[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[D. Jurisdiction of Committees]
[Â§ 27. Referral of Measures to Committees; Procedure]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2764-2775]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 27. Referral of Measures to Committees; Procedure

Examination and Referral of Proposed Bills

Sec. 27.1 Referral of an executive communication or a bill drafted to 
    implement a policy set forth in a Presidential message is not 
    necessarily to the same committee to which the message was 
    referred.

    On Feb. 1, 1966,(17) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, laid before the House a message (H. Doc. No. 374), on 
the foreign aid program from the President which, after being read, was 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 1711, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
            For more detailed information on the subject of referral, 
        see Ch. 16 Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, initiated the 
following exchange with the Speaker: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 1716, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hall: Referring to the first of the Presidential messages 
    today, the one on foreign aid, in view of the last paragraph of 
    article VIII . . . concerning the submission of two separate 
    bills,(l9) my parliamentary inquiry would involve two 
    questions: First, would reference of the President's message to the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs of this House automatically involve 
    reference of bills referred to therein to the same committee of 
    this House? (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The President's message pointed out [id. at p. 1713], that 
        authorization requests for economic aid and military aid were 
        being proposed in separate bills.
20. For Mr. Halls' second inquiry, see Sec. 27.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: It would depend upon the nature of the bill. The 
    answer as to one does not necessarily follow as to the other. On 
    the other hand, the provisions of the bill and the Rules of the 
    House would govern.

Speaker Declines to Speculate About Referral

Sec. 27.2 Until a proposed bill has been examined, the Speaker declines 
    to speculate as to what committee would have jurisdiction.

    On Feb. 1, 1966,(21) shortly after a message (H. Doc. 
No. 374), from
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 112 Cong. Rec. 1716, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2765]]

the President on foreign aid was laid before the House, read, and 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Durward G. Hall, of 
Missouri, posed a parliamentary inquiry to Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, which resulted in the following exchange:

        The second portion of my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, if 
    I may continue, is this: In view of the fact that the military and 
    economic authorization requests are to be contained, according to 
    the President's message, in two separate bills--again, for the 
    first time in some years--would the military authorization part 
    thereof, when submitted, apparently by the administration, per this 
    message, be referred to the Legislative Committee on Armed Services 
    of this House, or would it go to the Committee on Foreign Affairs?
        The Speaker: The Chair is not prepared to answer that inquiry 
    at the present time, because the answer to the second inquiry would 
    relate back to the first inquiry made by the gentleman from 
    Missouri, and the response of the Chair to that inquiry.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the second question is related to 
    the first question, that question being answered that it does not 
    necessarily follow that specific legislation would be referred to 
    the committee to which the message would be referred.
        Mr. Hall: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker: Therefore, the Chair does not feel able to pass 
    upon the second inquiry until the Chair has had an opportunity to 
    observe the provisions of the bill.

Indivisibility of Bill for Referral Purposes

Sec. 27.3 Under the previous rule, a bill could not be divided and 
    referred to two or more committees.

    On Jan. 13, 1941,(22) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
obtained unanimous consent to have a resolution adopted by the 
Committee on Military Affairs [now the Committee on Armed Services] 
read to the House. The resolution directed the chairman of that 
committee ``at the first opportunity available to him'' to move to 
rerefer H.R. 1776, the so-called ``LendLease'' or ``Aid to Britain'' 
bill from the Committee on Foreign Affairs to the Committee on Military 
Affairs. It further provided that if such motion should be overruled by 
the Speaker, the chairman should appeal from such decision to the 
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 87 Cong. Rec. 127, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following exchange took place immediately after the Clerk read 
the resolution:

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (23) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 2766]]

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, as I 
    understand, and I inquire of the Chair if my understanding is 
    correct, a bill cannot be divided and referred to two or more 
    committees?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As of 1973, a bill could not be subdivided 
per se in the course of referral. However, where a measure contained 
two subjects which were related but which fell within the jurisdiction 
of different committees, the legislative initiative was sometimes 
assumed by the committee having the primary concern for the subject 
matter with the understanding that the other committee involved would 
have an opportunity to consider that portion of the legislation within 
its jurisdiction and to handle the relevant portions of the bill should 
it be brought to the floor of the House.
    In the 94th Congress,(1) the House changed the rules 
regarding the divisibility and reference of measures and other matters 
to the committees. As a result, the indivisibility of bills for 
purposes of reference must be regarded as an historical matter and not 
as a principle which is currently observed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule X clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 700 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Division and Referral of Presidential Message

Sec. 27.4 The House has agreed to divide a message from the President 
    for referral to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
    the Union and to the Committee on Appropriations.

