[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[F. Committee Reports]
[Â§ 63. Status as Privileged; Calling Up]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3180-3198]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 63. Status as Privileged; Calling Up

    Several types of committee reports are accorded privileged status. 
That is, they may be filed from the floor in the House at any time and 
their consideration is preferential and does not depend upon adoption 
of a special order reported from the Committee on Rules. One basis for 
this privilege of reporting at any time arises upon the precedents 
based upon the essential role imposed upon the Congress by the 
Constitution, as in the case of reports on Presidential vetoes or 
reports on impeachment proceedings.(3) Another basis for the 
privileged status of committee reports arise under the rules of the 
House. Such reports are of two types: (1) those raising questions of 
the privilege of the House under Rule IX such as reports on contempts 
of witnesses before committees, and (2) the reports of certain 
committees on matters specified in the applicable House rule which may 
be brought up at any time subject to the three-day rule on availability 
of reports [Rule XI clause 2(1)(6)] or the one-day rule applicable to 
certain funding resolutions from the Committee on House Administration 
(Rule XI clause 5). Under Rule XI, the Committees on Appropriations, 
House Administration, Interior and Insular Affairs, Public Works, 
Rules, Standards of Official Conduct, Veterans' Affairs, and Ways and 
Means have had leave to report at any time although only on those 
matters specified in the rules of the House.(4) For example, 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has had leave to report at any time 
only on general pension bills.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Ch. 14 (impeachment), supra, and Ch. 24 (vetoes), infra.
 4. See the commentary following Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
 5. See the commentary following Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The right of reporting at any time under Rule XI clause 4 no 
longer-grants the right of immediate consideration on the floor. Rules 
changes adopted since 1971, designed to give Members advance notice of 
floor consideration of measures, have restricted the right of immediate 
consideration. Now only privileged reports from

[[Page 3181]]

the Committee on Rules are granted the right of immediate consideration 
subject to the two-thirds vote required by the rules.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979). See 
        also the commentary following Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (7) incorporated 
into the rules the privileged status of matters reported under the 
Congressional Budget Act by the Committee on the Budget, but removed 
from the rules the privilege of measures reported by the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs, the Committee on Public Works, the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the Committee on Ways and 
Means.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447- 70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
 8. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 
        (1979).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reports Recommending Passage of Bill Over Veto

Sec. 63.1 Reports from committees, to which vetoed bills have been 
    referred, recommending passage of such bills over a veto, are 
    privileged.

    On Aug. 17, 1951,(9) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
submitted a privileged report from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
on H.R. 3193, involving augmented pension benefits for veterans. The 
committee report recommended that the bill be enacted into law, the 
objections of the President (who had vetoed the measure) 
notwithstanding. The House then passed the bill by the necessary two-
thirds majority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 10197, 10202, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exchange went as follows:

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I submit a privileged report from the 
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs on the bill (H.R. 3193) to establish 
    a rate of pension for aid and attendance under part III of 
    Veterans' Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: (10) The question is, Will the House, 
    on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President 
    to the contrary notwithstanding?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the Constitution, this vote must be determined by the 
    yeas and nays. . . .
        So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the bill was 
    passed, the objections of the President to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    On Sept. 25, 1940,(11) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
by di
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 12615-23, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3182]]

rection of the Committee on Military Affairs, called up a privileged 
report on H.R. 3840, which had been referred to the committee after a 
Presidential veto. The House ultimately failed to override the veto on 
the bill, which involved the status of bandmasters in the U.S. Army.

Sec. 63.2 A privileged report submitted by the Committee on the 
    Judiciary on a vetoed bill referred to it recommended passage of 
    the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    On Aug. 5, 1940,(12) Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, 
submitted a privileged report on H.R. 3233, entitled ``An act to repeal 
certain acts of Congress (pocket vetoed)''. The report recommended the 
passage of the bill over the President's veto. The bill in question 
proposed the repeal of pocket-vetoed bills. Mr. Sumners explained that 
the committee desired to prevent certain bills from becoming law in the 
event that the Supreme Court determined that the President's use of the 
pocket veto in a number of instances had been invalid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 86 Cong. Rec. 9885-90, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill did not receive the two-thirds vote required for passage.

Reports on Impeachment

Sec. 63.3 Adverse reports from the Committee on the Judiciary on 
    impeachment proceedings are privileged.

    On Mar. 24, 1939,(13) Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, by 
direction of the Committee on the Judiciary presented a privileged 
report on House Resolution 67, dealing with impeachment proceedings 
against Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins. Mr. Hobbs stated that the 
committee had been unanimously adverse to the resolution, as reflected 
in the report. He then moved that the resolution be laid on the table 
and the House agreed to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 3273, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions Involving the Privilege of the House

Sec. 63.4 A committee report is privileged where it takes up a question 
    involving the privileges of the House. Thus, a committee report 
    relating to the refusal of a witness to produce certain documents, 
    as ordered, is privileged.

