[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[E. Committee on Rules]
[Â§ 55. Reports From the Committee]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3080-3099]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 55. Reports From the Committee

    A report from the Committee on Rules on rules, joint rules, or 
order of business is privileged.
    It may report at any time on ``rules, joint rules, and order of 
business.'' (8) It is always in order to call up the 
committee's reports providing that the matter reported is within its 
jurisdiction(9) and providing that if a measure is reported 
on the same day it is called up in the House, at least two-thirds of 
the Members present vote affirmatively to consider the 
report;(10) this latter proviso is inapplicable during the 
last three days of a session.(11) Pending the consideration 
of the report, the Speaker may entertain one motion to adjourn, but 
after the result is announced, no dilatory motion is permissible. The 
rule expressly prohibits the committee from reporting any special rule 
which ``shall operate to prevent the motion to recommit'' as provided 
elsewhere [Rule XVI clause 4] in the rules, although it should be noted 
that a motion to recommit a special rule from the committee, itself, is 
not in order. The committee is also expressly prohibited from reporting 
a special rule which sets aside business under the Calendar Wednesday 
provi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
 9. The inclusion of nonprivileged matter vitiates the privilege.
10. Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979).
11. See Sec. 56.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3081]]

sions(12) of the rules by a vote of less than two-thirds of 
the Members present. Although the rule grants privileged status to the 
committee's reports, they yield to questions of privilege and are not 
in order after the House has voted to go into the Committee of the 
Whole. Moreover, a conference report takes precedence over a committee 
report.(13) No rule reported by the committee providing a 
special order of business is divisible.(1) The privileged 
status of a measure may be lost through the inclusion of nonprivileged 
matter.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. A resolution making this ultimate result possible has been held in 
        order, however; see House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(b) (1979).
            For the Calendar Wednesday rule, see Rule XXIV clause 7, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1979).
13. See Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979).
 1. Rule XVI clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 791 (1979).
 2. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 727 (1979) and Sec. 55.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XI (3) mandates that the committee ``present to the 
House reports concerning rules, joint rules, and order of business, 
within three legislative days of the time when ordered reported by the 
committee.'' This rule additionally provides that if a special rule is 
not considered immediately, ``it shall be referred to the calendar and, 
if not called up by the Member making the report within seven 
legislative days thereafter, any member of the Rules Committee may call 
it up as a privileged matter and the Speaker shall recognize any member 
of the Rules Committee seeking recognition for that purpose (emphasis 
supplied).'' The rule also provides that an adversely reported 
resolution may be called up for consideration by any Member of the 
House on those days set aside for motions to discharge committees, and 
the Speaker is obliged to recognize the Member seeking recognition for 
that purpose ``as a question of the highest privilege.'' (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Clause 4(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1979).
 4. For extensive treatment of committee procedure with respect to 
        special orders and the order of business, generally, see Ch. 
        21, infra. See also Ch. 18, infra, with respect to motions to 
        discharge matters from the 
        committee.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Privileged Status of Reports

Sec. 55.1 A resolution establishing a standing (or a select) committee 
    [but not specifically amending the rules of the House], is reported 
    and called up as privileged by the Committee on Rules.

[[Page 3082]]

    On Apr. 6, 1967,(5) the Record reveals that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 8622, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi] from the Committee on 
    Rules, filed a privileged report (H. Res. 418, Rept. No. 178) which 
    was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

    One week later, on Apr. 13, 1967,(6) the following 
exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 9425, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 418 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That there is hereby established a standing 
        committee of the House of Representatives to be known as the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (hereafter referred 
        to as the ``committee''). The committee shall be composed of 
        twelve Members of the House of Representatives. Six members of 
        the committee shall be members of the majority party and six 
        shall be members of the minority party.
            Sec. 2. The jurisdiction of the committee shall be to 
        recommend as soon as practicable to the House of 
        Representatives such changes in laws, rules, and regulations as 
        the committee deems necessary to establish and enforce 
        standards of official conduct for Members, officers, and 
        employees of the House.
            Sec. 3. The committee may hold such hearings and take such 
        testimony as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this 
        resolution.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from 
    Mississippi is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 8, 1969,(8) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Illinois, 
introduced a resolution (H. Res. 472), creating a select committee to 
be known as the Committee on the House Restaurant. The resolution was 
referred to the Committee on Rules which reported it on July 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 18714, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two days later, on July 10, 1969,(9) Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Madden who proceeded to 
make the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 19080, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up 
    House Resolution 472 and ask for its immediate consideration.

    The resolution was then read by the Clerk, as follows:

                                H. Res. 472

        Resolved, That (a) there is hereby created a select committee 
    to be known as the ``Committee on the House Restaurant,'' which 
    shall be composed of five Members of the House of Representatives 
    to be appointed by the Speaker, not more than three of whom shall 
    be of the majority party, and one of whom shall be designated as 
    chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the committee 
    shall be

[[Page 3083]]

    filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was 
    made.
        (b) On and after July 15, 1969, until otherwise ordered by the 
    House, the Architect of the Capitol shall perform the duties vested 
    in him by section 208 of Public Law 812, 76th Congress (40 U.S.C. 
    174k) under the direction of the select committee herein created.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A resolution creating a standing or a 
select committee is deemed to be the equivalent of a new rule. Hence, 
the privileged status which attaches to such a measure when reported 
out by the Committee on Rules.

