[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2493-2514]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees


[[Page 2493]]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Initial commentary and editing by David P. Gery, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Creating and Organizing Committees

   Sec. 1. In General
   Sec. 2. Establishing Standing Committees; Procedure
   Sec. 3. -- Authorizing Investigations
   Sec. 4. Committee Expenses; Use of Contingent Fund
   Sec. 5. Establishing Select Committees; Procedure
   Sec. 6. -- Subjects of Investigation or Study
   Sec. 7. Joint Committees

B. Committee Chairmen, Members, and Employees

   Sec. 8. In General; Electing Chairmen
   Sec. 9. Electing Members to Standing Committees
   Sec. 10. Appointments to Select Committees
   Sec. 11. Seniority Considerations
   Sec. 12. Setting and Increasing Committee Membership
   Sec. 13. Appointment, Employment, and Compensation of Employees

C. Committee Procedure

   Sec. 14. Generally
   Sec. 15. Adoption of Committee Rules
   Sec. 16. Sitting of Committees While House Is in Session
   Sec. 17. Role of Chairman
   Sec. 18. Members' Access to Committee Records and Files
   Sec. 19. Disposition of Committee Documents, Evidence, and Files
   Sec. 20. Disclosure of Unreported Committee Proceedings

[[Page 2494]]

   Sec. 21. Executive Sessions
   Sec. 22. --Use of Information Obtained in Executive Session
   Sec. 23. Reporting Measure From Committee Requires Quorum
   Sec. 24. Point of Order Based on Lack of Committee Quorum--Timing
   Sec. 25. --Effect

D. Jurisdiction of Committees

   Sec. 26. Introduction
   Sec. 27. Referral of Measures to Committees; Procedure
   Sec. 28. Motions to Rerefer
   Sec. 29. Overlapping Jurisdiction; Proposals Involving More Than One 
            Subject
   Sec. 30. Committee on Agriculture
   Sec. 31. Committee on Appropriations
   Sec. 32. Committee on Armed Services
   Sec. 33. Committee on Banking and Currency
   Sec. 34. Committee on the Budget
   Sec. 35. Committee on the District of Columbia
   Sec. 36. Committee on Education and Labor
   Sec. 37. Committee on Foreign Affairs
   Sec. 38. Committee on Government Operations
   Sec. 39. Committee on House Administration
   Sec. 40. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
   Sec. 41. Committee on Internal Security
   Sec. 42. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
   Sec. 43. Committee on the Judiciary
   Sec. 44. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
   Sec. 45. Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
   Sec. 46. Committee on Public Works
   Sec. 47. Committee on Science and Astronautics
   Sec. 48. Committee on Small Business

   Sec. 49. Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
   Sec. 50. Committee on Veterans' Affairs

[[Page 2495]]

   Sec. 51. Committee on Ways and Means

E. Committee on Rules

   Sec. 52. History and Role
   Sec. 53. Jurisdiction and Scope of Authority
   Sec. 54. Committee Procedure
   Sec. 55. Reports From the Committee
   Sec. 56. Same-day Consideration of Reported Resolution
   Sec. 57. Consideration and Adoption by House of Resolutions Reported 
            From the Committee

F. Committee Reports

   Sec. 58. In General
   Sec. 59. Form; Printing
   Sec. 60. Comparative Prints; The Ramseyer Rule
   Sec. 61. Cost-estimate Requirement
   Sec. 62. Time for Filing Report
   Sec. 63. Status as Privileged; Calling Up
   Sec. 64. Supplemental, Minority, and Additional Views

  



                          INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
                                     

                         DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS
Ch. 17
Abolished committee, electing members of, to new committee, Sec. 9.9
Abolition of committee, Sec. 2.6
Access, Members', to classified information, Sec. 15.4
Access, Members', to committee records and files
    generally; bringing files to well of House, Sec. 18.1
    Armed Services Committee, classified information in files of, 
        Sec. 18.3
    classified information in files of Armed Services Committee, 
        Sec. 18.3
    executive sessions, testimony and evidence taken in, Sec. 18.2
    photocopying documents, Sec. 18.4
Adjournment sine die, appointments to select committee or commission 
    after, Sec. 10.4
Adoption of committee rules
    access, Members', to classified information, Sec. 15.4
    classified information, Members' access to, Sec. 15.4
    House rules, committee rules as consistent with, Sec. 15.1
    Record, insertion of rules in, Sec. Sec. 15.2, 15.3

[[Page 2496]]

Agriculture, certain employees in, application of Social Security Act 
    provisions to--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 51.1, 51.2
Alcohol Administration Act, Federal--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 42.5
Amendment to rules as establishing standing committee, Sec. Sec. 2.2, 
    2.3
Animals, domestic--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 30.2-30.4
Announcing appointments to select committee or commission, 
    Sec. Sec. 10.5-10.8
Announcing appointments to select committee or commission made during 
    recess, Sec. 10.6
Annuities under Civil Service Retirement Act, exemption from taxation 
    of--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 51.3
Atomic Energy, Joint Committee on, Sec. Sec. 7.7, 7.8
Authority of committees as continuing during subsequent Congress, 
    Sec. 1.2
Beauty Shop, appointments to Select Committee on, Sec. 10.11
Biological program, international--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 47.3
Boards of review, jurisdiction of Armed Services Committee over, 
    Sec. Sec. 32.4-32.8
Budget summary--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 31.5
Bureau of Land Management, activities of employees of--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 40.2
Campaign contributions--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 49.1
Campaign practices and expenditures, investigation of, by select 
    committees, Sec. 6.1
Campsites, federal, safety standards for--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 36.17
Cemeteries, veterans'--committee jurist diction, Sec. 50.7
Chairmen, committee
    absence, authority to be exercised in, Sec. 17.5
    absence of chairman, authority to be exercised in, Sec. 17.5
    appeal from chairman's decision, Sec. 17.3
    approved measure, duty to report, Sec. 17.1
    authorization by committee to make motion not needed, Sec. 17.4
    calling committee meeting without action by, Sec. 17.6
    death of chairman, Sec. 8.3
    duty to report approved measure, Sec. 17.1
    electing chairmen by resolution, Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.2
    election of chairman during final three days of Congress, Sec. 8.4
    election of chairman following resignations, Sec. Sec. 8.5, 8.6
    election resolutions and capacity of movant, Sec. 8.7
    final three days of Congress, election of chairman during, Sec. 8.4
    impartiality, Sec. 17.2
    independently, capacity to act, Sec. 17.4
    meeting called without action by chairman, Sec. 17.6
    removal of, by House action, Sec. 17.7
    removal of chairman by House action, Sec. 17.7
    report, duty to, approved measure, Sec. 17.1
    resignation, election following, Sec. Sec. 8.5, 8.6
    resolution electing chairman, privileged status of, Sec. 8.2
Civil actions brought by servicemen--jurisdiction of, Sec. 32.1
Civil aeronautics--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 42.2
Civil Service Retirement Act, exemption from taxation of annuities

