[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[F. Committee Reports]
[Â§ 64. Supplemental, Minority, and Additional Views]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3198-3204]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 64. Supplemental, Minority, and Additional Views

    The procedure for the filing of supplemental and other views was 
substantially revised by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970.(22) As stated in the report (23) of the 
Committee on Rules on H.R. 17654 (which became the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970), the act amended House Rule XI clause 27(d) 
by adding to that clause a new subparagraph (3),(24) which 
specifically provided for the filing of supplemental, minority, and 
additional views for inclusion in reports of standing, select, and 
special committees of the House. The report states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970).
23. H. Rept. No. 91-1215, 116 Cong. Rec. 20276, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 17, 1970.
24. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The proposed new subparagraph (3) provides that, if, at the 
    time any measure or matter is approved and ordered reported by any 
    standing, select, or special committee of the House, any member of 
    the committee gives notice of his intent to file supplemental, 
    minority, or additional views with respect to that measure or 
    matter for inclusion in the committee report, that committee member 
    is entitled to at least three calendar days, before the day on 
    which the committee report is filed, to file those views, in 
    writing, with the committee clerk. When those views are timely 
    filed, it is required that those views be included within and 
    constitute a part of the report of that House committee on the 
    measure or matter being reported.
        The proposed new subparagraph (3) further provides that such 
    report shall be printed in a single volume.
        This single volume must include all supplemental, minority, and 
    additional views which have been submitted by the time of the 
    filing of the report, irrespective of whether any member of such 
    House committee has given timely notice of his intent to file any 
    such views with the committee clerk and thus, under the proposed 
    new subparagraph (3), is entitled to three calendar days (or 
    shorter period of time if he specifically requests a shorter 
    period) in which to file those views.
        It is further required that the single volume containing the 
    report of the House committee shall have on its front cover a 
    statement that supplemental, minority, or additional views, as the 
    case may be, are included as a part of that report.
        The proposed new subparagraph (3) of clause 27(d) of House Rule 
    XI also contains a provision to the effect that if a member of a 
    House committee, who intends to file supplemental, minority, or 
    additional views with respect to a measure or matter approved and 
    ordered reported by his committee, does

[[Page 3199]]

    not give timely notice of his intent to file--that is, notice given 
    by or at the time the measure or matter is approved and ordered 
    reported by the committee--then the proposed new subparagraph (3) 
    does not prevent the immediate filing and printing of the report of 
    the House committee on the measure or matter concerned. Further, 
    the proposed subparagraph does not preclude the filing of 
    supplemental reports to correct technical errors in previous 
    reports.

    The effect of the new subparagraph is to formalize the previously 
existing policy of many standing committees under which committee 
members could file supplemental, minority, or additional views as a 
matter of courtesy. Under the former practice, committee members could, 
under certain circumstances, obtain unanimous consent to file such 
views. Under the rule, committee members may now file their views as a 
matter of right and if one member makes a timely request for filing 
views, all other members of the committee may submit views for 
inclusion in the report up to the time that member submits his views. 
Furthermore, the right is extended to members of select and special 
committees as well as standing committees.

Supplemental Reports Correcting Technical Errors

Sec. 64.1 The chairman of a committee will sometimes obtain unanimous 
    consent to file a supplemental report on a bill in order to correct 
    a technical error in the original report. However, the rules permit 
    the filing of a supplemental report to correct a technical error in 
    a previous report, and unanimous consent is not required.

    On Jan. 27, 1972,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, Chairman of the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs, who made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 1527, 1528, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. See also 104 Cong. 
        Rec. 5693, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 28, 1958 [H.R. 2767].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
    Interior and Insular Affairs have until midnight tonight to file a 
    supplemental report on H.R. 10086, a bill to provide increases in 
    appropriation ceilings and boundary changes in certain units of the 
    national park system, and for other purposes.

    The request was granted, and the supplemental report was filed.
    As a discussion four days later (2) revealed, the 
supplemental report was filed in order to correct a technical error in 
the previous report. Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, pointed this 
out, stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 118 Cong. Rec. 1707, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he committee in making some 22 changes that had to 
    comply

[[Page 3200]]

    with the Ramseyer rule inadvertently missed one of them. Rather 
    than request the waiver of points of order, the distinguished 
    chairman had a supplemental report prepared to cover that instance.
        Parliamentarian's Note: The rules permit the filing of a 
    supplemental report to correct a technical error in a previous 
    report without the requirement of unanimous consent but the three-
    day rule (Rule XI clause 2(l)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 
    [1979]) runs anew from the availability of the supplemental report. 
    The applicable provision in the then-prevailing rules (i.e., in the 
    92d Cong. 2d Sess.), was found in Rule XI clause 27(d)(3)(ii) [H. 
    Jour. 1603, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (1972)]. Such authority does not 
    include the filing of a supplemental report to change statements of 
    the legislative intent contained in the initial report.

    Rule XI clause 27(d)(3) noted, in pertinent part, that:

        If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by any 
    committee (except the Committee on Rules) any member of the 
    committee, gives notice of intention to file supplemental . . . 
    views, that member [would have not less than three calendar days 
    (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays), in which to 
    file such views, in writing and signed by that member, with the 
    clerk of the committee.

    It [clause 27(d)(3), Rule XI] further provided that:

        All such views so filed by one or more members of the committee 
    shall be included within, and shall be a part of, the report filed 
    by the committee with respect to that measure or matter. The report 
    of the committee upon that measure or matter shall be printed in a 
    single volume which--
        (A) shall include all supplemental, minority, or additional 
    views which have been submitted by the time of the filing of the 
    report. . .