Privileged Status of Report on Rules, Joint Rules, or Order of Business

Sec. 55.2 A resolution from the Committee on Rules was not privileged 
    for consideration before the call of committees on Calendar 
    Wednesday.

    On Aug. 21, 1935,(10) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, recognized John J. O'Connor, of New York, Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, who called up the following resolution (H. Res. 
358) which had been reported from his committee on the previous day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 14038, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the remainder of the first session of the 
    Seventy-fourth Congress it shall be in order for the acting 
    majority leader or the Chairman of the Committee on Rules to move 
    that the House take a recess, and said motion is hereby made of the 
    highest privilege; and it shall also be in order at any time during 
    the remainder of the first session of the Seventy-fourth Congress 
    to consider reports of the Committee on Rules, as provided in 
    clause 45, rule XI, except that the provision requiring a two-
    thirds vote to consider such reports is hereby suspended during the 
    remainder of this session of Congress.

    A brief discussion ensued, after which the Chair recognized Mr. 
Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, who initiated the following exchange: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 14039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, this is Calendar Wednesday, and I object to the 
    consideration of the resolution as not being privileged on Calendar 
    Wednesday.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not think the resolution is 
    privileged on Calendar Wednesday.
        Mr. Snell: Then, Mr. Speaker, ask for the regular program.
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The regular order is, This is Calendar Wednesday.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House rules (12) [Rule XI clause 
4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979)], provide that the Com

[[Page 3084]]

mittee on Rules shall have leave to report at any time ``on rules, 
joint rules, and order of business.'' The rules (13) also 
provide, however, that every Wednesday a procedure commonly referred to 
as ``Calendar Wednesday'' shall be followed unless the House decides 
otherwise by a two-thirds vote on a motion to dispense therewith. 
Briefly stated, ``Calendar Wednesday'' provides that the Speaker shall 
call the committees in order [i.e., the order in which listed in the 
rules], and each committee when named may call up any reported bill on 
the House or Union Calendar except those bills which are privileged 
under the rules.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. At the time, Rule XI clause 45; see H. Jour. 1277, 74th Cong. 1st 
        Sess. (1935).
13. Rule XXIV clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 889 (1979); Rule 
        XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1979).
14. For further discussion of calendars, see Ch. 22, infra. Special 
        orders are taken up in Ch. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 55.3 While legislation creating a joint investigative committee is 
    customarily accorded the same privileged status as any other 
    measure within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules, where 
    the proposed legislation includes material or matters not 
    privileged for consideration if reported by the Committee on Rules, 
    that privilege is destroyed. And, in such an instance, the 
    Committee on Rules had to report a special rule making in order the 
    consideration of the measure.

    On June 2, 1937,(15) Mr. Robert L. Doughton, of North 
Carolina, unsuccessfully sought unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 155), to create a Joint 
Congressional Committee on Tax Evasion and Avoidance and to have the 
resolution considered immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 5243-45, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senate Joint Resolution 155 read, in part, as follows:

        Resolved, etc., That (a) there is hereby established a joint 
    congressional committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Tax 
    Evasion and Avoidance (hereinafter referred to as the joint 
    committee).
        (b) The joint committee shall be composed of six Members of the 
    Senate who are members of the Committee on Finance, appointed by 
    the President of the Senate, and six Members of the House of 
    Representatives who are members of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. . . .
        Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the joint committee to 
    investigate the methods of evasion and avoidance of income, estate, 
    and gift taxes, pointed out in the message of the President

[[Page 3085]]

    transmitted to Congress on June 1, 1937, and other methods of tax 
    evasion and avoidance, and to report to the Senate and the House, 
    at the earliest practicable date, and from time to time thereafter, 
    but not later than February 1, 1938, its recommendations as to 
    remedies for the evils disclosed by such investigation.
        Sec. 3. (a) The joint committee, or any subcommittee thereof, 
    shall have power to hold hearings and to sit and act at such places 
    and times, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of 
    such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and 
    documents, to administer such oaths, to take such testimony, to 
    have such printing and binding done, and to make such expenditures, 
    as it deems advisable. . . .
        (b)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury and any officer or 
    employee of the Treasury Department, upon request from the joint 
    committee, shall furnish such committee with any data of any 
    character contained in or shown by any return of income, estate, or 
    gift tax.
        (2) The joint committee shall have the right, acting directly 
    as a committee or by or through such examiners or agents as it may 
    designate or appoint, to inspect any or all such returns at such 
    times and in such manner as it may determine.
        (3) The joint committee shall have the right to submit any 
    relevant or useful information thus obtained to the Senate, the 
    House of Representatives, the Committee on Ways and Means, or the 
    Committee on Finance, and shall have the right to make public, in 
    such cases and to such extent as it may deem advisable, any such 
    information or any such returns. The Committee on Ways and Means or 
    the Committee on Finance may submit such information to the House 
    or to the Senate, or to both the House and the Senate, as the case 
    may be.