    On Feb. 2, 1966,(14) shortly after the House convened, 
Speaker
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 1742, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3183]]

John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Edwin E. Willis, of 
Louisiana, Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 
who stated:

        Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privilege of the House 
    and by direction of the Committee on Un-American Activities, I 
    submit a privileged report (Reps. No. 1214).

    The Clerk then proceeded to read the report which was one of seven 
similar reports (15) to be considered that day. Each report 
documented the failure of an alleged member of the Ku Klux Klan to 
comply with a subpena duces tecum issued by the Committee on Un-
American Activities which required the production of books, documents, 
correspondence, and memoranda relating to the organization. Each report 
was, in turn, followed by the submission of a privileged resolution 
directing the Speaker of the House to certify the report of the 
committee to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia so that 
each individual could be ``proceeded against in the manner and form 
provided by law.'' (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The committee also submitted H. Rept. No. 89-1242 (id. at p. 1763), 
        H. Rept. No. 89-1243 (id. at p. 1770), H. Rept. No. 89-1244 
        (id. at p. 1784), H. Rept. No. 89-1245 (id. at p. 1793), H. 
        Rept. No. 89-1246 (id. at p. 1801), and H. Rept. No. 89-1247 
        (id. at p. 1808).
16. For a discussion of the subject of privilege, generally, see Ch. 
        11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report on Refusal of Witness to Testify

Sec. 63.5 Reports of the standing Committee on Un-American Activities 
    as to the refusal of certain witnesses to produce books and papers 
    under a subpena duces tecum were privileged.

    On Mar. 28, 1946,(17) Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, by 
direction of the Committee on Un-American Activities, presented a 
privileged report which recited that Dr. Edward Barksy and other named 
members of the executive board of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee 
Committee had deprived the Committee on Un-American Activities of the 
opportunity to inspect books, papers, and other materials requested in 
a subpena duces tecum, which actions constituted contempt of the House 
of Rep
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 2743-53, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 100 Cong. Rec. 12825-38, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., July 
        30, 1954; 98 Cong. Rec. 3756-73, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 8, 
        1952; 96 Cong. Rec. 12284-86, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 11, 
        1950; 96 Cong. Rec. 12234-48, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 
        1950; and 93 Cong. Rec. 1127-37, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 18, 
        1947.
            Contempt proceedings instituted against recalcitrant 
        witnesses are discussed in Ch. 15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3184]]

resentatives. After the Clerk read the report, Mr. Wood offered a 
privileged resolution, House Resolution 573, that provided that the 
report be certified to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia 
to the end that the named persons be prosecuted. After argument, the 
resolution was amended so as to describe only the individual who had 
appeared before the House committee and refused to respond in the 
manner directed. The resolution was then agreed to.

Sec. 63.6 A committee report from the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce relating to the refusal of a witness to testify 
    was privileged.

    On Aug. 13, 1958,(1) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, by 
direction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
submitted a privileged report, House Report No. 85-2580, recommending 
that a contempt citation be issued against Bernard Goldfine. Shortly 
afterward, Mr. Harris offered a resolution, House Resolution 684, that 
certified the committee report to the U.S. Attorney for appropriate 
contempt proceedings. The House subsequently agreed to the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 104 Cong. Rec. 17361-86, 85th Cong 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 63.7 Report by a special committee authorized to make an 
    investigation stating that a witness had refused to testify before 
    the committee was privileged.

    On Mar. 29, 1940,(2) Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, by 
direction of the Special Committee to Investigate Un-American 
Activities, presented a privileged report, House Report No. 76-1900, 
stating that the committee had caused to be issued a subpena directing 
James H. Dolsen to appear and testify before the committee with records 
regarding the Communist Party and its activities, and that Mr. Dolsen 
had refused to testify as directed, such refusal being a willful and 
deliberate violation of the subpena. The report stated that the witness 
was in contempt of the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 3694, 3695, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ordered the report to be 
printed and directed the Clerk to report the resolution, House 
Resolution 446, certifying the report, together with all of the facts 
in connection with it, under the seal of the House of Representa

[[Page 3185]]

tives, to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, for 
appropriate proceedings. The resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 63.8 Reports from committees on the refusal of witnesses to 
    testify, if not called up immediately, are referred to the House 
    Calendar and ordered printed.