    On Jan. 21, 1946,(2) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, laid before the House a message 
(3) from the President on the state of the Union and 
transmitting the budget. After the Clerk read the President's message, 
the following exchange took place: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 164, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The text of the message appears at 92 Cong. Rec. 136-155, 79th 
        Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 165, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the President's message and the accompanying report from the 
    Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion be referred to the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered 
    to be printed, and so much of the President's message as relates to 
    the budget be referred to the Committee on Appropriations and 
    ordered to be printed.

[[Page 2767]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Tennessee.
        The motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXIV clause 2 (see House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 882 [1979]) provides that ``Messages from the President 
shall be referred to the appropriate committees without debate.'' While 
messages from the President (other than an annual message) are usually 
referred directly to a standing committee by direction of the Speaker, 
they may be referred by the House itself to one or more committees by 
dividing the message on motion by a Member (see 5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 6631; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3348), and such motion is 
privileged.

Timing of Motion to Correct Referral

Sec. 27.5 The Chair has stated that he will not recognize any motion to 
    correct referral of a bill to a committee prior to his own referral 
    thereof.

    On June 6, 1949,(5) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, 
addressed Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, and inquired as to the status 
of a bill (S. 1008), to provide a two-year moratorium with respect to 
the application of certain antitrust laws. The Chair having responded 
that the measure was on the Speaker's table, the following exchange 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 7255, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: Will it be referred to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary?
        The Speaker:  The Chair does not know about that.
        Mr. Patman: What action will be necessary in order to get it 
    referred to the committee?
        The Speaker: It is the duty and the privilege of the Chair to 
    refer bills to whatever committee he desires, after consultation 
    with the Parliamentarian, of course. The Chair will not recognize 
    any motion in that regard at this time.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XXIV clause 2, the Speaker is 
not required to immediately refer Senate bills to committee, and the 
right to correct the referral by motion of the committees concerned 
only becomes applicable after the Speaker has referred the bill.

Amending Motion to Refer

Sec. 27.6 Where a motion to refer a Presidential message to a 
    particular committee is sought to be challenged by the chairman of 
    another committee claiming jurisdiction thereof, the appropriate 
    procedure is to offer an

[[Page 2768]]

    amendment to the motion to refer; but such an amendment is not in 
    order unless the original movant yields for that purpose or unless 
    the previous question on the motion to refer is voted down.

    On June 3, 1937,(6) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, laid before the House a message (H. Doc. No. 261), from the 
President pertaining to creation of regional authorities or agencies to 
study regional conservation and development of national water 
resources. Immediately thereafter,(7) Mr. William M. 
Whittington, of Mississippi, moved that the message be referred to the 
Committee on Flood Control(8) and ordered to be printed. 
Joseph J. Mansfield, of Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Rivers and 
Harbors, then rose to propound a parliamentary inquiry, to which the 
Speaker responded as follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 5296, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Id. at p. 5297.
 8. The Committee on Flood Control and the Committee on Rivers and 
        Harbors were eventually merged into the Committee on Public 
        Works; see Rule X clause l(p), House Rules and Manual Sec. 685 
        (1979).
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 5298, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas propounds a parliamentary inquiry to 
    the Chair as to whether the gentleman would be entitled to offer as 
    a substitute for the motion made by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    a motion to refer the President's message to the Committee on 
    Rivers and Harbors.
        The Chair, anticipating that this question might arise, has 
    looked rather fully into the precedents in reference thereto and 
    finds that on April 4, 1933, when Mr. Rainey was Speaker of the 
    House, this identical proposition was presented.
        At that time it will be recalled that a bill was pending with 
    reference to the refinancing of farm-mortgage indebtedness. Two 
    committees claimed jurisdiction of the subject matter of that bill, 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency and the Committee on 
    Agriculture.
        When the President's message was read the chairman of the 
    Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones], 
    moved that the President's message be referred to the Committee on 
    Agriculture. Thereupon the specific inquiry now propounded by the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] was made.
        The Chair reads the query and the answer of the Speaker:

            Mr. Steagall. Mr. Speaker, I desire at the proper time to 
        submit a substitute motion that the message be referred to the 
        Committee on Banking and Currency.

        Mr. Jones said:

            Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for that purpose.

        The Speaker stated:

            The gentleman from Texas does not yield. It is necessary to 
        vote

[[Page 2769]]

        down the previous question before that motion will be in order.

        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whittington] is entitled to 
    1 hour, and the Chair understands he has perfected an arrangement 
    with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] by which he will 
    yield to the gentleman from Texas one-half of that time. At the 
    conclusion of the debate of 1 hour the Chair assumes the gentleman 
    from Mississippi will move the previous question on the motion 
    referring the message to the Committee on Flood Control. If the 
    previous question should be voted down, then the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Mansfield] would have the right and privilege of 
    offering an amendment to the motion to refer the message.

    Debate ensued, and upon the expiration of time, Mr. Whittington 
moved the previous question on the motion. After the previous question 
was rejected, the following exchange took place: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. Id. at p. 5306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mansfield: Mr. Speaker, I now move that the message of the 
    President be referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and 
    on that motion I move the previous question.
        Mr. Whittington: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Whittington: Mr. Speaker, there is now pending the motion I 
    made that the message of the President be referred to the Committee 
    on Flood Control. It occurs to me the motion made by the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] is improper, and that the proper motion 
    would be to amend my motion, if the gentleman desires that the 
    message be referred to his committee. My point is there is a motion 
    pending and an independent motion would not be in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair, upon reconsideration, is of the opinion 
    the proper procedure would be for the gentleman from Texas to offer 
    an amendment to the pending motion, to the effect that the message 
    of the President be referred to the Committee on Rivers and 
    Harbors.
        Mr. Mansfield: Mr. Speaker, I make that motion at this time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment to 
    the motion, which the Clerk will report.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mansfield moves, as an amendment to the motion made by 
        the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whittington], to refer the 
        President's message to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Immediately thereafter, Mr. Whittington 
stated that ``in view of the action of the House,'' he desired to 
withdraw his motion by unanimous consent in order that Mr. Mansfield 
might present his own motion. Unanimous consent was granted, whereupon 
Mr. Mansfield sought the referral of the Presidential message to the 
Committee on Rivers and Harbors as an independent motion. The

[[Page 2770]]

previous question was ordered, and the motion was agreed 
to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 5307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Order Against Consideration Based on Erroneous Referral

Sec. 27.7 While the rules provide that the erroneous reference of a 
    public bill may be corrected on any day after the reading of the 
    Journal, it is not in order to raise a question of committee 
    jurisdiction after a public bill has been reported.

    On Jan. 26, 1938,(12) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, recognized Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, Chairman of the 
Committee on Military Affairs (now the Committee on Armed Services), 
who, by direction of that committee called up a bill (H.R. 8176), 
providing for continuing retirement pay, under specified conditions, of 
certain officers and former officers of the Army, Navy, and Marine 
Corps. After several unanimous-consent requests pertaining to other 
matters, the Clerk read the title of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 83 Cong. Rec. 1142, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this juncture, Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, rose to advance the 
following point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 8176) that the bill was not 
    referred to the proper committee, the proper committee being the 
    Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation [now the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs]. Instead, the bill was referred to the Committee 
    on Military Affairs, and a report has been made by that committee.
        In support of the point of order it is necessary I give just a 
    little of the history of this legislation. In March 1928 the 
    Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation by a vote of 8 to 7 
    voted in favor of the retired emergency officers' bill. This bill 
    passed the House on May 24, 1928, I believe, and was enacted into 
    law before the first of June. This law provides for the retirement 
    of emergency officers according to their rank and all amendments to 
    this law should be referred back to the committee which passed on 
    the original bill.
        I invite the attention of the Chair to the fact that even an 
    amendment to the Clayton Act, which involves interstate commerce 
    alone, is invariably referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
    although one would think it would go to the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce, for the reason the House Committee on the 
    Judiciary is the committee which originally considered the Clayton 
    Act. This same principle is involved here.