        Sec. 4. The joint committee shall have power to employ and fix 
    the compensation of such officers, experts, and employees as it 
    deems necessary for the performance of its duties, but the 
    compensation so fixed shall not exceed the compensation fixed under 
    the Classification Act of 1923, as amended for comparable duties. 
    The joint committee is authorized to utilize the services, 
    information, facilities, and personnel of the departments and 
    agencies in the executive branch of the Government and of the Joint 
    Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation.
        Sec. 5. The joint committee may authorize any one or more 
    officers or employees of the Treasury Department to conduct any 
    part of such investigation on behalf of the committee, and for such 
    purpose any person so authorized may hold such hearings, and 
    require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses 
    and the production of such books, papers, and documents, administer 
    such oaths, and take such testimony as the committee may authorize. 
    In any such case subpenas shall be issued under the signature of 
    the chairman of the joint committee and shall be served by any 
    person designated by him.
        Sec. 6. All authority conferred by this joint resolution shall 
    expire on February 1, 1938.

    Several days later,(16) Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New 
York,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 5369, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 7, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3086]]

raised a point of order against its referral to the Committee on 
Rules,(17) stating, in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. S.J. Res. 155 was taken from the Speaker's table and referred to 
        the Committee on Rules on June 2, 1937. See 81 Cong. Rec. 5262, 
        75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This resolution is much more than an investigation; it is just 
    full of legislation. In the first place, it authorizes an 
    appropriation. It places new duties on the Secretary of the 
    Treasury. It provides for the repeal of the law for publicity of 
    income-tax returns under certain circumstances. It allows this 
    committee to create positions, fix compensation, and so forth. It 
    also delegates new authority to the employees of the Department of 
    the Treasury.

    Commenting on the point of order at the time, Mr. John J. O'Connor, 
of New York, noted:

        This Senate Joint Resolution 155, not being a privileged 
    matter, because it contains provisions as to expenditures required 
    the reporting of a separate House resolution for its consideration.

    As the discussion proceeded, however, Mr. O'Connor did appear to 
concede that the joint resolution may have trespassed in part on the 
jurisdiction of, at least, one standing committee [the Committee on 
Appropriations] as the following exchange indicates:

        Mr. Snell: . . . Would the gentleman maintain that the Rules 
    Committee would have jurisdiction over matter such as is contained 
    in Senate Joint Resolution 155?
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Oh, no; of course it would not. It 
    would not have jurisdiction over appropriations

    Following brief debate, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
overruled the point of order, as follows: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 5370, 5371, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] raises the point of 
    order that Senate Joint Resolution 155 was improperly referred to 
    the Committee on Rules for consideration by that committee. The 
    gentleman from New York further makes the suggestion that although 
    the Rules Committee had reported this resolution back to the House 
    and that it had gone on the calendar, this is his first opportunity 
    to raise a point of order against the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Rules.
        With reference to that particular phase of the gentleman's 
    statement, section 2113 of volume 7 of Cannon's Precedents of the 
    House of Representatives, states:

            After a public bill has been reported, it is not in order 
        to raise a question of jurisdiction.

        Although it may be true, as stated by the gentleman from New 
    York, that this is his first opportunity to raise that question, in 
    view of the fact the bill has already been reported by the 
    committee to which it was referred, the Chair rules it is too late 
    to raise that question.
        On the general proposition raised by the gentleman from New 
    York, the

[[Page 3087]]

    Chair may say this is not a matter of first impression. The 
    question as to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules over 
    joint resolutions creating joint committees to make investigations 
    was decided by Speaker Longworth on April 1, 1930. On that occasion 
    the gentleman from New York, Mr. Snell, Chairman of the Committee 
    on Rules, reported from that committee House Joint Resolution 251, 
    which authorized the appointment of a commission to be composed of 
    Senators, Representatives, and persons to be appointed by the 
    President. The commission was empowered to study the feasibility of 
    equalizing the burden and to minimize the profits of war.
        The report on this joint resolution was referred to the 
    calendar and the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
    Union.
        On April 1, 1930, when Mr. Snell called up the resolution for 
    consideration, Mr. Stafford, of Wisconsin, raised the question as 
    to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules to consider and 
    report on the matters therein contained. In debating the point of 
    order the gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell], among other things, 
    stated:

            We propose setting up a special committee to do a special 
        piece of work, and that comes under the general provision of 
        the rules, because it is a change of the rules for a specific 
        purpose. As far as I know, there has never been any decision 
        against it, and I believe it is entirely in accordance with the 
        rules, because we are changing the rules for a specific 
        purpose, namely, setting up a special committee to do a 
        specific piece of work. As far as I know, all the decisions 
        have been to the effect that such matters are privileged to 
        come from the Committee on Rules.

        That is the end of the argument made by the gentleman from New 
    York at that time on this particular question.
        The Speaker, Mr. Longworth, in deciding the point of order, 
    said:

            It has been the common practice of the present occupant of 
        the chair, and I think of many of his predecessors, to 
        invariably refer bills and joint resolutions which create a 
        joint commission, particularly composed of Members of the 
        House, to the Committee on Rules. There is no other committee 
        to which they could possibly go. It is a change in the rules 
        insofar as it permits and provides that Members of the House 
        shall serve on the commission which it creates.