    On Apr. 8, 1952,(3) Mr. Robert L. Doughton, of North 
Carolina, by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted a 
privileged report, Honse Report No. 82-1748, which was referred to the 
House Calendar and ordered printed. The report cited Henry W. Grunewald 
for failing and refusing to answer pertinent questions propounded to 
him and produce papers, books, and other documents requested by 
committee subpena. The committee had been investigating allegations 
that Mr. Grunewald wrongfully intervened in tax cases and maintained 
close personal relations with several Internal Revenue Service 
officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 98 Cong. Rec. 3756-73, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reports Privileged Under Specific Provisions of House Rules

Sec. 63.9 Privileged reports have been made from the floor on bills 
    providing for statehood; and where the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs reported a privileged bill favoring the admission 
    of a new state [Alaska] and the bill contained matter incidental to 
    its main purpose, the privileged status was not destroyed.

    On June 25, 1957,(4) Mr. Leo W. O'Brien, of New York, 
submitted a privileged report providing for the admission of a new 
state into the Union. It was reported in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4 103 Cong. Rec. 10200, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Brien of New York from the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs submitted a privileged report (Reps. No. 624) on 
    the bill (H.R.7999) to provide for the admission of the State of 
    Alaska into the Union, which was referred to the Union Calendar and 
    ordered to be printed.

    On May 21, 1958,(5) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
by direction of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, moved 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of H.R. 7999, providing for the admission of Alaska into 
the Union. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, then made a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 104. Cong. Rec. 9212-17, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3186]]

point of order that the bill was not privileged and that accordingly, 
the motion was not in order at that time. Mr. Cannon argued that, if 
the bill was privileged at all, it was privileged under Rule 
XI,(6) authorizing the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs to report a bill for admission of a new state. Mr. Cannon 
argued that the bill had to conform in every respect with the rule or 
the privilege was destroyed. Mr. Cannon, Mr. John Taber, of New York, 
and Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, all argued against the privileged 
status of the bill on the basis of early precedents expressing the 
principle that ``the presence of matter not privileged with privileged 
matter destroys the privileged character of the bill.'' (7) 
In response, Mr. Arthur L. Miller, of Nebraska, and Mr. Leo W. O'Brien, 
of New York, argued that the other matters contained in the bill were 
necessarily incidental to the main purpose of the bill and that, were 
the rule given the narrow construction urged by Mr. Cannon and the 
others, it would be impossible in modern times to bring a statehood 
bill to the floor under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Rule XI clause 22, House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973).
 7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4622, 4624, 4633, 4640, 4643; 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In overruling the point of order, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
observed that some of the precedents cited by the Members in support of 
their arguments did not apply to statehood bills. He further stated:

        The bill before us is one to provide for the admission of the 
    State of Alaska into the Union. Upon a close examination of the 
    bill it will be found that all of the provisions contained therein 
    are necessary for the accomplishment of that objective. It may be 
    argued that some of them are incidental to the main purpose, but as 
    long as they tend toward the accomplishment of that end, such 
    incidental purposes do not destroy the privilege of the Committee 
    on Interior and Insular Affairs to report and call up the pending 
    bill.
        It may be said, therefore, that where the major feature--and 
    the Chair hopes the Members will listen to this--that where the 
    major feature of the bill relates to the admission of a new State, 
    lesser provisions incidental thereto do not destroy its privilege 
    when reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 
    and, therefore, for these and many other reasons, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Generally, the inclusion of nonprivileged 
matter in a bill otherwise privileged destroys the privileged status of 
the bill, as where provisions of a bill relate to subjects other than 
the subject which is specifically accorded privileged status under 
House rules. But seemingly nonprivileged provi

[[Page 3187]]

sions do not destroy the privileged status of the bill if they are 
incidental and necessary to the accomplishment of a privileged purpose 
of the bill. See the discussion in Sec. 63.13, infra.

Doctrine of Privileged Reports May Extend to Senate Bills

Sec. 63.10 A special committee having been given the power to study a 
    subject and report to the House, and authorized to report certain 
    bills and resolutions as privileged, may report Senate bills as 
    well as House bills under the privileged status given. Moreover, 
    where a Senate bill is reported by such committee with a committee 
    amendment containing language of House bills previously passed by 
    the House (a motion to reconsider having been tabled), the 
    committee amendment does not comprise such unprivileged matter as 
    would destroy the privileged status given the Senate bill.

