[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[F. Committee Reports]
[Â§ 59. Form; Printing]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3136-3144]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 59. Form; Printing

    The rules of the House require that measures reported to the House 
by committees be accompanied by reports in writing and that such 
reports be printed. This

[[Page 3137]]

rule is strictly observed, and verbal reports on bills are not accepted 
by the House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule XVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 821 (1979).
            The form for conference reports is discussed in Ch. 33, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A committee report is ordinarily delivered to the Clerk for 
printing at the time that it is filed, but reports on resolutions 
adversely reported are not printed, under the rules, unless a request 
is made that they be referred to a calendar.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sec. 59.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To remedy waste or inefficiencies in public printing, the Joint 
Committee on Printing, pursuant to its authorized powers, adopted a 
rule prohibiting the duplicate printing of committee reports in both 
the Congressional Record and as a separate House report.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 59.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One question which has recently arisen with respect to the printing 
and distribution of committee reports is the scope of congressional 
immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, 
article I, section 6, clause 1, as it concerns potentially tortious 
material published in committee reports. In a 1973 decision by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in Doe v McMillan (1) the court held that the 
members and staff of an investigative committee, a consultant, and a 
committee investigator, were absolutely immune under the Speech or 
Debate Clause insofar as they engaged in the legislative acts of 
compiling the report, referring it to the House, or voting for its 
publication.(2) The Court also held that the Public Printer 
and the Superintendent of Documents were protected by the doctrine of 
legislative immunity for publishing and distributing the report to the 
extent that they served a legitimate legislative function in so 
doing.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 412 U.S. 306, wherein the parents of certain District of Columbia 
        schoolchildren brought an action seeking damages and 
        declaratory and injunctive relief for an invasion of privacy 
        that they claimed resulted from the dissemination of a 
        congressional report on the District of Columbia school system 
        that included derogatory information on students. The 
        defendants included the members of a House investigatory 
        committee, committee employees, a committee investigator, a 
        consultant, the Public Printer, the Superintendent of 
        Documents, and various school officials.
 2. Id. at pp. 311-13.
 3. Id. at pp. 318-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reports on Resolutions Adversely Reported

Sec. 59.1 Reports of committees are ordinarily delivered to

[[Page 3138]]

    the Clerk for printing, but reports on resolutions adversely 
    reported under the rules are not printed unless a request is made 
    that they be referred to a calendar.

    On July 15, 1959,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. William H. Meyer, of Vermont, relative to certain 
concurrent resolutions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 105 Cong. Rec. 13493, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Meyer: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule XIII, I request that 
    the following concurrent resolutions, House Concurrent Resolutions 
    245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, and 254, which have been reported 
    adversely, be referred to the calendar.
        The Speaker: The resolutions will be referred to the Union 
    Calendar and the reports printed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: These resolutions were referred and printed 
pursuant to Rule XIII clause 2, which provided:

        All reports of committees, except as provided in clause 21 of 
    rule XI, together with the views of the minority, shall be 
    delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper 
    calendar under the direction of the Speaker, in accordance with the 
    foregoing clause, and the titles or subject thereof shall be 
    entered on the Journal and printed in the Record: Provided, That 
    bills reported adversely shall be laid on the table, unless the 
    committee reporting a bill, at the time, or any Member within three 
    days thereafter, shall request its reference to the calendar, when 
    it shall be referred as provided in clause 1 of this rule. 
    [Emphasis supplied.]

References in Report to Amendments by Page and Line

Sec. 59.2 Where a joint resolution is reported from a committee with 
    amendments, the committee report identifies the amendments by page 
    and line references to the resolution as printed when referred; and 
    such references do not always correspond to the pages and lines of 
    the reported print of the resolution.

    On June 30, 1970,(5) following the Clerk's reading of a 
Senate joint resolution, Chairman John A. Young, of Texas, ordered the 
Clerk to report the amendments made by the Committee on the Judiciary. 
The committee amendments were agreed to. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of 
Colorado, then offered two amendments, with respect to which Mr. 
Charles E. Wiggins, of California, raised a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. 
Wiggins stated that he had before

[[Page 3139]]

him a copy of the bill and that he was unable to find the page and line 
references to the amendments offered by Mr. Rogers. After Mr. Rogers 
cited the page and line numbers, the committee agreed on the amendments 
offered by Mr. Rogers. Confusion continued however, as to which page 
and lines were being referred to because of variations in the House 
prints of the Senate joint resolution as referred and as reported with 
committee amendments therein. The amendments submitted by Mr. Rogers 
referred to the print of the Senate joint resolution as it passed the 
Senate, whereas the report made reference to the resolution as 
originally referred to the committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 22115-17, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was S.J. Res. 88, creating a commission to study U.S. 
        bankruptcy laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wiggins: Since the committee amendments, which were taken 
    from the first page of the report, do not correlate with respect to 
    page and line in Senate Joint Resolution 88, I am fearful that the 
    record is going to be confused. For example, in the report the 
    second committee amendment is shown as page 2, line 20, when there 
    is no line 20 on page 2. It is on page 3.

