerning reorganization, coordination, consolidation, or 
        abolition of, or reduction of personnel in, organizations or 
        units in the Government shall be referred by the Speaker to the 
        said Select Committee on Government Organization. The said 
        Select Committee on Government Organization is hereby 
        authorized to report to the House at any time by bill or 
        otherwise with recommendations upon any matters covered by this 
        resolution; and any bill or resolution so reported shall be 
        placed upon the calendar and have a privileged status. . . .

        So it appears clear to the Chair that under the special 
    authority granted by the House itself to this select committee they 
    were given the privilege to report at any time, either by bill or 
    otherwise, any matters covered by the recommendations of the 
    President of the United States in the message referred to in the 
    resolution. While it is true that at a former session of the 
    Seventy-fifth Congress two separate bills were passed by the House 
    and sent over to the Senate for the consideration of that body, yet 
    that, in the opinion of the Chair, is not the direct parliamentary 
    problem here presented.
        Assuming, and the Chair thinks it is clear, that the committee 
    had the right to make any report that it saw fit upon these 
    problems, the question here is whether or not the select committee 
    had the right under this power delegated by the House and under 
    general parliamentary practice in addition to these powers to 
    report a bill passed by the Senate and to which the House committee 
    has stricken out all after the enacting clause and submitted, as is 
    the case here, an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    Senate bill. The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the committee 
    had that authority. Here is a bill sent over by the Senate and 
    referred to this select committee, and under the jurisdiction 
    conferred they have reported back to this House a Senate bill with 
    one amendment. The whole action of the select committee constitutes 
    an amendment and only one amendment to a Senate bill; and despite 
    the fact that the House may have heretofore passed in a former 
    session two bills touching upon certain phases of the President's 
    recommendation, the Chair is of the opinion that this would not 
    prevent the select committee from reporting an amendment to a 
    Senate bill. . . .
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the points of order.

    Subsequently, a point of order was made by Mr. Boileau, as follows:

        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of this bill at the present time. I grant, Mr. 
    Speaker, that the committee has jurisdiction of the subject matter 
    contained in the Senate bill.
        I make the point of order, however, that the resolution setting 
    up this committee and giving the committee privileged status gave 
    privileged status only to House bills and not to Senate bills, and 
    therefore the bill cannot be brought up in this manner.
        The Speaker: The Chair just a few moments ago read into the 
    Record the

[[Page 3190]]

    comprehensive powers of the select committee. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that the point of order is not well taken, and, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

Reports on Resolution of Disapproval

Sec. 63.11 A report from the Committee on Government Operations on a 
    resolution disapproving a reorganization plan is filed through the 
    hopper and not from the floor as privileged.

    On Feb. 15, 1962,(11) pursuant to Rule XIII clause 2, 
Mr. William L. Dawson, of Illinois, delivered to the Clerk the report 
of the Committee on Government Operations, House Report No. 87-1360, on 
House Resolution 530, which resolution disapproved of Reorganization 
Plan No. 1 of 1962, relating to the establishment of a Department of 
Urban Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 2263, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The privileged consideration of similar 
resolutions of disapproval which is explicitly provided by law is to be 
distinguished from privileged reports filed pursuant to the standing 
rules of the House. In the former case, privilege for consideration 
derives directly from law and the reports need not be filed from the 
floor to preserve that privilege. In the latter case, privileged 
reports must be filed from the floor in order to preserve their 
privileged consideration, since House rules do not explicitly permit 
privileged consideration regardless of the mode of filing.

Reports on Nomination of Vice President

Sec. 63.12 The report of the Committee on the Judiciary on the 
    nomination of Gerald R. Ford to be Vice President was filed through 
    the hopper and not from the floor as privileged.

    On Dec. 4, 1973,(12) Mr. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New 
Jersey, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, delivered House 
Report No. 93-695 on House Resolution 735 as a nonprivileged matter, 
pursuant to House Rule XIII clause 2. The resolution confirmed the 
nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, to be Vice President of the 
United States. The report was delivered to the Clerk for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 39419, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also 120 Cong. Rec. 40587, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 17, 
        1974, where Mr. Rodino filed H. Rept. No. 93-1609 on H. Res. 
        1511, confirming Nelson A. Rockefeller as Vice President of the 
        United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3191]]

printing and reference to the House Calendar.