    On Mar. 31, 1938,(8) points of order were made against 
consideration of a Senate bill (9) respecting governmental 
reorganization. The bill had been reported by a special committee 
which, under House Resolution 60, was given the privilege of reporting 
at any time with respect to certain matters. A point of order by Mr. 
Samuel B. Pettengill, of Indiana, was based in part on a contention 
that the Senate bill contained unprivileged matter and that therefore 
the bill's privileged status was destroyed. In a subsequent point of 
order against the Senate bill, Mr. Gerald J. Boileau, of Wisconsin, 
raised a question as to whether the authorizing resolution had given 
privileged status only to House bills reported by the committee, and 
not to Senate bills. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 83 Cong. Rec. 4474-77, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
 9. S. 3331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pettengill: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against S. 
    3331, Union Calendar 739, Report 2033, reported March 30, 1938, 
    from the Select Committee on Government Organization.
        The point of order is that the bill includes matters not 
    privileged and the inclusion of such nonprivileged matters destroys 
    the privilege of the whole. . . .
        This House passed H.R. 7730 July 27, 1937, during the present 
    Congress. The Record and the Journal of the House show that a 
    motion was made to reconsider the vote by which the House passed 
    H.R. 7730, and that said motion to reconsider was laid upon the 
    table. . . .
        Despite this action finally disposing of the subject matter of 
    H.R. 7730, S.

[[Page 3188]]

    3331, reported by the Select Committee on Government Organization 
    yesterday, is again reported in haec verba in the form in which it 
    passed the House on July 27, 1937, under title 2, section 201, of 
    S. 3331.

        For this reason, title 2, section 201, is nonprivileged matter, 
    and the inclusion thereof under the rules of the House destroys the 
    privilege of the whole of S. 3331 as reported.
        Similarly, the House on August 13, 1937, during the present 
    Congress, passed H.R. 8202, and the Record and Journal of the House 
    show that on August 13 last a motion was made to reconsider the 
    vote by which said H.R. 8202 passed the House, and that said motion 
    to reconsider was laid on the table. . . .
        An examination of S. 3331 will show that despite this action 
    taken by the House on August 13, 1937, the same subject matter as 
    included in H.R. 8202 in haec verba is contained in S. 3331. . . .
        The matter thus described in S. 3331 having heretofore been 
    finally disposed of by the House, at least pending a conference 
    with the Senate, it is not within the privilege of the Select 
    Committee on Government Organization to include the same in S. 
    3331, and that the inclusion of the same destroys the privilege of 
    all of S. 3331. . . .
        Putting aside, for the moment, the technical question of 
    privilege, I make a further point of order that S. 3331 with 
    reference to the matters therein set forth which I have above 
    described contains matter which it is not within the power of the 
    Select Committee on Government Organization, or any committee of 
    the House, or any member thereof, or the House itself, to report or 
    to receive or to take any committee or legislative action thereon. 
    . . .
        . . . For the reason as above stated, that by taking the action 
    to which I have referred with reference to H.R. 7730 on July 27, 
    1937, and H.R. 8202 on August 13, 1937, this House has divested 
    itself of any further authority, at least at the present time, to 
    take any legislative action whatsoever with respect to the subject 
    matter therein set forth. . . .
        The Speaker: (10) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    points of order raised by the gentleman from Indiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Indiana makes two points of order against 
    the consideration of Senate bill 3331. The first point of order is 
    based upon the ground that the select committee of the House of 
    Representatives appointed to deal with this matter does not have 
    authority to report a bill of this character. Under these 
    circumstances, in order that the whole situation may be presented 
    to the House, in the opinion of the Chair, it is necessary to 
    incorporate in the ruling at least a part of House Resolution 60 
    specifically setting up this select committee and designating 
    certain powers that it might have the right to exercise. The Chair 
    quotes from that resolution the following language:

            Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
        be, and he is hereby, authorized to appoint a select committee 
        of seven Members of the House to be known as the Select 
        Committee on Government Organization, for the purpose of 
        considering and reporting upon the subject matter contained in 
        the message of the

[[Page 3189]]

        President of the United States of January 12, 1937. All bills 
        and resolutions introduced in the House proposing legislation 
        concerning reorganization, coordination, consolidation, or 
        abolition of, or reduction of personnel in, organizations or 
        units in the Government shall be referred by the Speaker to the 
        said Select Committee on Government Organization. The said 
        Select Committee on Government Organization is hereby 
        authorized to report to the House at any time by bill or 
        otherwise with recommendations upon any matters covered by this 
        resolution; and any bill or resolution so reported shall be 
        placed upon the calendar and have a privileged status. . . .