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: These are amendments to the original 
    Senate joint resolution.
        Mr. Wiggins: If the gentleman will assure me that there is no 
    confusion----
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: There is no intent to confuse. The page 
    and line numbers refer to the print of the Senate joint resolution 
    as it passed the Senate.
        Mr. Wiggins: And this is a House print of that Senate joint 
    resolution, is that correct?
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: That is correct.
        Mr. Wiggins: I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
        The Chairman: The Clerk wild report the preamble of the Senate 
    Joint Resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, with what resolution are we dealing? Are we 
    dealing with Senate Joint Resolution 88, Union Calendar No. 430, 
    Report No. 91-927? What are we here dealing with?
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: The gentleman is correct. That is the 
    Senate joint resolution that we are considering.
        Mr. Gross: How can we amend a line in a joint resolution that 
    does not exist? How can we amend a line in a joint resolution that 
    is not before the House?
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Our answer to that inquiry is simply 
    this. The joint resolution was referred to us by the House, and it 
    is the original Senate joint resolution as reported that we are 
    considering.
        Mr. Gross: I do not understand the procedure at all.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: It is the reported Senate joint 
    resolution that we are considering.

[[Page 3140]]

        Mr. Gross: Yes, but you cannot amend line 20 on page 2 when 
    there is no line 20 on page 2 of the Senate joint resolution.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that, when the report was 
    filed, the committee amendments refer to the original Senate joint 
    resolution as it was referred to the committee. The amendments as 
    offered are applicable to Senate Joint Resolution 88 as referred to 
    the Committee on the Judiciary.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, with all deference to the Chair, I am 
    still confused, and I am sure other Members are confused.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gross: I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
        I wish to propound a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman, would 
    it be in order and appropriate for a unanimous consent request to 
    be made in order by all Members of the House that the technical 
    corrections of Senate Joint Resolution 88 insofar as correlation 
    between the report and the bill before us is concerned, and would 
    this help the situation in engrossing and final drafting of the 
    bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Missouri 
    that the report applies to the resolution as originally referred to 
    the committee.
        The Chair further advises that the unanimous consent request 
    the gentleman suggested would not be in order at this time.
        The Chair also advises that such a request could be in order in 
    the House.

Duplicate Printing

Sec. 59.3 The rule of the Joint Committee on Printing against duplicate 
    printing permits printing of committee activity reports either in 
    the Congressional Record or in pamphlet form as a ``committee 
    print'' but not in both forms.

    On Oct. 13, 1962,(6) the House by unanimous consent 
permitted Mr. Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, to extend his remarks in the 
Record relative to the publication of committee reports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  6. 108 Cong. Rec. 23516, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.; see also 111 Cong. Rec. 
        27801, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 21, 1965. Compare 106 Cong. 
        Rec. 19133, 19139, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1960 (Calendar 
        Day), where, notwithstanding the rule of the Joint Committee on 
        Printing against duplicate printing, the chairman of a 
        committee was, by unanimous consent, granted permission to have 
        printed in the Congressional Record and in pamphlet form the 
        activity report of that committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, with reference to the printing of committee 
    activity reports for the session, as vice chairman of the Joint 
    Committee on Printing, I wish to remind the chairmen of all 
    committees that the Joint Committee on Printing had properly ruled 
    that the printing of such reports, both as committee prints and in 
    the Record, is duplication, the cost of which cannot be justified.

[[Page 3141]]

        It is requested that committee chairmen decide whether they 
    wish these reports printed as committee prints or in the Record, 
    since the Government Printing Office will be directed not to print 
    them both ways.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The pertinent rule of the Joint Committee 
on Printing is as follows:

                     Code of Laws of the United States

        Title 44, Section 901. Congressional Record: Arrangement, 
    Style, Contents, and Indexes.--The Joint Committee on Printing 
    shall control the arrangement and style of the Congressional 
    Record, and while providing that it shall be substantially a 
    verbatim report of proceedings, shall take all needed action for 
    the reduction of unnecessary bulk. It shall provide for the 
    publication of an index of the Congressional Record semimonthly 
    during and at the close of sessions of Congress. (Oct. 22, 1968, c. 
    9, 82 Stat. 1255.)
        Title 44, Section 904. Congressional Record: Maps; diagrams; 
    illustrations.--Maps, diagrams, or illustrations may not be 
    inserted in the Record without the approval of the Joint Committee 
    on Printing. (Oct. 22, 1968, c. 9, 82 Stat. 1256.)

        To provide for the prompt publication and delivery of the 
    Congressional Record the Joint Committee on Printing has adopted 
    the following rules, to which the attention of Senators, 
    Representatives, and Delegates is respectfully invited: . . .
        The Public Printer shall not publish in the Congressional 
    Record the full report or print of any committee or subcommittee 
    when the report or print has been previously printed. This rule 
    shall not be construed to apply to conference reports. However, 
    inasmuch as House of Representatives Rule XXVIII, Section 912, 
    provides that conference reports be printed in the daily edition of 
    the Congressional Record, they shall not be printed therein a 
    second time.