Effect of Inclusion of Nonprivileged Matter

Sec. 63.13 The inclusion of nonprivileged matter in a bill otherwise 
    privileged under the rules destroys the privileged status of the 
    entire bill.

    On Apr. 8, 1935,(13) after Mr. Joseph J. Mansfield, of 
Texas, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of H.R. 6732, authorizing the construction 
of certain public works on rivers and harbors, Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, 
of New York, made a point of order against the motion. Mr. Snell 
contended that the motion was not in order because the bill was not 
privileged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 79 Cong. Rec. 5250, 5251, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, in response to the point of 
order, conceded that the bill should have contained only matters 
relating to rivers and harbors, and not matters relating to canals and 
artificial waterways, to be in strict compliance with the privilege. He 
also acknowledged that there were precedents that held that ``the 
presence in a bill, otherwise privileged, of matters not privileged 
destroys the privileged status of the whole bill.'' (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon Mr. Mansfield's insistence that the Speaker rule on the point 
of order, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, held that the motion 
was not in order, as the bill contained matters exceeding the scope of 
the privilege. The Speaker also noted that the bill had not been 
reported as privileged from the floor of the House, but rather through 
the hopper as an ordinary bill.

    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order 
    against the motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snell: I make the point of order against the motion of the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] on the ground that this is not 
    a privileged bill, and therefore the motion is not in order. I do 
    this not because I am opposed to the bill, because I am for it, but 
    in order to keep the Record and the precedents of the House intact 
    relative to the consideration of a river and harbor bill.
        As a matter of fact, the Chairman of the Rules Committee and I 
    had a word or two about this bill Saturday night. Originally, river 
    and harbor bills were privileged bills, but in those days they were 
    confined to river and harbor projects alone. In later years all of

[[Page 3192]]

    these river and harbor bills have contained various other matters, 
    such as channels, canals, and artificial waterways, which are not 
    privileged matter. Of course, the presence of unprivileged matter 
    in a bill makes the bill itself unprivileged. If I remember 
    correctly, the present distinguished Speaker made a ruling on this 
    very same proposition some 12 or 15 years ago when he was acting as 
    Chairman of Committee of the Whole, and as a further argument to 
    sustain my position, I respectfully call attention of the Speaker 
    to that decision.
        I would like to say further that as far as I am concerned, if 
    the Speaker sustains the point of order, which I believe he will, 
    if the gentleman from Texas will ask unanimous consent to call up 
    this bill, I doubt if there will be any opposition to considering 
    it at this time. The point I am making now is simply for the 
    purpose of maintaining the rules of the House, and not because I 
    have any opposition to the bill.
        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the point 
    of order, in order to keep the record clear. . . .
        Now, under clause 45 of rule XI of the House, bills reported by 
    the Committee on Rivers and Harbors for ``the improvement of rivers 
    and harbors'' are privileged, along with reports from the Rules 
    Committee, reports of the Elections Committees, general 
    appropriation bills, bills from the Public Lands Committee relating 
    to forfeiture of land grants to railroads, and so forth, reports 
    from the Accounts Committee pertaining to the contingent fund of 
    the House, reports on enrolled bills, reports from the Committee on 
    Territories admitting new Territories as States to the Union, 
    reports from the Invalid Pensions Committee reporting general 
    pension bills, and reports from the Joint Committee on Printing. I 
    think I have covered all the privileged reports. If not, I shall 
    include them later in my remarks.
        Under the rule, the gentleman from New York is correct in the 
    strict sense, in that the bill reported from the Committee on 
    Rivers and Harbors must relate only to rivers and harbors. This 
    ruling is sustained by the following precedent: On January 11, 
    1919, at page 1263 of the Record, the present distinguished 
    Speaker, then presiding as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union, ruled that a Rivers and Harbors 
    Committee report was not privileged because it contained canals and 
    artificial waterways. It has also been held that the presence in a 
    bill, otherwise privileged, of matters not privileged destroys the 
    privileged status of the whole bill (Hinds' Precedents, vol. IV, 
    sec. 4622, etc.).
        I am willing to concede to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Snell] that this bill does in fact contain provisions relating to 
    canals and creeks and artificial, and perhaps undiscovered, 
    waterways, so if the gentleman should press his point of order, the 
    bill would not be privileged. In view of that situation, however, 
    if the point of order is pressed, the Rules Committee is prepared 
    with a rule to meet the situation. . . .
        The Speaker: Clause 45 of rule XI, as it relates to the 
    Committee on Rivers and Harbors, reads as follows, under the 
    heading of Privileged Reports.