        So it appears clear to the Chair that under the special 
    authority granted by the House itself to this select committee they 
    were given the privilege to report at any time, either by bill or 
    otherwise, any matters covered by the recommendations of the 
    President of the United States in the message referred to in the 
    resolution. While it is true that at a former session of the 
    Seventy-fifth Congress two separate bills were passed by the House 
    and sent over to the Senate for the consideration of that body, yet 
    that, in the opinion of the Chair, is not the direct parliamentary 
    problem here presented.
        Assuming, and the Chair thinks it is clear, that the committee 
    had the right to make any report that it saw fit upon these 
    problems, the question here is whether or not the select committee 
    had the right under this power delegated by the House and under 
    general parliamentary practice in addition to these powers to 
    report a bill passed by the Senate and to which the House committee 
    has stricken out all after the enacting clause and submitted, as is 
    the case here, an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    Senate bill. The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the committee 
    had that authority. Here is a bill sent over by the Senate and 
    referred to this select committee, and under the jurisdiction 
    conferred they have reported back to this House a Senate bill with 
    one amendment. The whole action of the select committee constitutes 
    an amendment and only one amendment to a Senate bill; and despite 
    the fact that the House may have heretofore passed in a former 
    session two bills touching upon certain phases of the President's 
    recommendation, the Chair is of the opinion that this would not 
    prevent the select committee from reporting an amendment to a 
    Senate bill. . . .
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the points of order.

    Subsequently, a point of order was made by Mr. Boileau, as follows:

        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of this bill at the present time. I grant, Mr. 
    Speaker, that the committee has jurisdiction of the subject matter 
    contained in the Senate bill.
        I make the point of order, however, that the resolution setting 
    up this committee and giving the committee privileged status gave 
    privileged status only to House bills and not to Senate bills, and 
    therefore the bill cannot be brought up in this manner.
        The Speaker: The Chair just a few moments ago read into the 
    Record the

[[Page 3190]]

    comprehensive powers of the select committee. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that the point of order is not well taken, and, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

Reports on Resolution of Disapproval

Sec. 63.11 A report from the Committee on Government Operations on a 
    resolution disapproving a reorganization plan is filed through the 
    hopper and not from the floor as privileged.

    On Feb. 15, 1962,(11) pursuant to Rule XIII clause 2, 
Mr. William L. Dawson, of Illinois, delivered to the Clerk the report 
of the Committee on Government Operations, House Report No. 87-1360, on 
House Resolution 530, which resolution disapproved of Reorganization 
Plan No. 1 of 1962, relating to the establishment of a Department of 
Urban Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 2263, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The privileged consideration of similar 
resolutions of disapproval which is explicitly provided by law is to be 
distinguished from privileged reports filed pursuant to the standing 
rules of the House. In the former case, privilege for consideration 
derives directly from law and the reports need not be filed from the 
floor to preserve that privilege. In the latter case, privileged 
reports must be filed from the floor in order to preserve their 
privileged consideration, since House rules do not explicitly permit 
privileged consideration regardless of the mode of filing.

Reports on Nomination of Vice President

Sec. 63.12 The report of the Committee on the Judiciary on the 
    nomination of Gerald R. Ford to be Vice President was filed through 
    the hopper and not from the floor as privileged.

    On Dec. 4, 1973,(12) Mr. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New 
Jersey, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, delivered House 
Report No. 93-695 on House Resolution 735 as a nonprivileged matter, 
pursuant to House Rule XIII clause 2. The resolution confirmed the 
nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, to be Vice President of the 
United States. The report was delivered to the Clerk for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 39419, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also 120 Cong. Rec. 40587, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 17, 
        1974, where Mr. Rodino filed H. Rept. No. 93-1609 on H. Res. 
        1511, confirming Nelson A. Rockefeller as Vice President of the 
        United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3191]]

printing and reference to the House Calendar.

Effect of Inclusion of Nonprivileged Matter

Sec. 63.13 The inclusion of nonprivileged matter in a bill otherwise 
    privileged under the rules destroys the privileged status of the 
    entire bill.

    On Apr. 8, 1935,(13) after Mr. Joseph J. Mansfield, of 
Texas, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of H.R. 6732, authorizing the construction 
of certain public works on rivers and harbors, Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, 
of New York, made a point of order against the motion. Mr. Snell 
contended that the motion was not in order because the bill was not 
privileged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 79 Cong. Rec. 5250, 5251, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, in response to the point of 
order, conceded that the bill should have contained only matters 
relating to rivers and harbors, and not matters relating to canals and 
artificial waterways, to be in strict compliance with the privilege. He 
also acknowledged that there were precedents that held that ``the 
presence in a bill, otherwise privileged, of matters not privileged 
destroys the privileged status of the whole bill.'' (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon Mr. Mansfield's insistence that the Speaker rule on the point 
of order, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, held that the motion 
was not in order, as the bill contained matters exceeding the scope of 
the privilege. The Speaker also noted that the bill had not been 
reported as privileged from the floor of the House, but rather through 
the hopper as an ordinary bill.