        It appears to the Chair that the reasoning of the gentleman 
    from New York, enunciated at that time, and the decision of the 
    then Speaker, Mr. Longworth, are sound in principle and in 
    precedent. Acting upon that decision as authority, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While Mr. Snell's point of order was 
overruled,(19) the Committee on Rules did report a special 
rule (H. Res. 226),(1) for the consideration of Senate Joint 
Resolution 155 waiving all points of order against that resolution. 
Hence, the mere fact that the Committee on Rules had primary 
jurisdiction of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 5371.
 1. 81 Cong. Rec. 5442, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3088]]

joint resolution was not sufficient, in itself, to grant the privilege 
normally accorded such matters under the rules.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discharging Resolution From the Committee by Petition

Sec. 55.4 Under the discharge rule, where the Committee on Rules is 
    discharged from further consideration of a resolution, the House 
    immediately votes on adoption of the resolution and amendments are 
    not in order.

    On Jan. 24, 1944,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, who called up a motion 
to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of a 
resolution (H. Res. 29), amending the rules of the House (4) 
for the purpose of extending the jurisdiction of the Committee on World 
War Veterans' Legislation to cover veterans of World War II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 90 Cong. Rec. 629, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Because the resolution was written prior to the adoption of the 
        rules of of the 78th Congress, the measure actually called for 
        an amendment of the rules of the 77th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the ensuing debate, Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North 
Carolina, raised a parliamentary inquiry, thereby initiating the 
following exchange: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 90 Cong. Rec. 631, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I wish to be advised for my own information and for the 
    information of the House as to whether or not this resolution will 
    be subject to amendment in the event of an affirmative vote on the 
    motion to discharge. There seems to be some uncertainty about it.
        The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule,(6) which 
    is very clear:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            If the motion should prevail to discharge the Committee on 
        Rules from any resolution pending before the committee the 
        House shall immediately vote on the adoption of said 
        resolution, the Speaker not entertaining any dilatory or other 
        intervening motions except one motion to adjourn.

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: That is on the resolution 
    itself, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: On the resolution itself.
        Mr. Cooley: My parliamentary inquiry was about the resolution 
    after the discharge of the committee.
        The Speaker: That is exactly what the Chair was reading. It 
    reads: ``On the resolution.'' When the House votes to discharge the 
    committee then the resolution is before the House for a vote.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Cooley again addressed himself to this 
issue:

[[Page 3089]]

        Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the Chair, I should like to 
    invite the attention of the Chair to a provision contained in 
    chapter 5 of rule 24,(7) which provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Mr. Cooley was referring to Rule XXVII clause 4 [H. Jour. 704, 78th 
        Cong. 2d Sess. (1944); see Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 908 (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            If the motion prevails to discharge one of the standing 
        committees of the House from any public bill or resolution 
        pending before the committee it shall then be in order for any 
        Member who signed the motion to move that the House proceed to 
        the immediate consideration of such bill or resolution, such 
        motion not being debatable; and such motion is hereby made of 
        high privilege, and if it shall be decided in the affirmative 
        the bill shall be immediately considered under the general 
        rules of the House and if unfinished before adjournment of the 
        day on which it is called up it shall remain the unfinished 
        business until it is fully disposed of.

        If it is going to be considered under the general rules of the 
    House it occurs to me it will be subject to amendment.

    The Chair replied, as follows:

        It is not considered under the general rules of the House; and, 
    further than that, a legislative committee is not being discharged. 
    The Committee on Rules is not a legislative committee.
        The Chair is going to hold that the resolution is not subject 
    to amendment within the rule we are operating under today. We must 
    do it according to the special rule adopted for discharge.

Ramseyer Rule and Reports of the Rules Committee

Sec. 55.5 A report from the Committee on Rules pertaining to a special 
    rule providing for the consideration of a bill amending existing 
    law was not subject to the provisions of the Ramseyer rule.

    On May 23, 1935,(8) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, recognized Mr. Lawrence Lewis, of Colorado, who called up 
the following resolution (H. Res. 215):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 8094, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
    consideration of H.R. 3019, a hill to amend sections 1, 3, and 15 
    of the act entitled ``An act to stop injury to the public grazing 
    lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, and so 
    forth'', approved June 28, 1934. That after general debate, which 
    shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 1 
    hour to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Public Lands, the bill 
    shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the 
    conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment, the committee 
    shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be consid

[[Page 3090]]

    ered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or 
    without instructions.