            The Committee on Rivers and Harbors, bills authorizing the 
        improvement of rivers and harbors.

[[Page 3193]]

        The bill which has been presented to the House not only relates 
    to rivers and harbors but provides for other waterways.
        There are quite a number of provisions in the bill, which it is 
    unnecessary to point out, providing for inland waterways; for 
    instance, from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay, the 
    improvement of the Cape Cod Canal, and other provisions quite 
    numerous which, in the opinion of the Chair, takes the bill from 
    under the privilege provided in the rules.
        The Chair feels constrained to follow the precedents heretofore 
    established and the plain letter of the rule the Chair has read, 
    which applies only to bills relating to rivers and harbors 
    exclusively. In addition to this, the Chair will state that the 
    Chair is informed that this bill was not presented to the House as 
    privileged bills are, but was reported through the basket, rather 
    than from the floor of the House.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

    Mr. Mansfield then sought and obtained unanimous consent for the 
immediate consideration of the bill.
    Parliamertariar's Note: In this instance, provisions of the bill 
related to subjects other than the subjects specifically accorded 
privileged status by rule, and therefore were clearly outside the scope 
of the privilege. This should be distinguished from the situation in 
which a bill contains seemingly nonprivileged provisions which are 
incidental to the main purpose of the bill, but which are necessary to 
or tend substantially toward the accomplishment of such purpose. It has 
been held, for example, under a rule that gave privilege to reports 
from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs relating to 
admission of new states, that the rule permitted inclusion in a bill of 
matters incidental to the bill's privileged purpose so long as ``they 
tend toward the accomplishment of that end.'' In such a case, the 
incidental matter does not destroy the privilege. [See the ruling of 
Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) with respect to H.R. 7999, a bill to provide 
for the admission of Alaska into the Union at Sec. 63.9, supra.]

Calling Up Privileged Resolution on Same Day Reported

Sec. 63.14 Prior to the adoption of the present ``three-day layover 
    rule,'' a report from a committee entitled to make privileged 
    reports under the rules could be called up for consideration on the 
    same day reported, and unanimous consent was not required.

    On June 16, 1965,(15) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of 
Maryland, by di
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 13799, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Res. 416, which authorized payment from the contingent fund 
        for employment of student congressional interns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3194]]

rection of the Committee on House Administration, called up House 
Resolution 416, and asked for its immediate consideration. Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, then made a parliamentary inquiry of Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts. The following exchange took place.

        Mr. Gross: Does the immediate consideration of this resolution 
    require unanimous consent?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Iowa that 
    this is a privileged report from the Committee on House 
    Administration.
        The question is on the committee amendments.

    However, in 1970 the House adopted the so-called ``three-day 
layover rule.(16) This rule essentially limits the right of 
immediate consideration by providing that, although privileged reports 
can still be reported at any time, the measure or matter reported 
cannot be considered until three days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, 
or legal holidays, have passed, except for resolutions reported by the 
Committee on Rules making in order the consideration of a bill, 
resolution, or other order of business, and except for committee 
funding resolutions reported by the Committee on House Administration 
subject to the one-day layover requirement of Rule XI clause 5. This 
rule change, brought about by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970,(17) affords Members a period of time to analyze and 
evaluate the matter before consideration thereof on the floor of the 
House. The three-day period begins to run when the printed report is 
available to Members after filed, and follows the separate three-day 
period of time granted Members to prepare and file supplemental, 
additional, and minority views for inclusion with the committee 
report.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See the present Rule XI clause 2(l) (6), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 715 (1979).
            For general discussion, see Ch. 21, infra.
17. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970).
18. H. Rept. No. 91-1215, 116 Cong. Rec. 20276, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 17, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 63.15 A two-thirds vote is required to call up for consideration a 
    resolution with its report from the Committee on Rules on the same 
    day it is reported.