    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order 
    against the motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snell: I make the point of order against the motion of the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] on the ground that this is not 
    a privileged bill, and therefore the motion is not in order. I do 
    this not because I am opposed to the bill, because I am for it, but 
    in order to keep the Record and the precedents of the House intact 
    relative to the consideration of a river and harbor bill.
        As a matter of fact, the Chairman of the Rules Committee and I 
    had a word or two about this bill Saturday night. Originally, river 
    and harbor bills were privileged bills, but in those days they were 
    confined to river and harbor projects alone. In later years all of

[[Page 3192]]

    these river and harbor bills have contained various other matters, 
    such as channels, canals, and artificial waterways, which are not 
    privileged matter. Of course, the presence of unprivileged matter 
    in a bill makes the bill itself unprivileged. If I remember 
    correctly, the present distinguished Speaker made a ruling on this 
    very same proposition some 12 or 15 years ago when he was acting as 
    Chairman of Committee of the Whole, and as a further argument to 
    sustain my position, I respectfully call attention of the Speaker 
    to that decision.
        I would like to say further that as far as I am concerned, if 
    the Speaker sustains the point of order, which I believe he will, 
    if the gentleman from Texas will ask unanimous consent to call up 
    this bill, I doubt if there will be any opposition to considering 
    it at this time. The point I am making now is simply for the 
    purpose of maintaining the rules of the House, and not because I 
    have any opposition to the bill.
        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the point 
    of order, in order to keep the record clear. . . .
        Now, under clause 45 of rule XI of the House, bills reported by 
    the Committee on Rivers and Harbors for ``the improvement of rivers 
    and harbors'' are privileged, along with reports from the Rules 
    Committee, reports of the Elections Committees, general 
    appropriation bills, bills from the Public Lands Committee relating 
    to forfeiture of land grants to railroads, and so forth, reports 
    from the Accounts Committee pertaining to the contingent fund of 
    the House, reports on enrolled bills, reports from the Committee on 
    Territories admitting new Territories as States to the Union, 
    reports from the Invalid Pensions Committee reporting general 
    pension bills, and reports from the Joint Committee on Printing. I 
    think I have covered all the privileged reports. If not, I shall 
    include them later in my remarks.
        Under the rule, the gentleman from New York is correct in the 
    strict sense, in that the bill reported from the Committee on 
    Rivers and Harbors must relate only to rivers and harbors. This 
    ruling is sustained by the following precedent: On January 11, 
    1919, at page 1263 of the Record, the present distinguished 
    Speaker, then presiding as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union, ruled that a Rivers and Harbors 
    Committee report was not privileged because it contained canals and 
    artificial waterways. It has also been held that the presence in a 
    bill, otherwise privileged, of matters not privileged destroys the 
    privileged status of the whole bill (Hinds' Precedents, vol. IV, 
    sec. 4622, etc.).
        I am willing to concede to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Snell] that this bill does in fact contain provisions relating to 
    canals and creeks and artificial, and perhaps undiscovered, 
    waterways, so if the gentleman should press his point of order, the 
    bill would not be privileged. In view of that situation, however, 
    if the point of order is pressed, the Rules Committee is prepared 
    with a rule to meet the situation. . . .
        The Speaker: Clause 45 of rule XI, as it relates to the 
    Committee on Rivers and Harbors, reads as follows, under the 
    heading of Privileged Reports.

            The Committee on Rivers and Harbors, bills authorizing the 
        improvement of rivers and harbors.

[[Page 3193]]

        The bill which has been presented to the House not only relates 
    to rivers and harbors but provides for other waterways.
        There are quite a number of provisions in the bill, which it is 
    unnecessary to point out, providing for inland waterways; for 
    instance, from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay, the 
    improvement of the Cape Cod Canal, and other provisions quite 
    numerous which, in the opinion of the Chair, takes the bill from 
    under the privilege provided in the rules.
        The Chair feels constrained to follow the precedents heretofore 
    established and the plain letter of the rule the Chair has read, 
    which applies only to bills relating to rivers and harbors 
    exclusively. In addition to this, the Chair will state that the 
    Chair is informed that this bill was not presented to the House as 
    privileged bills are, but was reported through the basket, rather 
    than from the floor of the House.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

    Mr. Mansfield then sought and obtained unanimous consent for the 
immediate consideration of the bill.
    Parliamertariar's Note: In this instance, provisions of the bill 
related to subjects other than the subjects specifically accorded 
privileged status by rule, and therefore were clearly outside the scope 
of the privilege. This should be distinguished from the situation in 
which a bill contains seemingly nonprivileged provisions which are 
incidental to the main purpose of the bill, but which are necessary to 
or tend substantially toward the accomplishment of such purpose. It has 
been held, for example, under a rule that gave privilege to reports 
from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs relating to 
admission of new states, that the rule permitted inclusion in a bill of 
matters incidental to the bill's privileged purpose so long as ``they 
tend toward the accomplishment of that end.'' In such a case, the 
incidental matter does not destroy the privilege. [See the ruling of 
Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) with respect to H.R. 7999, a bill to provide 
for the admission of Alaska into the Union at Sec. 63.9, supra.]

