[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[D. Jurisdiction of Committees]
[§ 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.