    Mr. Patman continued to discuss the matter--stating that those who 
drafted the measure may have been motivated by the belief that they 
could not obtain a

[[Page 2771]]

favorable report from the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation; 
that the chairman of the latter committee was unavoidably absent 
because of illness; and that his committee was planning to hold 
hearings on the outright repeal of the law which H.R. 8176 would amend.
    The Chair then recognized Mr. May who responded to Mr. Patman's 
point of order, as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 1143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I should like to give to the distinguished 
    chairman of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation any 
    consideration to which he would be entitled under the ordinary 
    procedure of the House, but I make the point of order at this time 
    against the point of order of the gentleman from Texas that it 
    comes too late, because the committee to which the bill was 
    referred has already had hearings on the bill and made its report.

    Mr. Patman replied by contending that this was the first time he 
had had an opportunity to raise a point of order against the bill's 
consideration. The Speaker then announced his ruling:

        The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] raises the point of order 
    against consideration of the bill, that it was not referred under 
    the rules of the House to the Committee on World War Veterans' 
    Legislation, to which, according to his contention, it should have 
    originally been referred.
        Pending that question the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. May], 
    the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, raises the point 
    of order that the point of order made by the gentleman from Texas 
    comes too late.
        In view of that issue being raised the Chair feels it is his 
    duty primarily to dispose of that question, because a disposition 
    of that question, possibly, might settle the original point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Texas.
        This is not a matter of first impression, the Chair will state, 
    as there have been a number of decisions and precedents upon this 
    particular question. The Chair refers especially to a decision made 
    by Mr. Speaker Longworth, as reported in volume 7 of Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, section 2113:
        After a public bill has been reported--
        Which, of course, means after it has been reported by a 
    committee of the House--
        it is not in order to raise a question of committee 
        jurisdiction.

        The Speaker said:

            ``The Chair recalls when this bill was before him for 
        reference that he examined into the matter and it was quite 
        clear that the reference was correct, in view of the fact this 
        is an amendment of the Federal Reserve Act, and under the rules 
        the Committee on Banking and Currency has jurisdiction of 
        questions arising under the Federal Reserve Act; but whether 
        that be true or not, the point of order is evidently made too 
        late. The precedents are uniform that after a public bill has 
        been reported, it is too late to raise the

[[Page 2772]]

        point of order as to the jurisdiction of the committee.''. . .

        The Chair thinks it proper, however, in reply to the suggestion 
    made by the gentleman from Texas that this is the first opportunity 
    he has had to raise this point of order, to state that under the 
    rules the chairman of a committee seeking jurisdiction, or any 
    other Member of the House, has the privilege, after bills are 
    introduced and referred, to raise the question of jurisdiction by 
    proceeding under clause 3 of rule XXII.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The equivalent of that clause is contained within Rule XXII clause 
        4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979), the pertinent 
        portion of which provides that ``all bills, resolutions, and 
        documents referred under the rules shall be entered on the 
        Journal and printed in the Record of the next day, and 
        correction in case of error of reference may be made by the 
        House, without debate, in accordance with Rule X [which 
        delineates committees' jurisdiction] on any day immediately 
        after the reading of the Journal, by unanimous consent, or on 
        motion of a committee claiming jurisdiction, or on the report 
        of the committee to which the bill has been erroneously 
        referred [emphasis supplied].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated and in view of the precedents which to 
    the Chair seem to be well reasoned, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Kentucky that the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from Texas comes too late.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For more information on the introduction and reference of bills and 
        resolutions, see Ch. 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  27.8 Where a bill has been reported to the House and placed on 
    the appropriate calendar, a point of order that the measure was 
    improperly referred may not be entertained when it is called up 
    for, consideration under suspension of the rules.