    On July 2, 1960,(19) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
from the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 15775-90, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 112 Cong. 
        Rec. 10021, 10022, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., May 9, 1966, where the 
        House, by a two-thirds vote, agreed to consider a report from 
        the Committee on Rules on the same day it was reported [H. Res. 
        846]; and 106 Cong. Rec. 17673, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 25, 
        1960 [H. Res. 624].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3195]]

Committee on Rules, reported a privileged resolution (H. Res. 596 with 
accompanying House Report No. 862085), which resolution and report were 
referred to the House Calender and ordered to be printed. Mr. Bolling 
then called up the resolution and asked for its immediate 
consideration. The resolution provided that immediately upon its 
adoption, the bill, H.R. 12740, making supplemental appropriations for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes, with the 
Senate amendments thereto, be taken from the Speaker's table and the 
Senate amendments be considered in the House.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, then put the question as to whether 
the House would then consider the resolution and the Speaker announced 
that the yeas had it. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then made a 
parliamentary inquiry as to whether consideration of the resolution 
required unanimous consent. The Speaker responded that a two-thirds 
vote was required.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For precedents involving the privileged status of reports from the 
        Committee on Rules, see Sec. 55, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 63.16 Since a report on the contemptuous conduct of a witness 
    before a House committee involves the implied constitutional power 
    of the House and its authority under Rule IX to dispose directly of 
    questions affecting the dignity and integrity of House proceedings, 
    such report is privileged for consideration immediately upon 
    presentation to the House; a resolution directing the Speaker to 
    certify to the U.S. Attorney the refusal of the witness to respond 
    to a subpena issued by a House committee may be offered from the 
    floor as privileged, and the accompanying committee report may be 
    presented to the House without regard to the three-day availability 
    requirement for other reports.

    On July 13, 1971,(21) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
made a ruling that a report relating to the refusal of a witness to 
respond to a subpena duces tecum issued by a committee gives rise to a 
question of the privileges of the House and, under Rule IX, may be 
considered on the same day reported notwithstanding the requirement of 
then clause 27(d)(4) of Rule XI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 117 Cong. Rec. 24720-23, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3196]]

[see Rule XI clause 2(l)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1979)] 
that reports from committees be available to Members for at least three 
calendar days prior to their consideration.

    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    rise to a question of the privilege of the House, and I submit a 
    privileged report (Report No. 92-349). . . .
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons (of Florida): Mr. Speaker, I rise to 
    object to the consideration of this matter at this time in that I 
    believe that it violates clause 27, subparagraph (d)(4) of rule XI 
    of the Rules of the House of Representatives. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I think it would be best if I read just a portion 
    of the rule, and this rule reads as follows:

            A measure or matter reported by any committee (except the 
        Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on House 
        Administration, the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on 
        Standards of Official Conduct) shall not be considered in the 
        House unless the report of that committee upon that measure or 
        matter has been available to the Members of the House for at 
        least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and 
        legal holidays) prior to the consideration of that measure or 
        matter in the House. . . .
            This subparagraph shall not apply to--
            (A) Any measure for the declaration of war, or the 
        declaration of a national emergency, by the Congress; and
            (B) any executive decision, determination, or action which 
        would become, or continue to be, effective unless disapproved 
        or otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of Congress. . . 
        .