    The clause [27(d)(3)] additionally stated, however, that the 
aforementioned subparagraph did not preclude:

        . . . (ii) the filing by any such committee of any supplemental 
    report upon any measure or matter which may be required for the 
    correction of any technical error in a previous report made by that 
    committee upon that measure or matter.

Sec. 64.2 By unanimous consent, the Committee on the Judiciary was 
    permitted to file a supplemental report on a bill proposing changes 
    in existing law, in order to comply with the Ramseyer rule.

    On Sept. 30, 1970,(3) Mr. Robert W. Kastenmeier, of 
Wisconsin, sought and obtained unanimous consent to file a supplemental 
report on H.R. 2175, a bill dealing with residential community 
treatment centers, in order to comply with the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 34302, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 64.3 By unanimous consent, the Committee on Interstate

[[Page 3201]]

    and Foreign Commerce was given permission to file a supplemental 
    report on a bill previously reported.

    On Sept. 24, 1962,(4) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce have permission to file a supplemental report on 
H.R. 11581, dealing with drug amendments of 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 20522, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequent Filing of Minority Views Accompanying Reports

Sec. 64.4 The minority members of a committee may, by unanimous 
    consent, be permitted to file minority views, to accompany a House 
    report previously filed and printed, as part 2 of such report.

    On May 3, 1962,(5) Charles S. Gubser, of California, a 
member of the Committee on Armed Services, sought and obtained 
unanimous consent to file minority views on the bill, H.R. 5532, and 
that these minority views be printed as part 2 of the committee report 
on that bill.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Conc. Rec. 7747, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 
        5376, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1962 [H. Rept. No. 87-
        1471].
 6. Compare Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 
        (1979) which provides, in relevant part, that the ``report of 
        the committee upon that measure or matter shall be printed in a 
        single volume'' (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erroneous Signatures

Sec. 64.5 A Member announced to the House that, through error, he had 
    been listed as one of the signers of the minority views 
    accompanying a committee report.

    On June 5, 1959,(7) after being given permission to 
extend his remarks in the Record, Mr. Thomas J. Lane, of Massachusetts, 
called to the attention of the House that on June 2, 1959, his name was 
erroneously listed in House Report No. 86-422 accompanying H.R. 3 from 
the Committee on the Judiciary, as a signatory to the minority views. 
Mr. Lane stated that he was in favor of the legislation in question, a 
bill to establish rules for federal courts in cases involving the 
doctrine of federal preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.105 Cong. Rec. 10014, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adding Signatures

Sec. 64.6 Where certain Members have obtained permission of the House 
    to file minority views, additional signatures may be appended at a 
    later

[[Page 3202]]

    time only by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 2, 1963,(8) Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent that Mr. William M. McCulloch, of 
Ohio, and Mr. Garner E. Shriver, of Kansas, have permission to add 
their names to the additional views filed that day by minority members 
of the Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to the unanimous-consent 
agreement obtained by Mr. John V. Lindsay, of New York, on Nov. 26, 
1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cono. Rec. 23008, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 64.7 Leave to file minority views while the House is not in 
    session is granted by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 2, 1963, Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota, sought and 
obtained unanimous consent that ``the report referred to directly above 
may be filed at any time up until midnight tonight.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See the proceedings at 109 Cong. Rec. 23008, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        discussed further in Sec. 64.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Reporting of Rule for Consideration

Sec. 64.8 The filing (by unanimous consent) of a supplemental report on 
    a bill previously reported, does not prevent consideration of the 
    bill even though the rule providing for consideration of the bill 
    was reported before the filing of the report.

    On Feb. 29, 1940,(10) Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
raised a point of order against consideration of a bill on the ground 
that the bill had been so amended that it was no longer the same bill 
which the Committee on Rules had studied when it recommended adoption 
of a special rule making in order the consideration of the bill. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ultimately decided that the rule 
recommended by the Committee on Rules providing for consideration of 
the bill was broad enough to permit consideration of the bill even 
though the legislative committee's supplemental report, filed after the 
Committee on Rules had recommended approval
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 2178-87, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Res. 249 (which involved the calling up of S. 685, a water 
        pollution control bill) which was reported from the Committee 
        on Rules on July 10, 1939. Subsequently, on Feb. 20, 1940, the 
        Committee on Rivers and Harbors offered, with permission of the 
        House, a supplemental report which recommended amendments not 
        included in the original committee report. The rule was called 
        up in the House on Feb. 29, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3203]]

of the special rule, suggested major amendments to the bill

    The situation on the floor was described in the following manner by 
Mr. Michener: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 2183-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        What I am getting at is this: A bill was introduced in the 
    House. The committee introducing the bill asked for a rule 
    reporting that bill. The Rules Committee granted a rule reporting a 
    specific bill. Later the legislative committee came in and asked 
    unanimous consent that a supplementary report might befiled on the 
    original bill. That consent was granted. A supplementary report was 
    filed, which includes the Senate bill, which is an entirely 
    different bill than the Rules Committee authorized a rule for.
        Therefore, if you consider the Senate bill in connection with 
    the report, there will be before the House a piece of legislation 
    on which a rule was never granted, about which the Rules Committee 
    knew nothing. The point of the whole thing is this: If that can be 
    done, then, by subterfuge, a committee may bring a perfectly 
    harmless bill before the Rules Committee and get a rule, and then 
    by a later supplemental report absolutely change the bill and still 
    have a place on the legislative program.

    Following a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Michener as to whether 
this procedure was valid under the House rules, Speaker Rayburn 
responded:

        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 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 per

[[Page 3204]]

    fect right under the general authority conferred upon it to report 
    this resolution providing for this method of consideration of the 
    bill.
