[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[E. Committee on Rules]
[Â§ 52. History and Role]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------