Filing After Adjournment Sine Die

Sec. 59.4 The House normally authorizes investigative reports filed 
    with the Clerk by committees following adjournment of Congress sine 
    die to be printed as reports of that Congress.

    On Dec. 17, 1971,(7) the House considered a unanimous-
consent request by Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, relative to the 
printing of certain reports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 47676, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 118 Cong Rec. 
        37062, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Oct. 18, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that reports filed with 
    the clerk following the sine die adjournment by committees 
    authorized by the House to conduct investigations may be printed by 
    the clerk as reports of the 92d Congress.

    There was no objection to Mr. Boggs' request.

Filing During Adjournment to a Day Certain

Sec. 59.5 By unanimous consent, committee investigative re

[[Page 3142]]

    ports filed with the Clerk during an adjournment to a day certain 
    were authorized to be printed.

    On Aug. 18, 1972,(8) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, made the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 29136, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that reports filed with 
    the House following the adjournment of the House until September 5, 
    1972, by committees authorized by the House to conduct 
    investigations, may be printed by the Clerk as reports of the 92d 
    Congress.
        The Speaker: (~9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Effect of Court Order Restraining Printing

Sec. 59.6 The Chairman of the Committee on Internal Security announced 
    to the House that the U.S. District Court for the District of 
    Columbia had issued an order temporarily restraining the Public 
    Printer from printing a report to be submitted to the House, 
    pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction against its 
    publication. The chairman also announced his intention to 
    distribute the report to Members despite the court order. The House 
    adopted a resolution directing the Public Printer and the 
    Superintendent of Documents to distribute this report.

    On Oct. 14, 1970,(10) Mr. Richard H. Ichord, of 
Missouri, asked and was given permission to address the House. In his 
remarks, Mr. Ichord related that the House Committee on Internal 
Security had authorized a limited voluntary study of educational 
institutions to obtain information on the extent to which honoraria was 
being used to finance revolutionary activities. Mr. Ichord said that a 
suit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia to enjoin the committee from publishing its report on the 
subject. Mr. Ichord stated that such an order, if issued and permitted 
to stand, would be in disregard of the ``speech and debate'' clause of 
the Constitution--article I, section 6. He went on to state that 
regardless of what hap

[[Page 3143]]

pened in the suit, there would be copies furnished the Members of the 
House because the proposed court order did not preclude reproduction of 
the report for Members of the House but only enjoined the Public 
Printer from printing the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 36680, 36770, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H. Rept. No. 91-1607, which included a survey 
        of honoraria given guest speakers for engagements at colleges 
        and universities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 14, 1970,(11) Mr. Ichord rose to a question of 
the privileges of the House and submitted a resolution (H. Res. 1306), 
setting out the subsequent history of the litigation and resolving that 
the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents should forthwith 
print and distribute the committee report and ordering all persons, 
whether or not acting under color of office, to refrain from punishing 
any person because of his participation in or performance of such work. 
The resolution, as shown below in part, in the Congressional Record 
provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 41355-57, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas, the Constitution of the United States vests all 
    legislative powers in a Congress of the United States, consisting 
    of a Senate and House of Representatives (Article I, Section 1);
        And whereas, the said Constitution authorizes the House to 
    determine the rules of its proceedings (Article I, Section 5); . . 
    .
        Resolved, That--
        (1) In accordance with the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives and the acts of Congress made and provided, the 
    Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents shall forthwith 
    print, publish, and distribute, and they are hereby ordered 
    forthwith to print, publish, and distribute to and for the use of 
    the House of Representatives, the Committee on Internal Security of 
    said House, and those entitled to receive them, the usual number of 
    copies of the report (No. 91-1732) of said Committee on Internal 
    Security titled, ``Report of Inquiry Concerning Speakers' Honoraria 
    at Colleges and Universities,'' which has this day been duly 
    reported to the House.
        (2) All persons, whether or not acting under color of office, 
    are hereby advised, ordered, and enjoined to refrain from doing any 
    act, or causing any act to be done, which restrains, delays, 
    interferes with, obstructs, or prevents the performance of the work 
    ordered to be done by paragraph numbered (1) hereof; and all such 
    persons are further advised, ordered, and enjoined to refrain from 
    molesting, intimidating, damaging, arresting, imprisoning, or 
    punishing any person because of his participation in, or 
    performance of, such work.
        (3) Copies of this resolution shall be forthwith furnished by 
    the Clerk of the House to the Public Printer, Superintendent of 
    Documents, and the clerks of the United States District Court and 
    of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

    On Dec. 16, 1970, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, laid 
before the House a communication from the Public Printer 
(l2) advising that he had pub
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 41940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3144]]

lished and distributed the report from the Committee on Internal 
Security pursuant to the resolution adopted by the House and served 
upon him.