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, rose 
to a point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the report does not 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule because it does not show the changes 
    in the law by the proposed bill. I will read the rule which will be 
    found in the Manual on page 338, 2a:

            Whenever a committee reports a bill or joint resolution 
        repealing or amending any statute or part thereof it shall 
        include in its report or in an accompanying document--
            (1) The text of the statute or part thereof which is 
        proposed to be repealed; and
            (2) A comparative print of that part of the bill or joint 
        resolution making the amendment and of the statute or part 
        thereof proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through 
        type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate 
        typographical devices the omissions and insertions proposed to 
        be made.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979), 
        where the identical language may be found as well as this 
        additional clause: ``Provided, however, That if a committee 
        reports such a bill or joint resolution with amendments or an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill, 
        such report shall include a comparative print showing any 
        changes in existing law proposed by the amendments or 
        substitute instead of as in the bill as introduced.'' For 
        further information about the Ramseyer rule, generally, see 
        Sec. 60, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker ruled as follows:

        . . . The Chair will state that the point of order raised by 
    the gentleman may be good as to reports by a legislative 
    committee.(10) But this is a special rule from the 
    Committee on Rules which merely makes in order the consideration of 
    a bill. The Chair does not think the point is well taken when made 
    against the report of the Committee on Rules and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also Sec. 55.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 55.6 Reports of the Committee on Rules on resolutions amending the 
    rules of the House were not subject to the Ramseyer rule in the 
    74th Congress.

    On Mar. 26, 1935,(11) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, recognized John J. O'Connor, of New York, Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, who called up House Resolution 172, a measure 
amending the Private Calendar rule (12) which sets forth the 
days and conditions pursuant to which private bills or resolutions are 
considered in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 79 Cong. Rec. 4480, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. See Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1979), 
        which resulted from the passage of this resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following a point of order pertaining to the privileged status of

[[Page 3091]]

the resolution, the Chair recognized Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
who made the following parliamentary inquiry: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 79 Cong. Rec. 4482, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is this resolution subject to the Ramseyer rule? 
    (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. At the time, the ``Ramseyer rule'' read as follows:
            ``Whenever a committee reports a bill or a joint resolution 
        repealing or amending any statute or part thereof it shall 
        include in its report or in an accompanying document--(1) The 
        text of the statute or part thereof which is proposed to be 
        repealed; and (2) A comparative print of that part of the bill 
        or joint resolution making the amendment and of the statute or 
        part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-
        through type and italics, parallel columns, or other 
        appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions 
        proposed to be made.'' [H. Jour. 1278, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. 
        (1935)].
            Since then [see Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 745 (1979)], the following language has been added: 
        ``Provided, however, That if a committee reports such a bill or 
        joint resolution with amendments or an amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute for the entire bill, such report shall include 
        a comparative print showing any changes in existing law 
        proposed by the amendments or substitute instead of as in the 
        bill as introduced.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If it is, I make the point of order that the report does not 
    comply with that rule.
        The Speaker: The Ramseyer rule, to which the gentleman refers, 
    has to do with reports of committees on bills which amend the 
    statutes. This resolution proposes to amend the rules of the House, 
    and therefore does not come within the provisions of clause 2a of 
    rule XIII, the so-called ``Ramseyer rule.'' The Chair, therefore, 
    does not think that the Ramseyer rule applies to this report of the 
    Committee on Rules.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For more information about the Ramseyer rule, generally, see 
        Sec. 60, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: See Rule XI clause 4(d) applicable to 
resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules proposing permanent 
repeal or amendment (but not temporary waiver) of rules of the House 
requiring comparative print to be included in accompanying report 
(effective Jan. 3, 1975, H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.).

Typographical Error in Report

Sec. 55.7 Where the print of a resolution from the Committee on Rules 
    implied that it was reported by a Member not a member of that 
    committee, the Chair indicated that since the evidence was to the 
    contrary, the incorporation of the erroneous name would be regarded 
    as a mere typographical error, not fatal to

[[Page 3092]]

    the measure's consideration were a point of order to be raised.

    On Aug. 1, 1939,(16) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, recognized Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, a member of the 
Committee on Rules, who called up a resolution (H. Res. 286), and asked 
for its immediate consideration. House Resolution 286 was a special 
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 7120, a bill to provide 
for the construction and financing of self-liquidating projects, among 
other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 10710, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the Clerk read the resolution, Mr. Carl E. Mapes, 
of Michigan, rose to a point of order, which prompted the following 
exchange with the Chair:

        Mr. Mapes: . . . [F]or the protection of the Committee on Rules 
    I think I should call attention to the fact that this rule is 
    reported by the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency 
    [Mr. Steagall].
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Michigan now making a point 
    of order against the resolution?
        Mr. Mapes: I make a point of order for the purpose really of 
    submitting a parliamentary inquiry to the Speaker. Frankly, I do 
    not care to press the point of order, but I desire to call 
    attention to the matter. I knew there was no member of the 
    Committee on Rules who was enthusiastic about this rule or the 
    legislation.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman submit his parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Mapes: But I did not know there was no member who was 
    willing to attach his name to the report of the committee. May I 
    ask the Speaker if it is proper procedure, or parliamentary, for a 
    Member of the House not a member of the Rules Committee to report a 
    rule from the Committee on Rules?
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule on the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The attention of the Chair has been called to this matter. It 
    appears from the print of the resolution that the gentleman from 
    Alabama [Mr. Steagall], ``of the Committee on Rules,'' reported the 
    resolution. The record shows, however, that the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules [Mr. Sabath] did, as a matter of fact, report 
    the rule. It is evident to the Chair that the incorporation of the 
    name ``Mr. Steagall'' was a clerical or typographical error, and 
    the Chair would so hold if a point of order were against it.