        Mr. Speaker, I realize that some may say a matter of this sort 
    is a matter of privilege and, therefore, is excepted from the rule. 
    It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of privilege was 
    specifically not excluded from the requirement of a 3-day layover 
    for the printing of the report but that the Committees on 
    Appropriations, House Administration, Rules, and Standards of 
    Official Conduct--those being the committees that generally deal 
    with matters of privilege--were set down under specific exception 
    and that it was never intended that citations such as this could be 
    considered in such a preemptive type of procedure as is now about 
    to take place. . . .
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, rule IX provides that ``Questions of 
    privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House 
    collectively''--as the gentleman from New York has just read--``its 
    safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings.''
        Privileges of the House includes questions relating to those 
    powers to punish for contempt witnesses who are summoned to give 
    information.
        House Rule 27(d) of rule XI, the so-called 3-day rule, clearly 
    does not apply to questions relating to privileges of the House. 
    The rule applies only to simple measures or matters reported by any 
    committee. It excludes matters arising from the Committees on 
    Appropriations, House Administration, Rules, and Standards of 
    Official Conduct.
        It is clear that the terms ``measure'' or ``matter'' as used in 
    rule 27(d) do not apply to questions of privilege.

[[Page 3197]]

        To apply it in such a way would utterly defeat the whole 
    concept of the question of privilege.
        Too, a privileged motion takes precedence over all other 
    questions except the motion to adjourn.
        The fact that the 3-day rule excludes routine matters from the 
    Appropriations, Administration, Rules, and Standards of Official 
    Conduct Committees clearly shows that the 3-day rule does not apply 
    to privileged questions.
        If the rule were meant to apply to questions of privilege, it 
    surely would not make exceptions for routine business coming from 
    regular standing committees.
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair has studied clause 27(d)(4) of 
    rule XI and the legislative history in connection with its 
    inclusion in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. That 
    clause provides that ``a matter shall not be considered in the 
    House unless the report has been available for at least 3 calendar 
    days.''
        The Chair has also examined rule IX, which provides that:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
        integrity of its proceedings  . . .; and shall have precedence 
        of all other questions, except motions to adjourn.

        Under the precedents, a resolution raising a question of the 
    privileges of the House does not necessarily require a report from 
    a committee. Immediate consideration of a question of privilege of 
    the House is inherent in the whole concept of privilege. When a 
    resolution is presented, the House may then make a determination 
    regarding its disposition.
        When a question is raised that a witness before a House 
    committee has been contemptuous, it has always been recognized that 
    the House has the implied power under the Constitution to deal 
    directly with such conduct so far as is necessary to preserve and 
    exercise its legislative authority. However, punishment for 
    contemptuous conduct involving the refusal of a witness to testify 
    or produce documents is now generally governed by law--Title II, 
    United States Code, sections 192-194--which provides that whenever 
    a witness fails or refuses to appear in response to a committee 
    subpena, or fails or refuses to testify or produce documents in 
    response thereto, such fact may be reported to the House. Those 
    reports are of high privilege.
        When a resolution raising a question of privilege of the House 
    is submitted by a Member and called up as privileged, that 
    resolution is also subject to immediate disposition as the House 
    shall determine.
        The implied power under the Constitution for the House to deal 
    directly with matters necessary to preserve and exercise its 
    legislative authority; the provision in rule IX that questions of 
    privilege of the House shall have precedence of all other 
    questions; and the fact that the report of the committee has been 
    filed by the gentleman from West Virginia as privileged--all refute 
    the argument that the 3-day layover requirement of clause 27(d)(4) 
    applies in this situation.
        The Chair holds that the report is of such high privilege under 
    the inherent constitutional powers of the House and under rule IX 
    that the provisions of clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI are not 
    applicable.

[[Page 3198]]

        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.