[[Page 2497]]

    under--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 51.3
Civilian Conservation Corps--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 40.1
Civilian volunteers, recognition of, as within jurisdiction of Armed 
    Services Committee, Sec. 32.28
Claims by flood victims--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 43.3
Claims for injuries suffered in civil disorder--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 43.4
Claims for lost articles at Capitol--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 43.7
Claims, international, settlement of--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. Sec. 37.2, 37.3
Claims, land, by United States--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 40.13
Classified information, Members' access to, Sec. 15.4
Coast Guard, civilian employees of, duties and pay of--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 44.3
Committee jurisdiction, see Jurisdiction
Commodity Credit Corporation--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 30.1, 
    33.1, 33.2
Concurrent resolution, continuation of joint committee by, Sec. 7.3
Concurrent resolution, use of, to create joint committee, 
    Sec. Sec. 7.1, 7.2
Conflicts of interest in executive branch--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 43.11
Continental Shelf, marine resources of--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 44.10
Continental Shelf, reserving areas of, for Defense Department--
    committee jurisdiction, Sec. 40.15
Contingent fund and committee expenses
    allocation of funds for committee personnel, Sec. 4.1
    investigative personnel, compensation of, Sec. Sec. 13.4, 13.5
    minority party funding, Sec. 4.1
    privilege of resolution paying expenses from contingent fund, 
        Sec. 4.2
    recommittal of resolution paying expenses from contingent fund, 
        Sec. 4.5
    resolution paying expenses from contingent fund, Sec. 4.2
    resolution paying expenses from contingent fund, recommittal of, 
        Sec. 4.5
    select committees, Sec. 5.4
    subcommittee's expenses, contingent fund moneys for, Sec. 4.6
    temporary staff salary payments, Sec. Sec. 13.6-13.8
    underestimation of expenses, use of contingent fund upon, Sec. 4.7
Contingent fund of House, jurisdiction of House Administration 
    Committee as to, Sec. 39.1
Continuing authority of committees during subsequent Congress, Sec. 1.2
Creating and organizing committees
    abolition of one committee and replacement with another, Sec. 2.6
    amending House rules, establishing standing committee by, 
        Sec. Sec. 2.2, 2.3
    authority of committees continuing during subsequent Congress, 
        Sec. 1.2
    continuing authority of committees during subsequent Congress, 
        Sec. 1.2
    executive agency, investigation of, Sec. 3.2
    expansion of investigations beyond U.S. borders, Sec. Sec. 3.4-3.8
    investigation by two committees, resolution authorizing, Sec. 3.9
    investigation of subversives in government, Sec. 3.1
    investigations, authorizing, Sec. Sec. 3.1-3.14
    investigations, defining extent of, Sec. 3.3

[[Page 2498]]

    investigations, expansion of, beyond U.S. borders, Sec. Sec. 3.4-
        3.8
    Investigative resolution, specificity in, Sec. Sec. 3.10-3.12
    motion to recommit, use of, relative to funding, Sec. Sec. 4.3, 4.4
    name, committee, amendment to rules as changing, Sec. 2.4
    recommit, use of motion to, relative to funding, Sec. Sec. 4.3, 4.4
    resolution, establishing standing committee by, Sec. 2.1
    rules, amendment to, changing committee name, Sec. 2.4
    rules, establishing standing committee by amending, Sec. Sec. 2.2, 
        2.3
    select committee to study House committee system, Sec. 1.1
    specificity in investigative resolution, Sec. Sec. 3.10-3.12
    subsequent Congress, continuing authority of committees during, 
        Sec. 1.2
    subversives in government, investigation of, Sec. 3.1
    transfer of membership and documents from one committee to another, 
        Sec. 2.5
    Veterans' Administration, investigation of, Sec. 3.2
Death gratuity, payment of, as within jurisdiction of Armed Services 
    Committee, Sec. 32.10
Death of committee chairman, Sec. 8.3
Debts owed to United States, by government employees, collection of--
    committee jurisdiction, Sec. 38.9
Delegate, election of, to committee, Sec. 9.13
Demotions in seniority, effect of, on other members, Sec. 11.2
Disability status of discharged persons, review of, as within 
    jurisdiction of Armed Services Committee, Sec. Sec. 32.4-32.8
Disabled emergency officers' retirement benefits, time for application 
    for--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 32.19
Disabled military retirees in federal civilian employment, remuneration 
    of--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 45.7
Discharging resolution from Rules Committee, Sec. 55.4
District of Columbia, commission to prepare code of laws for--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 43.12
Domestic animals--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 30.2-30.4
Duration, limited, establishing select committee of, Sec. 5.5
Electing members to standing committees, see Standing committees, 
    electing members to
Elections, code revisions relating to offenses in--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 43.32
Elections, federal--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 39.4
Employee disability or death benefits--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. Sec. 36.3-36.9
Employees, committee
    approval, committee, resolutions authorizing, Sec. Sec. 13.1-13.3
    contingent fund, temporary staff salary payments from, 
        Sec. Sec. 13.6-13.8
    contingent fund, use of, to compensate investigative personnel, 
        Sec. Sec. 13.4, 13.5
    expired committee, staff of, authorized to compile report, 
        Sec. 13.9
    report, staff of expired committee authorized to compile, Sec. 13.9
    temporary staff salary payments from contingent fund, 
        Sec. Sec. 13.6-13.8
Employment in the House--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 39.2, 39.3
Environmental Quality, establishment of Council on--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 47.2