    On June 21, 1943,(16) the House suspended the rules and 
entertained consideration of a bill (H.R. 2703), relating to veterans' 
laws pertaining to compensation, pensions, and retirement pay payable 
by the Veterans' Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 6209, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly after the Clerk read the bill, Speaker pro tempore Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. John Lesinski, of Michigan, who 
stated:

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the bill is 
    improperly brought in by the Committee on World War Veterans' 
    Legislation [subsequently incorporated into the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs] and that it belongs to the Committee on Invalid 
    Pensions [also incorporated into the Committee on Veterans' 
    Affairs].
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order comes too late. The 
    committee has reported the bill, and it is now under consideration 
    under a suspension of the rules.
        Mr. Lesinski: I know; but Mr. Speaker, the bill was brought in 
    to the

[[Page 2773]]

    Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation in typewritten form on 
    one day, passed the same day, and filed the same day. There was no 
    time for the chairman of any other committee to make an objection 
    at the time.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: The gentleman from 
    Michigan does not know it, but a motion to suspend the rules 
    suspends all rules.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The purpose of a motion to suspend the 
    rules, of course, is to suspend all rules of the House.

Sec. 27.9 A point of order against specific language of a paragraph in 
    a bill, on grounds that its subject matter is within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee, does not lie once the bill has 
    been reported; and a point of order against such language based on 
    the germaneness rule does not lie, since that rule requires 
    germaneness of amendments, rather than specific provisions of the 
    bill itself.

    On July 27, 1955,(17) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
7474), to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act to authorize 
appropriations for continuing the construction of highways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 101 Cong. Rec. 11689, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of that consideration, Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of 
New York, recognized Mr. H.R. Gross, of Iowa, who raised the following 
point of order: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 11710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the language in 
    section 14(a), page 30, lines 20 to 25, and page 31, lines 1 to 3; 
    reading as follows:

            Sec. 14. (a) The Secretary of Commerce, to the extent he 
        deems it necessary and appropriate in order to carry out the 
        provisions of this act, is authorized to place 2 positions in 
        the Bureau of Public Roads in grade 18 and a total of 20 
        positions in grades 16 and 17 of the General Schedule 
        established by the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. Such 
        positions shall be in lieu of any positions in the Bureau of 
        Public Roads previously allocated under section 505 of such 
        act.

        I make the point of order that this language is a violation of 
    the Classification Act of 1949, that it is an invasion of the 
    prerogatives of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, and is 
    not germane to the bill.

    The Chair responded, as follows:

        The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa that since the 
    provisions to which his point of order is directed are provisions 
    in the bill that has been reported from the standing committee [the 
    Committee on Public Works] the point of order is not well taken at 
    this time.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    The Chair's ruling immediately prompted Mr. Gross to seek some

[[Page 2774]]

clarification with a parliamentary inquiry:

        At what time would the point of order be well taken?
        The Chairman: The Chair would say to the gentleman from Iowa 
    that in the opinion of the Chair the point of order would not be 
    well taken at any time, inasmuch as the provisions to which the 
    point of order is directed are contained in the bill as introduced 
    and reported.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that once the committee 
had reported out the bill, any point of order based on an allegedly 
erroneous referral had been rendered untimely. The point of order based 
on germaneness did not lie since the language in question was contained 
in the bill and not in an amendment.

Referral of Senate Bills on Table

Sec.  27.10 The Speaker has responded to a parliamentary inquiry to 
    indicate to which committee he might refer a Senate bill on the 
    Speaker's table--under his discretionary authority to refer Senate 
    bills contained in Rule XXIV clause 2.

    On Mar. 14, 1935,(19) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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 regarding 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

[[Page 2775]]

    the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee that the ranking 
    minority member of that committee should have an opportunity to be 
    here, or at least 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.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 3626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And, on the following day,(21~) the Speaker referred the 
measure to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 79 Cong. Rec. 3776, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 15, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------