[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c17_txt-65]                         

[Page 3198-3204]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 64. Supplemental, Minority, and Additional Views

    The procedure for the filing of supplemental and other views was 
substantially revised by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970.(22) As stated in the report (23) of the 
Committee on Rules on H.R. 17654 (which became the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970), the act amended House Rule XI clause 27(d) 
by adding to that clause a new subparagraph (3),(24) which 
specifically provided for the filing of supplemental, minority, and 
additional views for inclusion in reports of standing, select, and 
special committees of the House. The report states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970).
23. H. Rept. No. 91-1215, 116 Cong. Rec. 20276, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 17, 1970.
24. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The proposed new subparagraph (3) provides that, if, at the 
    time any measure or matter is approved and ordered reported by any 
    standing, select, or special committee of the House, any member of 
    the committee gives notice of his intent to file supplemental, 
    minority, or additional views with respect to that measure or 
    matter for inclusion in the committee report, that committee member 
    is entitled to at least three calendar days, before the day on 
    which the committee report is filed, to file those views, in 
    writing, with the committee clerk. When those views are timely 
    filed, it is required that those views be included within and 
    constitute a part of the report of that House committee on the 
    measure or matter being reported.
        The proposed new subparagraph (3) further provides that such 
    report shall be printed in a single volume.
        This single volume must include all supplemental, minority, and 
    additional views which have been submitted by the time of the 
    filing of the report, irrespective of whether any member of such 
    House committee has given timely notice of his intent to file any 
    such views with the committee clerk and thus, under the proposed 
    new subparagraph (3), is entitled to three calendar days (or 
    shorter period of time if he specifically requests a shorter 
    period) in which to file those views.
        It is further required that the single volume containing the 
    report of the House committee shall have on its front cover a 
    statement that supplemental, minority, or additional views, as the 
    case may be, are included as a part of that report.
        The proposed new subparagraph (3) of clause 27(d) of House Rule 
    XI also contains a provision to the effect that if a member of a 
    House committee, who intends to file supplemental, minority, or 
    additional views with respect to a measure or matter approved and 
    ordered reported by his committee, does

[[Page 3199]]

    not give timely notice of his intent to file--that is, notice given 
    by or at the time the measure or matter is approved and ordered 
    reported by the committee--then the proposed new subparagraph (3) 
    does not prevent the immediate filing and printing of the report of 
    the House committee on the measure or matter concerned. Further, 
    the proposed subparagraph does not preclude the filing of 
    supplemental reports to correct technical errors in previous 
    reports.

    The effect of the new subparagraph is to formalize the previously 
existing policy of many standing committees under which committee 
members could file supplemental, minority, or additional views as a 
matter of courtesy. Under the former practice, committee members could, 
under certain circumstances, obtain unanimous consent to file such 
views. Under the rule, committee members may now file their views as a 
matter of right and if one member makes a timely request for filing 
views, all other members of the committee may submit views for 
inclusion in the report up to the time that member submits his views. 
Furthermore, the right is extended to members of select and special 
committees as well as standing committees.

Supplemental Reports Correcting Technical Errors

Sec. 64.1 The chairman of a committee will sometimes obtain unanimous 
    consent to file a supplemental report on a bill in order to correct 
    a technical error in the original report. However, the rules permit 
    the filing of a supplemental report to correct a technical error in 
    a previous report, and unanimous consent is not required.

    On Jan. 27, 1972,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, Chairman of the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs, who made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 1527, 1528, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. See also 104 Cong. 
        Rec. 5693, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 28, 1958 [H.R. 2767].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
    Interior and Insular Affairs have until midnight tonight to file a 
    supplemental report on H.R. 10086, a bill to provide increases in 
    appropriation ceilings and boundary changes in certain units of the 
    national park system, and for other purposes.

    The request was granted, and the supplemental report was filed.
    As a discussion four days later (2) revealed, the 
supplemental report was filed in order to correct a technical error in 
the previous report. Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, pointed this 
out, stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 118 Cong. Rec. 1707, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he committee in making some 22 changes that had to 
    comply

[[Page 3200]]

    with the Ramseyer rule inadvertently missed one of them. Rather 
    than request the waiver of points of order, the distinguished 
    chairman had a supplemental report prepared to cover that instance.
        Parliamentarian's Note: The rules permit the filing of a 
    supplemental report to correct a technical error in a previous 
    report without the requirement of unanimous consent but the three-
    day rule (Rule XI clause 2(l)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 
    [1979]) runs anew from the availability of the supplemental report. 
    The applicable provision in the then-prevailing rules (i.e., in the 
    92d Cong. 2d Sess.), was found in Rule XI clause 27(d)(3)(ii) [H. 
    Jour. 1603, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (1972)]. Such authority does not 
    include the filing of a supplemental report to change statements of 
    the legislative intent contained in the initial report.