[[Page 2499]]

Establishing standing committee by amending House rules, Sec. Sec. 2.2, 
    2.3
Establishing standing committee by resolution, Sec. 2.1
Executive sessions
    debate, reference in, to minutes of executive session, Sec. 22.5
    disclosure by vote of committee, Sec. Sec. 22.2, 22.3
    improperly convened session, reporting of bill from, Sec. 21.2
    newspaper allegation of unauthorized attendance, resolution 
        refuting, Sec. 21.3
    Record, insertion in, of minutes, Sec. 22.1 reference to session 
        without quotation, Sec. 22.4
    voting to close meeting or hearing, Sec. 21.1
Fair employment practices--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 36.10
Farm housing, assistance in securing--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 33.4
Federal Employees' Compensation Act, Sec. Sec. 36.3-36.9
Federal purposes, land used for--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 38.7
Files and records of committee
    access, Members', Sec. Sec. 18.1-18.4
    Archives, National, records available at, Sec. 19.4
    disposition of, after adjournment, Sec. 19.1
    expiration of term of special committee, disposition after, 
        Sec. 19.2
    Justice Department, transfer of evidence to, Sec. 19.5
    select and standing committees, transfer of records between, 
        Sec. 19.3
    special committee, disposition of files after expiration of, 
        Sec. 19.2
Fiscal year, underestimation of expenses of, use of contingent fund due 
    to, Sec. 4.7
Five-minute rule for interrogation of witnesses,  14.1
Flower, national--committee jurisdiction Sec. 39.5
Foreign agencies within United States, regulation of--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 41.3, 41.4
Forest fire protection compact--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 30.5
Funds for committee personnel, allocation of, for minority party, 
    Sec. 4.1
Government Printing Office employees, pay rates for--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 39.6
Headstones within jurisdiction of Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
    Sec. Sec. 50.3, 50.4
Honorable discharges for World War I veterans--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 32.11
Hospital construction in Indian communities--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 42.7
Hospital facilities, construction of, as within jurisdiction of 
    District of Columbia Committee, Sec. 35.6
House rules, committee rules as consistent with, Sec. 15.1
Housing, Armed Services Committee jurisdiction as to, Sec. Sec. 32.17, 
    32.18
Housing under Lanham War Housing Act--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 33.5
Immigration service salaries--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 45.6
Indians, tax incentives to improve economic circumstances of--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 51.6
Inland waters, boundaries of--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 40.7, 
    40.8
Internal revenue laws, codification of--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 51.4
International financial organiza-
    tions--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 33.7, 33.8
Inventions, National Defense Commission on--comnittee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 43.15

[[Page 2500]]

Investigations
    authorizing resolution, rejection of, Sec. Sec. 3.13, 3.14
    executive agency, Sec. 3.2
    expansion of, beyond U.S. borders, Sec. Sec. 3.4-3.8
    extent of probe, defining, Sec. 3.3 recommit, motion to, relative 
        to funding, Sec. Sec. 4.3, 4 4
    rejection of authorizing resolution, Sec. Sec. 3.13, 3.14
    select committee and Clerk authorized, Sec. 5.6
    select committees, Sec. 5.6
    select committees, subjects of investigation by-campaigns, Sec. 6.1
    select committees, subjects of investigation by-conduct of House 
        Members, officers, and employees, Sec. 6.3
    select committees, subjects of investigation by-congressional 
        pages, welfare of, Sec. 6.7
    select committees, subjects of investigation by-crime, Sec. 6.2
    select committees, subjects of investigation by-government 
        research, Sec. 6.4
    select committees, subjects of investigation by-small business, 
        Sec. 6.6
    select committees, subjects of investigation by-Southeast Asia, 
        military involvement in, Sec. 6.5
    specificity in investigative resolutions, Sec. Sec. 3.2-3.12
    subversives in government, Sec. 3.1
    two committees, Sec. 3.9
    Veterans' Administration, Sec. 3.2
Irrigation and reclamation--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 40.3, 
    40.10
Joint committees
    Atomic Energy, Joint Committee on, Sec. Sec. 7.7, 7.8
    concurrent resolution, continuation of joint committee by, Sec. 7.3
    concurrent resolution, use of, to create, Sec. Sec. 7.1, 7.2
    joint resolution, use of, to create, Sec. Sec. 7.4, 7.5
    Senate committee, special, establishing, Sec. 7.6
    Washington Metropolitan Problems, Joint Committee on, Sec. 7.9
Joint resolution, use of, to create joint committee, Sec. Sec. 7.4, 7.5
Judges, District of Columbia, retirement pay for--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 43.13
Judges, District of Columbia, salary adjustments for--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 45.2
Jurisdiction of Agriculture Committee
    animals, domestic, Sec. Sec. 30.2-30.4
    Commodity Credit Corporation, Sec. 30.1
    forest fire protection compact, Sec. 30.5
    water conservation, Sec. 30.6 watershed work plans, Sec. 30.7
Jurisdiction of Appropriations Committee
    budget summary, Sec. 31.5
    legislation barred from bills, Sec. 31.4
    legislation measure expressly authorized by House, Sec. 31.1
    legislation, noncontroversial, Sec. 31.3
    legislative provisions in special appropriation bill, Sec. 31.8
    prospectus for Public Buildings Act project, Sec. 31.7
    revenues previously appropriated, Sec. 31.6
    Senate amendments to appropriation bills, Sec. 31.2
Jurisdiction of Armed Services Committee
    benefits for certain personnel, Sec. Sec. 32.20, 32.21