Supplemental Reports by Legislative Committees

Sec. 55.8 Where the Committee on Rules reports out a resolution 
    providing for the consideration of a bill at the request of the 
    legislative committee which has reported the bill, and that 
    legislative committee in another session of the same Congress 
    obtains

[[Page 3093]]

    unanimous consent to file a supplemental report recommending that 
    the bill be amended, the filing of the supplemental report does not 
    vitiate the Rules Committee action.

    On May 10, 1939,(17) Joseph J. Mansfield, of Texas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors (now the Committee on 
Public Works), submitted the committee report (H. Rept. No. 76-611), on 
S. 685, an act dealing with water pollution, with an amendment. Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, referred the bill to the Union 
Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 5408, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 10, 1939,(18) Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, acting at the behest of the Committee on Rules, submitted 
the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 249), which was referred 
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 8773, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
    consideration of S. 685, an act to create a Division of Water 
    Pollution Control in the United States Public Health Service, and 
    for other purposes. That after general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 2 hours, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, the bill 
    shall be read for amendments under the 5-minute rule. At the 
    conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the Committee 
    shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    Seven months later, on Feb. 29, 1940,(19) Mr. Colmer 
called up the identical resolution and noted in his introductory 
remarks (20) that the bill had been passed by the Senate and 
was ``amended'' by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors ``before 
reporting it here.'' He was referring to a supplemental report 
(supplemental reps. No. 611, pt. 2), filed by that committee several 
days earlier by unanimous consent.(1) This sequence of 
events was discussed at some length as the House considered the rule 
(H. Res. 249).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 2178, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
20. Id. at p. 2179.
 1. The supplemental report was submitted by Mr. Mansfield on Feb. 20, 
        1940 [86 Cong. Rec. 1720, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At one point in the debate, the Speaker sought to clarify the 
situation, observing: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 2184, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 29, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3094]]

        The resolution now pending provides for the consideration of 
    Senate bill 685. Under the provisions of the rule, if adopted, the 
    Senate bill would be the matter before the House, but under the 
    liberal terms of the rule the Senate bill will be subject to 
    amendment or to amendment by way of substitute from the committee 
    in charge of the bill.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, was 
recognized for a parliamentary inquiry and stated:

        . . . The point was this, that a legislative committee asked 
    for a rule to consider a specific piece of legislation dealing with 
    a specific matter in a particular way. I was not then a member of 
    the committee. After consideration the Rules Committee felt it wise 
    to recommend a rule providing for the consideration of this 
    particular thing in this particular way. Shortly after that the 
    legislative committee secured unanimous consent to file a 
    supplemental report on this original bill, and in their report the 
    legislative committee adopted another bill dealing with the same 
    matter but in an entirely different way and in a way that 
    possibly--and probably--would not have been authorized when the 
    rule was asked for.
        A confidential copy is floating around here of the bill which 
    the committee intends to bring up. My inquiry is whether that can 
    be done under the rules of the House. If that can be done, it is a 
    simple matter for any committee to ask for a rule on a perfectly 
    harmless bill which every one might be for, and then, after they 
    get the rule, bring in another bill in fact, under the same number. 
    This rule was granted on July 10 last year. Then in January, 7 
    months later, they introduce a new bill in a supplemental report 
    and are attempting to bring this new bill dealing with the same 
    subject matter in an entirely different manner before the House 
    under the old rule. Can that be done?

    The Speaker asked a few clarifying questions, after which he 
replied to the inquiry as follows: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at pp. 2184, 2185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Michener], who raises this 
    question by parliamentary inquiry, of course, is familiar with the 
    general principle that all proposed action touching the rules, 
    joint rules, and orders of business shall be referred to the 
    Committee on Rules. Under a broad, uniform construction of that 
    jurisdiction, the Rules Committee, as the Chair understands it, has 
    practically plenary power, unreserved and unrestricted power, to 
    submit for the consideration of the House any order of business it 
    sees fit to submit, subject, of course, to the approval of the 
    House.
        The Chair, of course, knows nothing about what was in the minds 
    of the committee in reference to this legislation. The Chair can 
    only look at the face of the record as it is presented from a 
    parliamentary standpoint. As the Chair construes the resolution now 
    pending, It is very broad in its terms. It provides for the 
    consideration of a Senate bill pending on the Union Calendar and 
    the Chair assumes that the Committee on Rules was requested to give 
    a rule for the consideration of that bill, which was the original 
    basis for any legislation that may be passed

[[Page 3095]]

    touching this subject of stream pollution.
        In conformance with the general power and jurisdiction of the 
    Rules Committee, it did report a resolution providing that in the 
    consideration of the Senate bill any germane amendments may be 
    offered; and, of course, it is not the province of the Chair, 
    presiding over the House, to determine the relevancy or germaneness 
    of any amendment that may be submitted in the Committee of the 
    Whole, whether by way of a substitute or by way of amendment.

