[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[E. Committee on Rules]
[Â§ 53. Jurisdiction and Scope of Authority]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------