[[Page 2501]]

    boards of review, Sec. Sec. 32.4-32.8
    civil actions brought by servicemen, 132.1
    civilian volunteers, recognition of, Sec. 32.28
    death gratuity, payment of, Sec. 32.10
    disability status of discharged persons, review of, Sec. Sec. 32.4-
        32.8
    disabled emergency officers' retirement benefits, time for 
        application for, Sec. 32.19
    discharges for certain World War I veterans, Sec. 32.20
    honorable discharges for World War I veterans, Sec. 32.11
    housing, acquisition of, Sec. 32.18
    housing contracts, Sec. 32.17
    medals, bill authorizing, Sec. Sec. 32.2, 32.3
    medical facilities, construction of, at Walter Reed, Sec. 32.9
    memorials and headstones for deceased veterans, Sec. Sec. 32.13-
        32.1.5
    private bill crediting service for promotion, Sec. 32.25
    private bill for retirement benefits, Sec. Sec. 32.26, 32.27
    property, military, conveyance of, Sec. 32.24
    records, correction of, claims arising upon, Sec. 32.29
    reorganization of military departments, Sec. 32.12
    retired pay of certain regular and emergency veteran officers, 
        removal of limitations on, Sec. 32.23
    retirement benefits for certain World War I emergency officers, 
        Sec. 32.22
    Ryukyuan cultural artifacts, investigation of, Sec. 32.16
    Servicemen's and Veterans' Survivor Benefits Act, bill amending, 
        Sec. 32.21
Jurisdiction of Banking and Currency Committee
    Commodity Credit Corporation, Sec. Sec. 33.1, 33.2
    farm housing, assistance in securing, Sec. 33.4
    housing under Lanham War Housing Act, Sec. 33.5
    international financial organizations, Sec. Sec. 33.7, 33.8
    tax-exempt foundation and charitable trusts, impact on economy of, 
        Sec. 33.6
    tin smelting and production, Sec. 33.10
    urban development grants, coordination of, Sec. 33.3
    veterans, promotion of state bonds issued to provide payment of 
        cash bonuses to, Sec. 33.9
Jurisdiction of Budget Committee, Sec. 34
Jurisdiction of District of Columbia Committee
    corporations, certain, consolidation of, Sec. 35.5
    development, metropolitan, Sec. 35.4
    employment service, Sec. 35.8
    hospital facilities, construction of, Sec. 35.6
    land use in the District, Sec. Sec. 35.1-35.3
    militia, District of Columbia,  35.9
    parking facilities on federal land, Sec. 35.7
Jurisdiction of Education and Labor Committee
    campsites, federal, safety standards for, Sec. 36.17
    employee disability or death benefits, Sec. Sec. 36.3-36.9
    fair employment practices, Sec. 36.10
    Federal Employees' Compensation Act, Sec. Sec. 36.3-36.9
    grants and loans for school facilities, Sec. 36.1

[[Page 2502]]

    human services programs, Sec. 36.11
    juvenile delinquents and runaways, programs relating to, 
        Sec. Sec. 36.12, 36.13
    labor disputes in defense industries, bill to control, referred by 
        unanimous consent, Sec. 36.14
    Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, Sec. 36.15
    mineral resources conservation institutes, Sec. 36.16
    programs, legislative, authorizing new educational, Sec. 36.2
    safety standards for recreational campsites, Sec. 36.17
Jurisdiction of Foreign Affairs Committee
    claims, international, settlement of, Sec. Sec. 37.2, 37.3
    Commissioner for United States Court for China, appointment of, 
        Sec. 37.1
    communications, international, District of Columbia corporation to 
        add, Sec. 37.4
    diplomatic service, Sec. 37.5
    lend-lease aid bills, Sec. 37.7
    memorials of foreign legislative bodies, Sec. 37.8
    Pan-American Day, Sec. 37.9
    Rio Grande River Bridge construction, Sec. 37.10
    troop commitments, agreements affecting, Sec. 37.11
    whaling, regulation of, Sec. 37.6
Jurisdiction of Government Operations Committee
    boards, committees, and commissions in executive branch, creation 
        of, Sec. Sec. 38.1-38.3
    death or incapacity of military disbursing officer, transaction of 
        public business in event of, Sec. 38.8
    debts, collection of, owed to United States by government 
        employees, Sec. 38.9
    executive agencies' coordination, Sec. 38.4
    executive agency reorganization, Sec. 38.5
    federal job applicants, travel costs for, Sec. 38.10
    federal purposes, land used for, Sec. 38.7
    legislative jurisdiction exercised by United States over land in 
        several states, Sec. 38.7
    records, government, Sec. 38.6
    travel costs for federal job applicants, Sec. 38.10
Jurisdiction of House Administration Committee
    contingent fund of the House, Sec. 39.1
    elections, federal, Sec. 39.4
    employment in the House, Sec. Sec. 39.2, 39.3
    flower, national, Sec. 39.5
    pay rates for Government Printing Office employees, Sec. 39.6
    personnel policies, Sec. 39.7
    printing, Sec. 39.8
    telephone service for House, Sec. 39.9
    wiretap on Member's telephone, investigation of, Sec. 39.9
Jurisdiction of Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
    Bonneville Power Administration, financing of, Sec. 40.3
    Bureau of Land Management, activities of employees of, Sec. 40.2
    Civilian Conservation Corps, Sec. 40.1
    claims, land, by United States, Sec. 40.13
    Continental Shelf, reserving areas of, for Defense Department, 
        Sec. 40.15
    forest and wilderness areas, Sec. Sec. 40.4-40.6
    historic site, development of Pennsylvania Avenue as, Sec. 40.21

[[Page 2503]]