        The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the Rules Committee 
    had a perfect right under the general authority conferred upon it 
    to report this resolution providing for this method of 
    consideration of the bill.

Multiple Reports

Sec. 55.9 Only one member of the Committee on Rules may file a report 
    on a resolution.

    On Jan. 17, 1950,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Adoloph J. Sabath, of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who reported a privileged resolution (H. Res. 133, H. Rept. No. 
1477), amending paragraph 2(c) of Rule XI of the rules of the 
House,(5) which resolution was then referred to the House 
Calendar and ordered to be printed. There being a misunderstanding, 
however, as to whether Mr. Sabath intended to call up the resolution in 
the future, Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, also a member of the 
Committee on Rules, sought to report the identical resolution, himself, 
pursuant to committee authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 499, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H. Res. 133, which was not agreed to in that session, was identical 
        to Rule XI clause 24, House Rules and Manual Sec. 732 (1973). 
        The change proposed to be effected was the elimination of the 
        so-called ``twenty-one day rule''; the latter is discussed in 
        Ch. 18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under these circumstances, the following exchange took place: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 96 Cong. Rec. 501, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules I file a privileged resolution; 
    and permit me to make this statement: these differences may be 
    ironed out later.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Georgia if 
    it is the same resolution that has already been reported to the 
    House.
        Mr. Cox: I presume it is the same resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair doubts very seriously whether two 
    reports on the same resolution can be filed at the same time.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the filing of this rule at this time.
        The Speaker: Permit the Chair to handle this matter.

[[Page 3096]]

        Mr. Marcantonio: But I am making a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair was clarifying the situation. The Chair 
    is of opinion that two reports cannot be filed on the same 
    resolution at the same time.

    After the matter was discussed further, Mr. Howard W. Smith, of 
Virginia, made the following request:

        . .  I am wondering if in the interest of harmony and getting 
    this matter straightened out the Speaker would not permit the 
    Committee on Rules to file the resolution which the gentleman from 
    Georgia has attempted to file.
        The Speaker: The Chair is trying to carry out orderly 
    procedure. If two identical resolutions on the same subject matter 
    can be reported, then a number can be reported and the Record would 
    be cluttered up. The Chair hopes the gentleman from Virginia will 
    not say that he hopes the Chair will allow something to be done if 
    he thinks it is unnecessary because the report has already been 
    filed.
        As to the agreement,(7) the Chair knows nothing 
    about that, and the Chair thinks that any agreement that may be 
    worked out between now and tomorrow can as well be worked out 
    without the reporting of an unnecessary resolution as with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Mr. Cox was authorized to file the report by the committee. Mr. Cox 
        stepped aside to let Mr. Sabath file the report, however, when 
        the former gentleman believed the two were in agreement that 
        Mr. Sabath would call the resolution up on the following 
        Thursday (Jan. 19, 1950). This is the ``agreement'' to which 
        the Speaker referred. When it became apparent that the two 
        Members were not in agreement upon that course of action, 
        however, Mr. Cox attempted to file the report himself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling Up Report Providing for Special Order

Sec. 55.10 Only a member of the Committee on Rules designated to do so 
    may call up a report from the committee providing for a special 
    order of business, unless the rule has been on the calendar seven 
    legislative days without action.

    On June 6, 1940,(8) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, 
sought to call up for consideration the report of the Committee on 
Rules providing for the consideration of H.R. 9766, a bill to authorize 
the deportation of Harry Bridges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 86 Cong. Rec. 7706, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, and Mr. Fish then engaged in the 
following exchange:

        The Speaker: The unfinished business, the Chair will state to 
    the gentleman, is the gentleman's resolution offered upon 
    yesterday.
        Mr. Fish: As I understand the parliamentary situation, the 
    gentleman

[[Page 3097]]

    from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] has reported that rule to the House 
    already.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Fish: Now, therefore, under the rules as I have quoted 
    them, rule XI, paragraph 2, clause 45, I am calling up that report 
    for consideration.
        The Speaker: Has the gentleman been authorized by the Rules 
    Committee to call up the rule?
        Mr. Fish: I am calling it up under the rules of the House, 
    realizing that the rules require a two-thirds vote to bring it up 
    for consideration immediately under rule XI. That I consider the 
    privilege of any member of the Rules Committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman from New 
    York to call up the resolution unless the Record shows he was 
    authorized to do so by the Rules Committee. The Chair would be 
    authorized to recognize the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] 
    to call up the rule in the event the resolution offered by the 
    gentleman from New York, which was the unfinished business, is not 
    called up.
        Mr. Fish: Will the Chair permit me to read this rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair would be glad to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Fish: Rule XI reads as follows:

            It shall always be in order to call up for consideration a 
        report from the Committee on Rules (except it shall not be 
        called up for consideration on the same day it is presented to 
        the House, unless so determined by a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting).

        I submit, according to that rule and the reading of that rule, 
    Mr. Speaker, that any member of the Rules Committee can call up the 
    rule, but it would require the membership of the House to act upon 
    it by a two-third vote in order to obtain consideration.
        The Speaker: The precedents are all to the effect that only a 
    Member authorized by the Rules Committee can call up a rule, unless 
    the rule has been on the calendar for 7 legislative days without 
    action.