Calling Up Privileged Resolution on Same Day Reported

Sec. 63.14 Prior to the adoption of the present ``three-day layover 
    rule,'' a report from a committee entitled to make privileged 
    reports under the rules could be called up for consideration on the 
    same day reported, and unanimous consent was not required.

    On June 16, 1965,(15) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of 
Maryland, by di
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 13799, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Res. 416, which authorized payment from the contingent fund 
        for employment of student congressional interns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3194]]

rection of the Committee on House Administration, called up House 
Resolution 416, and asked for its immediate consideration. Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, then made a parliamentary inquiry of Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts. The following exchange took place.

        Mr. Gross: Does the immediate consideration of this resolution 
    require unanimous consent?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Iowa that 
    this is a privileged report from the Committee on House 
    Administration.
        The question is on the committee amendments.

    However, in 1970 the House adopted the so-called ``three-day 
layover rule.(16) This rule essentially limits the right of 
immediate consideration by providing that, although privileged reports 
can still be reported at any time, the measure or matter reported 
cannot be considered until three days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, 
or legal holidays, have passed, except for resolutions reported by the 
Committee on Rules making in order the consideration of a bill, 
resolution, or other order of business, and except for committee 
funding resolutions reported by the Committee on House Administration 
subject to the one-day layover requirement of Rule XI clause 5. This 
rule change, brought about by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970,(17) affords Members a period of time to analyze and 
evaluate the matter before consideration thereof on the floor of the 
House. The three-day period begins to run when the printed report is 
available to Members after filed, and follows the separate three-day 
period of time granted Members to prepare and file supplemental, 
additional, and minority views for inclusion with the committee 
report.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See the present Rule XI clause 2(l) (6), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 715 (1979).
            For general discussion, see Ch. 21, infra.
17. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970).
18. H. Rept. No. 91-1215, 116 Cong. Rec. 20276, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 17, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 63.15 A two-thirds vote is required to call up for consideration a 
    resolution with its report from the Committee on Rules on the same 
    day it is reported.

    On July 2, 1960,(19) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
from the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 15775-90, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 112 Cong. 
        Rec. 10021, 10022, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., May 9, 1966, where the 
        House, by a two-thirds vote, agreed to consider a report from 
        the Committee on Rules on the same day it was reported [H. Res. 
        846]; and 106 Cong. Rec. 17673, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 25, 
        1960 [H. Res. 624].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3195]]

Committee on Rules, reported a privileged resolution (H. Res. 596 with 
accompanying House Report No. 862085), which resolution and report were 
referred to the House Calender and ordered to be printed. Mr. Bolling 
then called up the resolution and asked for its immediate 
consideration. The resolution provided that immediately upon its 
adoption, the bill, H.R. 12740, making supplemental appropriations for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes, with the 
Senate amendments thereto, be taken from the Speaker's table and the 
Senate amendments be considered in the House.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, then put the question as to whether 
the House would then consider the resolution and the Speaker announced 
that the yeas had it. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then made a 
parliamentary inquiry as to whether consideration of the resolution 
required unanimous consent. The Speaker responded that a two-thirds 
vote was required.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For precedents involving the privileged status of reports from the 
        Committee on Rules, see Sec. 55, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 63.16 Since a report on the contemptuous conduct of a witness 
    before a House committee involves the implied constitutional power 
    of the House and its authority under Rule IX to dispose directly of 
    questions affecting the dignity and integrity of House proceedings, 
    such report is privileged for consideration immediately upon 
    presentation to the House; a resolution directing the Speaker to 
    certify to the U.S. Attorney the refusal of the witness to respond 
    to a subpena issued by a House committee may be offered from the 
    floor as privileged, and the accompanying committee report may be 
    presented to the House without regard to the three-day availability 
    requirement for other reports.

    On July 13, 1971,(21) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
made a ruling that a report relating to the refusal of a witness to 
respond to a subpena duces tecum issued by a committee gives rise to a 
question of the privileges of the House and, under Rule IX, may be 
considered on the same day reported notwithstanding the requirement of 
then clause 27(d)(4) of Rule XI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 117 Cong. Rec. 24720-23, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3196]]

[see Rule XI clause 2(l)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1979)] 
that reports from committees be available to Members for at least three 
calendar days prior to their consideration.