    Indian lands, Sec. 40.11
    inland waters, boundaries of, Sec. Sec. 40.7, 40.8
    irrigation and reclamation, Sec. Sec. 40.9, 40.10
    mineral leases, Sec. 40.18
    Missouri River Basin project, Sec. Sec. 40.19, 40.20
    Navy, acquisition of land by, on Guam, Sec. 40.14
    oil shale lands, proceeds from disposal of, Sec. 40.12
    parks, military, Sec. Sec. 40.16, 40.17
    reservoirs, renaming, Sec. 40.22
Jurisdiction of Internal Security Committee
    communism, resolution defining, Sec. 41.2
    foreign agencies within United States, regulation of, 
        Sec. Sec. 41.3, 41.4
    rules amended to redefine jurisdiction, Sec. 41.1
Jurisdiction of Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee
    Alcohol Administration Act, Federal, Sec. 42.5
    Arctic Winter Games, financing of, Sec. 42.1
    civil aeronautics, Sec. 42.2
    engineering and industrial research, Sec. 42.4
    holding companies, Sec. 42.6
    hospital construction in Indian communities, Sec. 42.7
    loan guarantees to educational institutions developing 
        telecommunications systems, Sec. 42.8
    physical fitness and training programs for civilians, Sec. 42.9
    safety standards on government purchased vehicles, Sec. 42.10
    telecommunications systems, loan guarantees to educational 
        institutions developing, Sec. 42.8
    travel data, United States, Sec. 42.11
    unfair trade practices, civil remedies for, Sec. 42.3
    vehicles, government-purchased, safety standards on, Sec. 42.10
    war claims, certain, settlement of, Sec. Sec. 42.12-42.14
Jurisdiction of Judiciary Committee
    cigarettes, elimination of racketeering in distribution of, 
        Sec. 43.14
    civil disorder, injuries suffered in, claims for, Sec. 43.4
    civil liberties, Sec. 43.2
    claims by flood victims, Sec. 43.3
    claims for injuries suffered in civil disorder, Sec. 43.4
    claims for lost articles at Capitol, Sec. 43.7
    code of laws for District of Columbia, commission to prepare, 
        Sec. 43.12
    code revisions relating to offenses in elections, Sec. 43.32
    compensation of certain U.S. employees, Sec. 43.5
    conflicts of interest in executive branch, Sec. 43.11
    criminal justice training and research, Sec. 43.9
    Inventions, National Defense Commission on, Sec. 43.15
    Inventive Contributions Awards Board within Department of Defense, 
        Sec. 43.16
    judges, District of Columbia, retirement pay for, Sec. 43.13
    legal defense for personnel of House committees, Sec. 43.17
    motto, national, Sec. 43.18
    naval personnel on Great Lakes, validation of additional sea-duty 
        payments to, Sec. 43.8

[[Page 2504]]

    oaths of office, renewals of, by executive branch civilians, 
        Sec. 43.19
    pensions for certain class of persons, increasing, Sec. 43.6
    private bills, certain, Sec. Sec. 43.20-43.29
    proclamations for periods of celebration or commemoration, 
        Sec. 43.1
    salary claim by former Member's estate, Sec. 43.30
    sex discrimination, Sec. 43.2
    taxes, certain, bills prohibiting states from imposing, Sec. 43.31
    trust fund, Library of Congress, modification of, Sec. 43.10
Jurisdiction of Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
    Canal Zone postal service stamps, Sec. 44.2
    Coast and Geodetic Survey officers, Sec. 44.4
    Coast Guard, civilian employees of, duties and pay of, Sec. 44.3
    commercial boat personnel, licensing of, Sec. 44.9
    Continental Shelf, marine resources of, Sec. 44.10
    employees of lighthouse service, retirement benefits for, 
        Sec. Sec. 44.15, 44.16
    fish cultural station, conveyance of land formerly operated as, 
        Sec. 44.6
    fish restoration and management projects, Sec. 44.5
    geomagnetic station for Commerce Department, Sec. 44.8
    licensing of commercial boat personnel, Sec. 44.9
    marine exploration and development, Sec. 44.10
    Merchant Marine Act, Sec. 44.11
    petroleum products, overseas shipment of, from United States, 
        Sec. 44.14
    private bill conveying land to utility company, Sec. 44.13
    retirement benefits for certain personnel, Sec. Sec. 44.15-44.17
    saltwater marine-life research laboratory, construction of, 
        Sec. 44.7
    shipboard radios, Sec. 44.18
    ships, Canadian, travel between American ports by, Sec. 44.1
    trade fairs, seagoing, Sec. 44.12
    transportation, water, Sec. 44.19
    wildlife conservation through land-use practices, Sec. 44.20
    wildlife species threatened with extinction, regulation of shipment 
        of, Sec. 44.41
Jurisdiction of Post Office and Civil Service Committee
    Bureau of Occupational Education staffing of, Sec. 45.3
    disabled military retirees in federal civilian employment, 
        remuneration of, Sec. 45.7
    FBI, reemployment of civil service retirees by, Sec. 45.5
    immigration service salaries, Sec. 45.6
    judges, District of Columbia, salary adjustments for, Sec. 45.2
    private bill advancing civil service status, Sec. 45.1
    return rights, employee, authorizing military to grant, Sec. 45.8
    waiver of civil service laws for certain agencies, Sec. 45.4
Jurisdiction of Public Works Committee
    bridges over navigable waters, certain, alteration of, Sec. 46.5
    bridges, toll, bill affecting, Sec. 46.6
    Defense Homes Corporation, conveyance of certain land by, Sec. 46.7

[[Page 2505]]

    economic development programs in conjunction with state centennial, 
         Sec. 46.8
    Federal Highway Corporation, Sec. 46.15
    Federal Works Administrator, jurisdiction of, over school 
        buildings, Sec. 46.12
    flood control project, conveyance of land acquired for, Sec. 46.4
    highways, code provisions relating to, Sec. 46.17
    Kennedy Center, development of, Sec. 46.13
    lands, certain, conveyance to state and local governments of, 
        Sec. Sec. 46.1-46.3
    Lanham Public War Housing Act, educational and recreational 
        facilities under, Sec. Sec. 46.9-46.11
    national forest roads and trails, Sec. 46.16
    National Monument Commission, Sec. 46.14
    regional power administrations, revolving funds for, Sec. 46.21
    school facilities for dependents of workmen on project, Sec. 46.18
    schools destroyed by fire, rebuilding, Sec. 46.12
    Smithsonian Institution, construction for, Sec. Sec. 46.19, 46.20
    Stream Pollution Control, Division of, Sec. 46.22
    water resources conservation and development, Sec. 46.23
Jurisdiction of Rules Committee
    generally, Sec. 53
    amending House rules, Sec. Sec. 53.2-53.4
    closed rule, attempted restriction on power to report, Sec. 53.5
    consideration of matter before committee generally, Sec. 53.1
    correct the Record, motion to, Sec. 53.6
    impeachment, investigations relating to, Sec. Sec. 53.8, 53.9
    investigation by special or standing committee,  53.10
    investigatory committees, establishment of, Sec. 53 7
    joint committees, joint resolutions to establish, Sec. 54.11
    Senate, request directed to, concerning matter in Record, 
        Sec. 53.13
    special rule, point of order against, was deemed question for House 
        to decide, Sec. 53.12
    special rules, Sec. Sec. 53.12, 53.14, 53.15
Jurisdiction of Science and Astronautics Committee
    generally, Sec. 47.1
    biological program, international, Sec. 47.3
    Environmental Quality, Council on, establishment of, Sec. 47.2
    functions transferred to committee, Sec. 47.1
    Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, functions 
        of, continued, Sec. 47.1
    World Science Pan-Pacific Exposition, Sec. 47.4
Jurisdiction of Small Business Committee, Sec. 48
Jurisdiction of Standards of Official Conduct Committee
    campaign contributions, Sec. 49.1
    lobbying activities, Sec. 49.1
    roll call irregularities, Sec. 49.2
Jurisdiction of standing committees as affected by establishment of 
    select committee, Sec. 29.7
Jurisdiction of Veterans' Affairs Committee
    cemeteries, veterans', Sec. 50.7
    headstone, Sec. Sec. 50.3, 50.4
    life insurance loans, interest on,  50.5