    Rule XI clause 27(d)(3) noted, in pertinent part, that:

        If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by any 
    committee (except the Committee on Rules) any member of the 
    committee, gives notice of intention to file supplemental . . . 
    views, that member [would have not less than three calendar days 
    (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays), in which to 
    file such views, in writing and signed by that member, with the 
    clerk of the committee.

    It [clause 27(d)(3), Rule XI] further provided that:

        All such views so filed by one or more members of the committee 
    shall be included within, and shall be a part of, the report filed 
    by the committee with respect to that measure or matter. The report 
    of the committee upon that measure or matter shall be printed in a 
    single volume which--
        (A) shall include all supplemental, minority, or additional 
    views which have been submitted by the time of the filing of the 
    report. . .

    The clause [27(d)(3)] additionally stated, however, that the 
aforementioned subparagraph did not preclude:

        . . . (ii) the filing by any such committee of any supplemental 
    report upon any measure or matter which may be required for the 
    correction of any technical error in a previous report made by that 
    committee upon that measure or matter.

Sec. 64.2 By unanimous consent, the Committee on the Judiciary was 
    permitted to file a supplemental report on a bill proposing changes 
    in existing law, in order to comply with the Ramseyer rule.

    On Sept. 30, 1970,(3) Mr. Robert W. Kastenmeier, of 
Wisconsin, sought and obtained unanimous consent to file a supplemental 
report on H.R. 2175, a bill dealing with residential community 
treatment centers, in order to comply with the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 34302, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 64.3 By unanimous consent, the Committee on Interstate

[[Page 3201]]

    and Foreign Commerce was given permission to file a supplemental 
    report on a bill previously reported.

    On Sept. 24, 1962,(4) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce have permission to file a supplemental report on 
H.R. 11581, dealing with drug amendments of 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 20522, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequent Filing of Minority Views Accompanying Reports

Sec. 64.4 The minority members of a committee may, by unanimous 
    consent, be permitted to file minority views, to accompany a House 
    report previously filed and printed, as part 2 of such report.

    On May 3, 1962,(5) Charles S. Gubser, of California, a 
member of the Committee on Armed Services, sought and obtained 
unanimous consent to file minority views on the bill, H.R. 5532, and 
that these minority views be printed as part 2 of the committee report 
on that bill.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Conc. Rec. 7747, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 
        5376, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1962 [H. Rept. No. 87-
        1471].
 6. Compare Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 
        (1979) which provides, in relevant part, that the ``report of 
        the committee upon that measure or matter shall be printed in a 
        single volume'' (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erroneous Signatures

Sec. 64.5 A Member announced to the House that, through error, he had 
    been listed as one of the signers of the minority views 
    accompanying a committee report.

    On June 5, 1959,(7) after being given permission to 
extend his remarks in the Record, Mr. Thomas J. Lane, of Massachusetts, 
called to the attention of the House that on June 2, 1959, his name was 
erroneously listed in House Report No. 86-422 accompanying H.R. 3 from 
the Committee on the Judiciary, as a signatory to the minority views. 
Mr. Lane stated that he was in favor of the legislation in question, a 
bill to establish rules for federal courts in cases involving the 
doctrine of federal preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.105 Cong. Rec. 10014, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adding Signatures

Sec. 64.6 Where certain Members have obtained permission of the House 
    to file minority views, additional signatures may be appended at a 
    later

[[Page 3202]]

    time only by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 2, 1963,(8) Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent that Mr. William M. McCulloch, of 
Ohio, and Mr. Garner E. Shriver, of Kansas, have permission to add 
their names to the additional views filed that day by minority members 
of the Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to the unanimous-consent 
agreement obtained by Mr. John V. Lindsay, of New York, on Nov. 26, 
1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cono. Rec. 23008, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 64.7 Leave to file minority views while the House is not in 
    session is granted by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 2, 1963, Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota, sought and 
obtained unanimous consent that ``the report referred to directly above 
may be filed at any time up until midnight tonight.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See the proceedings at 109 Cong. Rec. 23008, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        discussed further in Sec. 64.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Reporting of Rule for Consideration

Sec. 64.8 The filing (by unanimous consent) of a supplemental report on 
    a bill previously reported, does not prevent consideration of the 
    bill even though the rule providing for consideration of the bill 
    was reported before the filing of the report.