    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    rise to a question of the privilege of the House, and I submit a 
    privileged report (Report No. 92-349). . . .
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons (of Florida): Mr. Speaker, I rise to 
    object to the consideration of this matter at this time in that I 
    believe that it violates clause 27, subparagraph (d)(4) of rule XI 
    of the Rules of the House of Representatives. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I think it would be best if I read just a portion 
    of the rule, and this rule reads as follows:

            A measure or matter reported by any committee (except the 
        Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on House 
        Administration, the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on 
        Standards of Official Conduct) shall not be considered in the 
        House unless the report of that committee upon that measure or 
        matter has been available to the Members of the House for at 
        least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and 
        legal holidays) prior to the consideration of that measure or 
        matter in the House. . . .
            This subparagraph shall not apply to--
            (A) Any measure for the declaration of war, or the 
        declaration of a national emergency, by the Congress; and
            (B) any executive decision, determination, or action which 
        would become, or continue to be, effective unless disapproved 
        or otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of Congress. . . 
        .

        Mr. Speaker, I realize that some may say a matter of this sort 
    is a matter of privilege and, therefore, is excepted from the rule. 
    It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of privilege was 
    specifically not excluded from the requirement of a 3-day layover 
    for the printing of the report but that the Committees on 
    Appropriations, House Administration, Rules, and Standards of 
    Official Conduct--those being the committees that generally deal 
    with matters of privilege--were set down under specific exception 
    and that it was never intended that citations such as this could be 
    considered in such a preemptive type of procedure as is now about 
    to take place. . . .
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, rule IX provides that ``Questions of 
    privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House 
    collectively''--as the gentleman from New York has just read--``its 
    safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings.''
        Privileges of the House includes questions relating to those 
    powers to punish for contempt witnesses who are summoned to give 
    information.
        House Rule 27(d) of rule XI, the so-called 3-day rule, clearly 
    does not apply to questions relating to privileges of the House. 
    The rule applies only to simple measures or matters reported by any 
    committee. It excludes matters arising from the Committees on 
    Appropriations, House Administration, Rules, and Standards of 
    Official Conduct.
        It is clear that the terms ``measure'' or ``matter'' as used in 
    rule 27(d) do not apply to questions of privilege.

[[Page 3197]]

        To apply it in such a way would utterly defeat the whole 
    concept of the question of privilege.
        Too, a privileged motion takes precedence over all other 
    questions except the motion to adjourn.
        The fact that the 3-day rule excludes routine matters from the 
    Appropriations, Administration, Rules, and Standards of Official 
    Conduct Committees clearly shows that the 3-day rule does not apply 
    to privileged questions.
        If the rule were meant to apply to questions of privilege, it 
    surely would not make exceptions for routine business coming from 
    regular standing committees.
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair has studied clause 27(d)(4) of 
    rule XI and the legislative history in connection with its 
    inclusion in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. That 
    clause provides that ``a matter shall not be considered in the 
    House unless the report has been available for at least 3 calendar 
    days.''
        The Chair has also examined rule IX, which provides that:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
        integrity of its proceedings  . . .; and shall have precedence 
        of all other questions, except motions to adjourn.

        Under the precedents, a resolution raising a question of the 
    privileges of the House does not necessarily require a report from 
    a committee. Immediate consideration of a question of privilege of 
    the House is inherent in the whole concept of privilege. When a 
    resolution is presented, the House may then make a determination 
    regarding its disposition.
        When a question is raised that a witness before a House 
    committee has been contemptuous, it has always been recognized that 
    the House has the implied power under the Constitution to deal 
    directly with such conduct so far as is necessary to preserve and 
    exercise its legislative authority. However, punishment for 
    contemptuous conduct involving the refusal of a witness to testify 
    or produce documents is now generally governed by law--Title II, 
    United States Code, sections 192-194--which provides that whenever 
    a witness fails or refuses to appear in response to a committee 
    subpena, or fails or refuses to testify or produce documents in 
    response thereto, such fact may be reported to the House. Those 
    reports are of high privilege.
        When a resolution raising a question of privilege of the House 
    is submitted by a Member and called up as privileged, that 
    resolution is also subject to immediate disposition as the House 
    shall determine.
        The implied power under the Constitution for the House to deal 
    directly with matters necessary to preserve and exercise its 
    legislative authority; the provision in rule IX that questions of 
    privilege of the House shall have precedence of all other 
    questions; and the fact that the report of the committee has been 
    filed by the gentleman from West Virginia as privileged--all refute 
    the argument that the 3-day layover requirement of clause 27(d)(4) 
    applies in this situation.
        The Chair holds that the report is of such high privilege under 
    the inherent constitutional powers of the House and under rule IX 
    that the provisions of clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI are not 
    applicable.

[[Page 3198]]

        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.