Discharging Measure Not Yet Reported by Committee to Which Referred

Sec. 55.11 The Committee on Rules reported and the House adopted a 
    resolution making in order the immediate consideration of a bill 
    which had not been reported by the committee to which referred.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(9) Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 845 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution provided that 
upon its adoption, the House would resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 11926), to limit 
jurisdiction of federal courts in reapportionment cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 20212, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan,

[[Page 3098]]

was recognized by the Speaker. The following exchange took place: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 20212, 20213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against the consideration of House Resolution 845 on the grounds 
    that the Committee on Rules is without jurisdiction to bring such 
    resolution to the floor of the House under the provisions of rule 
    16 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and I ask 
    permission to be heard on the point of order.

        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a review of the precedents 
    of this House reveals occasions on which the House has permitted 
    the Committee on Rules to bring before it resolutions making in 
    order the consideration of bills that have been improperly referred 
    to legislative committees, bills that had not yet been referred to 
    the Committee on Rules, and possibly even a bill not yet 
    introduced. In addition, a decision of the Speaker of the House 
    permitted the consideration of resolution of the Committee on Rules 
    of a bill that had not been placed on the calendar at the time the 
    resolution was reported by the Committee on Rules. However, Mr. 
    Speaker, I can find no occasions on which the House has clearly 
    permitted the Committee on Rules to report to it a resolution 
    making in order the consideration of a bill that had been 
    introduced in the House of Representatives and referred by it--
    properly referred by it--to one of its legislative committees and 
    not yet reported out or acted upon by that legislative committee to 
    which the bill had been referred.
        Mr. Speaker, I move to make this point of order after noting 
    the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules, which reported out House Resolution 845, is on record 
    strongly opposing such action by the Committee on Rules as 
    unprecedented and unwarranted. The Congressional Record of June 29, 
    1953, reports the gentleman's opposition to a resolution reported 
    from the Committee on Rules which would have brought to the floor a 
    bill pending before the Committee on Ways and Means and not yet 
    reported by that committee.
        The gentleman from Virginia did not follow up the point of 
    order in that matter, but he was persuasive in effecting a 
    recommittal of the resolution and a return to the regular order of 
    business.
        The only comparable incident I can find which might provide a 
    precedent for this, Mr. Speaker, was the action taken by this 
    Congress on the price control legislation in the 79th Congress, 2d 
    session, found at page 8059 of the Congressional Record. This, 
    however, it might be pointed out, was emergency legislation and a 
    similar version had earlier been reported by a legislative 
    committee, acted upon by the House and vetoed by the President.
        I point out that in that instance the request for the rule was 
    based on the fact that the legislation was about to expire and it 
    was impossible to get action through the ordinary channels.

[[Page 3099]]

    The request for the rule was made by the chairman of the committee 
    having legislative jurisdiction over the Price Control Act, a 
    situation distinctly different from the one in which we find 
    ourselves today, where we are asked to consider a rule making in 
    order the consideration of a bill which was referred to a 
    legislative committee, not yet reported by that committee and with 
    no request made for its consideration by the chairman of the 
    committee I to which it was referred.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker. The rules are 
    perfectly clear. The Committee on Rules, under the rules of the 
    House, may report a rule on any pending bill. This is a pending 
    bill before the Rules Committee and the precedents for that are 
    well established. The rule itself is very plain.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair finds a precedent in volume 5 of ``Hinds' Precedents 
    of the House of Representatives'' at section 6771. On February 4, 
    1895, a similar point of order was raised against an action taken 
    by the Rules Committee. The Speaker at that time, Speaker Crisp, of 
    Georgia, ruled on a point of order made by Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, 
    of Pennsylvania. The point of order was the same as that made by 
    the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara], that the bill had not 
    been reported from the Committee on War Claims and therefore it was 
    not in order for the Committee on Rules to report a resolution for 
    its consideration in the House.
        Speaker Crisp overruled the point of order, holding that the 
    Committee on Rules had jurisdiction to report a resolution fixing 
    the order of business and the manner of considering a measure, even 
    though the effect of its adoption would be to discharge a committee 
    from a matter pending before it, thereby changing the existing rule 
    relative to the consideration of business.
        Speaker Crisp further said that it was for the House to 
    determine whether the change in the mode of consideration should be 
    made, as recommended by the committee.
        The rules of the House provide that--

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

        The Chair also desires to state that in 1929 a similar point of 
    order was raised. In 1946 and again in 1953 the Committee on Rules 
    reported similar resolutions and on each occasion the precedent 
    established by Speaker Crisp was followed and adhered to.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For similar instances, see 107 Cong. Rec. 5267, 87th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Mar. 29, 1961 [H. Res. 238]; and 92 Cong. Rec. 8059, 
        79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 1, 1946 [H. Res. 689].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: See Chapter 21, Sec. Sec. 16.15-16.18, 
infra, for a complete discussion of the authority of the Committee on 
Rules to discharge bills pending before other committees.

[[Page 3100]]