[[Page 2506]]

    Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, Sec. Sec. 50.1, 50.2
    survivors' death benefits for military retirees, Sec. 50.6
Jurisdiction of Ways and Means Committee
    agriculture, certain employees in, application of Social Security 
        Act provisions to, Sec. Sec. 51.1, 51.2
    annuities under Civil Service Retirement Act, exemption from 
        taxation of, Sec. 51.3
    Civil Service Retirement Act, exemption from taxation of annuities 
        under, Sec. 51.3
    Indians, tax incentives to improve economic circumstances of, 
        Sec. 51.6
    internal revenue laws, codification of,  Sec. 51.4
    Social Security Act provisions applicable to certain employees in 
        agriculture, Sec. Sec. 51.1, 51.2
    trade agreements, information required from Secretary of State 
        regarding, Sec. 51.5
Jurisdiction, overlapping
    energy resources, Sec. 29.7
    executive communications, Sec. 29.3
    informal agreements regarding, Sec. 29.1
    national forests, Sec. 29.6
    Presidential message, subjects contained in, Sec. 29.2
    Senate amendments, Sec. 29.5
    transfer of tax receipts to Highway Trust Fund,  Sec. 29.4
Juvenile delinquents and runaways, programs relating to--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 36.12, 36.13
Legal defense for personnel of House committees--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 43.17
Life insurance loans, interest on, within jurisdiction of Veterans' 
    Affairs Committee, Sec. 50.5
Limited duration, establishing select committee of, Sec. 5.5
Loan guarantees to educational institutions developing 
    telecommunications systems--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 42.8
Lobbying activities--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 49.1
Majority Leader, election of, to standing committee, Sec. 9.14
Medals, bill authorizing--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 32.2, 32.3
Medical facilities for military, construction of, at Walter Reed--
    committee jurisdiction, Sec. 32.9
Members, electing, to standing committees, see Standing committees, 
    electing members to
Memorials and headstones for deceased veterans--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. Sec. 32.13-32.15, 50.3, 50.4
Metropolitan Washington Problems, Joint Committee on, Sec. 7.9
Mineral leases--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 40.18
Military resources conservation institutes--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 36.16
Minority party funding, Sec. 4.1
Motto, national--committee jurisdiction,  Sec. 43.18
Name, committee, amendment to rules as changing, Sec. 2.4
Navy, acquisition of land by, on Guam--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 40.14
Number of members on committee
    increasing membership by resolution, Sec. Sec. 12.2, 12.3
    minority membership of special committee, increase in, Sec. 12.7
    party affiliation, effect of changes in, Sec. 12.6

[[Page 2507]]

    resolution setting membership,  Sec. 12.1
    resolutions increasing membership, Sec. Sec. 12.2, 12.3
    resolutions increasing membership, calling up, Sec. Sec. 12.4, 12.5
    special committee, increase in minority membership of, Sec. 12.7
    statute, committee established by, increasing membership of, 
        Sec. 12.8
Oil shale lands, proceeds from disposal of--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 40.12
Order of names on resolution electing committee members, Sec. 11.1
Organizational purposes, electing incumbent Members to committees for,  
    Sec. 9.12
Overlapping jurisdiction
    energy resources, Sec. 29.7
    executive communications, Sec. 29.3
    informal agreements regarding, Sec. 29.1
    national forests,  Sec. 29.6
    Presidential message, as to subjects contained in, Sec. 29.2
    Senate amendments, Sec. 29.5
    transfer of tax receipts to Highway Trust Fund, Sec. 29.4
Parking facilities on federal land--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 35.7
Parks, military--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 40.16, 40.17
Party ratios on standing committees, Sec. Sec. 9.4, 9.5
Personnel, committee, minority party funds for, Sec. 4.1
Photocopying documents from committee records and files, Sec. 18.4
Physical fitness and training programs for civilians--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 42.9
Printing as within jurisdiction of House Administration Committee, 
    Sec. 39.8
Private bill conveying land to utility company--committee jurisdiction 
    Sec. 44.13
Private bills, certain, as within jurisdiction of Armed Services 
    Committee, Sec. Sec. 32.25-32.27
Privilege
    chairmen, committee, resolutions electing, Sec. 8.2
    contingent fund, resolution authorizing use of, for select 
        committee expenses, Sec. 5.4
    resolution paying expenses from contingent fund, Sec. 4.2
    select committee, resolution creating, Sec. 5.1
    standing committees, resolution electing members to, Sec. 9.3
Privileged reports of committees
    admission of new states, Sec. 63.9
    disapprova], resolutions of, Sec. 63.11
    impeachment, reports on proceedings for, Sec. 63.3
    nonprivileged matter, effect of inclusion of, Sec. 63.13
    President, bill vetoed by, Sec. Sec. 63.1, 63.2 privilege of the 
        House, matters constituting, Sec. 63.4
    Rules Committee, see Rules Committee, reports from
    Senate bills, reported as privileged by, special committee, 
        Sec. 63.10
    three-day layover rule, Sec. 63.14
    vetoed bills,  Sec. 63.1, 63.2
    Vice President, nomination of,  63.12
    witness, refusal of, to testify, Sec. Sec. 63.563.8
Procedure, committee
    five-minute rule for interrogation of witnesses,  14.1
    witnesses, compensation of, increasing, Sec. 14.2
    witnesses, five-minute rule for interrogation of, Sec. 14.1