    On Feb. 29, 1940,(10) Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
raised a point of order against consideration of a bill on the ground 
that the bill had been so amended that it was no longer the same bill 
which the Committee on Rules had studied when it recommended adoption 
of a special rule making in order the consideration of the bill. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ultimately decided that the rule 
recommended by the Committee on Rules providing for consideration of 
the bill was broad enough to permit consideration of the bill even 
though the legislative committee's supplemental report, filed after the 
Committee on Rules had recommended approval
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 2178-87, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Res. 249 (which involved the calling up of S. 685, a water 
        pollution control bill) which was reported from the Committee 
        on Rules on July 10, 1939. Subsequently, on Feb. 20, 1940, the 
        Committee on Rivers and Harbors offered, with permission of the 
        House, a supplemental report which recommended amendments not 
        included in the original committee report. The rule was called 
        up in the House on Feb. 29, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3203]]

of the special rule, suggested major amendments to the bill

    The situation on the floor was described in the following manner by 
Mr. Michener: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 2183-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        What I am getting at is this: A bill was introduced in the 
    House. The committee introducing the bill asked for a rule 
    reporting that bill. The Rules Committee granted a rule reporting a 
    specific bill. Later the legislative committee came in and asked 
    unanimous consent that a supplementary report might befiled on the 
    original bill. That consent was granted. A supplementary report was 
    filed, which includes the Senate bill, which is an entirely 
    different bill than the Rules Committee authorized a rule for.
        Therefore, if you consider the Senate bill in connection with 
    the report, there will be before the House a piece of legislation 
    on which a rule was never granted, about which the Rules Committee 
    knew nothing. The point of the whole thing is this: If that can be 
    done, then, by subterfuge, a committee may bring a perfectly 
    harmless bill before the Rules Committee and get a rule, and then 
    by a later supplemental report absolutely change the bill and still 
    have a place on the legislative program.

    Following a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Michener as to whether 
this procedure was valid under the House rules, Speaker Rayburn 
responded:

        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Michener], who raises this 
    question by parliamentary inquiry, of course, is familiar with the 
    general principle that all proposed action touching the rules, 
    joint rules, and orders of business shall be referred to the 
    Committee on Rules. Under a broad, uniform construction of that 
    jurisdiction, the Rules Committee, as the Chair understands it, has 
    practically plenary power, unreserved and unrestricted power, to 
    submit for the consideration of the House any order of business it 
    sees fit to submit, subject, of course, to the approval of the 
    House.
        The Chair, of course, knows nothing about what was in the minds 
    of the committee in reference to this legislation. The Chair can 
    only look at the face of the record as it is presented from a 
    parliamentary standpoint. As the Chair construes the resolution now 
    pending, it is very broad in its terms. It provides for the 
    consideration of a Senate bill pending on the Union Calendar and 
    the Chair assumes that the Committee on Rules was requested to give 
    a rule for the consideration of that bill, which was the original 
    basis for any legislation that may be passed touching this subject 
    of stream pollution.
        In conformance with the general power and jurisdiction of the 
    Rules Committee, it did report a resolution providing that in the 
    consideration of the Senate bill any germane amendments may be 
    offered; and, of course, it is not the province of the Chair, 
    presiding over the House, to determine the relevancy or germaneness 
    of any amendment that may be submitted in the Committee of the 
    Whole, whether by way of a substitute or by way of amendment.
        The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the Rules Committee 
    had a per

[[Page 3204]]

    fect right under the general authority conferred upon it to report 
    this resolution providing for this method of consideration of the 
    bill.