[[Page 2508]]

Proclamations for periods of celebration or commemoration--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 43.1
Property, military, conveyance of--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 32.24
Public Buildings Act project, prospectus for--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 31.7
Quorum in committee
    defined, Sec. 23.1
    formal meeting requirement, Sec. 23.2
    presumption of quorum, Sec. 23.3
    privileged measure, quorum required for, Sec. 23.4
    reconsideration of votes taken in absence, Sec. 23.5
    waiver of requirement, Sec. 23.6
Quorum in committee, point of order based on lack of
    adoption of measure, after, Sec. 24.7
    chairman of committee questioned as to facts, Sec. 25.1
    consideration of bill, pending, Sec. 24.3
    consideration of bill, resolution providing for, point of order 
        against. Sec. 24.2
    debate, after commencement of, Sec. 24.6
    failure to raise in committee, Sec. 24.1
    motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole, pending vote on, 
        Sec. Sec. 24.4, 24.5
    pending consideration of bill, Sec. 24.3
    pending vote on motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole, 
        Sec. Sec. 24.4, 24.5
    recommittal where quorum not present, Sec. 25.2
    suspension of the rules, bill considered under, Sec. 24.8
    withdrawal of measure, Sec. 25.3
Ramseyer rule
    generally, Sec. 60.1
    amended version of bill, rule as requiring changes in law proposed 
        by, Sec. 60.4
    court rules, not applicable to changes in, Sec. 60.8
    discharged bills, application to, Sec. 60.10
    exemptions from statutes, rule as not applicable to waivers and,  
        60.7
    noncompliance with, effect of, Sec. 60.2
    purpose of, Sec. 60.3
    references to laws unaffected by bill, effect of, Sec. 60.9
    Rules Committee, reports from, Sec. Sec. 55.5, 55.6
    subsections of existing law, application of rule to, Sec. 60.6
    substantial compliance with, Sec.  60.1160.14
    supplemental reports complying with, Sec. 60.5
    timeliness in invoking, Sec. Sec. 60.15-60.18
    waivers and exemptions from statutes, rule as not applicable to, 
        Sec. 60.7
    waiving, Sec. Sec. 60.19, 60.20
Rank on standing committees, Sec. Sec. 9.6, 9.7
Rank, seniority adjustment of, Sec. Sec. 11.2, 11.3
Recess, appointments to select committee or commission during, 
    Sec. Sec. 10.3, 10.6, 10.7
Recesses and sessions of the House, authorization for committee to sit 
    during, Sec. Sec. 16.9, 16.10
Recommittal of resolution paying expenses from contingent fund, 
    Sec. 4.5
Record, insertion of rules in, Sec. Sec. 15.2, 15.3
Records and files, Members' access to
    generally; bringing files to well of House, Sec. 18.1
    Armed Services Committee, classified information in files of, 
        Sec. 18.3
    classified information in files of Armed Services Committee, 
        Sec. 18.3

[[Page 2509]]

    executive sessions, testimony and evidence taken in, Sec. 18.2
    photocopying documents,  18.4
Recreational campsites, safety standards for--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 36.17
Referral of measures to committees
    authorization for motion to rerefer, Sec. 28.4
    division and referral of Presidential message, Sec. 27.4
    division of bill, Sec. 27.3
    erroneous referral, timeliness of point of order based on, 
        Sec. Sec. 27.7-27.9
    examination of bills individually, Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2
    explanation of referral, Speaker's, Sec. 28.3
    messages, Presidential, measures referred to in, Sec. Sec. 27.1, 
        27.2
    motion to correct referral of bill, timing of, Sec. 27.5
    motion to refer bill, amending, Sec. 27.6
    Presidential message, division and referral of, Sec. 27.4
    Presidential message, referral of, as affecting reference of 
        related bills, Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2
    reasons for referral, Speaker's explanation of, Sec. 28.3
    rerefer, authorization for motion to, Sec. 28.4
    rerefer, debate on motion to, Sec. Sec. 28.1, 28.2
    rerefer, tabling motion to, Sec. 28.5
    Senate bill on table, referral of, Sec. 27.10
    two or more committees, referring bill to, Sec. 27.3
Renamed committee, electing committee members to, Sec. Sec. 9.10, 9.11
Reorganization of military departments--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 32.12
Replacement of one committee with another, Sec. 2.6
Reports, committee
    adjournment sine die, reports filed after, Sec. 59.4
    adjournment to day certain, reports filed during, Sec. 59.5
    adversely reported resolutions, reports on, printing of, Sec. 59.1
    approval by majority of committee, lack of, point of order based 
        on, Sec. 58.5
    committee, action in, point of order based on, Sec. 58.8
    contempt of witness, sufficiency of report relating to, Sec. 58.3
    cost-estimate requirement, special rule waiving points of order for 
        noncompliance with, Sec. 61.2
    cost-estimate requirement, waiver of, Sec. 61.1
    court order restraining printing, effect of, Sec. 59.6
    defects in reporting remedied by special rule, Sec. 58.6
    duplicate printing, Sec. 59.3
    expired committee, staff of, authorized to compile report, 
        Sec. 13.9
    form and content of report, Sec. 58.1
    limitations on spending in report not in bill, Sec. 58.4
    minority views, Sec. Sec. 64.4-64.7
    multiple reports, filing of, Sec. 58.2
    page and line, references in report to amendments by, Sec. 59.2
    printing, Sec. Sec. 59.1-59.3
    printing, effect of court order restraining, Sec. 59.6
    privileged, status as, see Privileged reports of committees
    Ramseyer rule, generally, Sec. 60.1
    Ramseyer rule, application of, to discharged bills, Sec. 60.10

[[Page 2510]]

    Ramseyer rule, application of, to subsections of existing law, 
        Sec. 60.6
    Ramseyer rule as not applicable to changes in court rules, 
        Sec. 60.8
    Ramseyer rule as not applicable to waivers and exemptions from 
        statutes, Sec. 60.7
    Ramseyer rule as requiring changes in law proposed by amended 
        version of bill to be shown,  Sec. 60.4
    Ramseyer rule, effect of noncompliance with,  Sec. 60.2
    Ramseyer rule, effect of references to laws unaffected by bill 
        under, Sec. 60.9
    Ramseyer rule, purpose of, Sec. 60.3
    Ramseyer rule, substantial compliance with, Sec. Sec. 60.11-60.14
    Ramseyer rule, supplemental reports complying with, Sec. 60.5
    Ramseyer rule, timeliness in invoking, Sec. Sec. 60.15-60.18
    Ramseyer rule, waiver of, by resolution, Sec. 60.20
    Ramseyer rule, waiving of, by unanimous consent, Sec. 60.19
    signatures, adding, Sec. Sec. 64.6, 64.7
    signatures, erroneously listed, Sec. 64.5
    special rule as applicable to supplementary report subsequently 
        filed, Sec. 64.8
    special rule as remedying defects, Sec. 58.6
    sufficiency of report relating to contempt of witness, Sec. 58.3
    supplemental reports correcting technical errors, Sec. Sec. 64.1-
        64.3
    supplementary report from standing committee following reporting of 
        special rule,  Sec. 64.8
    time for filing report, see Time for filing committee report
    waiver of points of order against report, Sec. 58.7
Resolution electing members to standing committees, order of names on, 
    Sec. 11.1
Resolution to adjust seniority rankings, amendment of, Sec. 11.3
Resolution, use of, to elect members to standing committees, 
    Sec. Sec. 9.1, 9.2
Retroactive, membership on committee as, Sec. 9.16
Rio Grande River Bridge construction--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 37.10
Roll call irregularities--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 49.2
Rules, committee, adoption of
    access, Members' to classified, information, Sec. 15.4
    classified information, Members' access to, Sec. 15.4
    House rules, committee rules as consistent with, Sec. 15.1
    Record, insertion of rules in, Sec. Sec. 15.2, 15.3
Rules Committee, consideration of resolutions reported from
    amendments, Sec. Sec. 57.1, 57.2
    germaneness of amendments to special rule, requirement of, 
        Sec. 57.3
    hour rule, Sec. 57.1
    majority vote, requirement of, Sec. Sec. 57.4, 57.5
    previous question, voting down, Sec. Sec. 57.8, 57.9
    recommit, motion to, Sec. Sec. 57.6, 57.7
    suspend rules, defeat of motion to, as not precluding special 
        rules, Sec. Sec. 57.10, 57.11
Rules Committee, historical role of, Sec. 52
Rules Committee, increase in membership of, Sec. Sec. 52.3, 52.4
Rules Committee, Jurisdiction of, see Jurisdiction of Rules Committee

[[Page 2511]]

Rules Committee, procedure in
    meetings, calling, Sec. Sec. 54.2, 54.3
    presumption of procedural regularity, Sec. 54.5
    quorum, absence of, question raised as to,  54.4
    rules of committee inserted in Record,  Sec. 54.1
    three-day rule, Sec. 54.6
Rules Committee, reports from
    calling up report providing for special order, Sec. Sec. 55.10
    discharging resolution from committee, Sec. 55.4
    legislative committee, consideration of bill not yet reported by, 
        Sec. 55.11
    multiple reports, filing of, Sec. 55.9
    privileged status of, Sec. Sec. 55.1-55.3
    Ramseyer rule, Sec. Sec. 55.5, 55.6
    supplemental report by legislative committees, effect of, on 
        special rule, Sec. 55.8
    supplemental report filed by unanimous consent, effect of, 
        Sec. 55.8
    typographical error in report, Sec. 55.7
Rules Committee, role of, discussed on floor, Sec. Sec. 52.1, 52.2
Rules Committee, same-day consideration of resolution from
    generally, Sec. 56.1
    last three days of session, consideration during, Sec. Sec. 56.2, 
        56.3
    unanimous consent, waiver of two-thirds vote requirement by, 
        Sec. Sec. 56.4, 56.5
Ryukyuan cultural artifacts, investigation of--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 32.16
Safety standards on government-purchased vehicles--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 42.10
Same-day consideration of resolution from Committee on Rules generally, 
    Sec. 56.1
    last three days of session, consideration during, Sec. Sec. 56.2, 
        56.3
    unanimous consent, waiver of two-thirds vote requirement by, 
        Sec. 56.4, 56.5
School facilities for dependents of workmen on project--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 46.18
Select committee, establishment of, as affecting jurisdiction of 
    existing committees, Sec. 29.7
Select committee of limited duration, establishing, Sec. 5.5
Select committee or commission, appointments to
    adjournment sine die, appointments to select committee or 
        commission after, Sec. 10.4
    announcing appointments made during recess, Sec. 10.6
    announcing appointments to, Sec. Sec. 10.5-10.8
    recess, appointments to select committee or commission during, 
        Sec. Sec. 10.3, 10.6, 10.7
    Speaker and leaders, appointment of, Sec. 10.9
    Speaker as announcing appointments to select committee or 
        commission, Sec. Sec. 10.5, 10.6
    Speaker as appointing members, Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.2
Select committee to study committee system, organization of, Sec. 1.1
Select committees, establishing
    authority of standing committee, creating select committee under, 
        Sec. 5.3
    authorizing resolution, privilege of, Sec. 5.4
    business, small, investigation of, Sec. 6.6
    campaign practices and expenditures, investigation of, Sec. 6.1
    Clerk and committee, investigation by, Sec. 5.6

[[Page 2512]]

    conduct of House Members, officers, and employees, investigation 
        of, Sec. 6.3
    contingent fund, use of, for committee expenses, Sec. 5.4
    crime, investigation of, Sec. 6.2
    duration, limited, establishing select committee of, Sec. 5.5
    government research, investigation of, Sec. 6.4
    investigation by Clerk and committee authorized, Sec. 5.6
    investigations--campaign practices and expenditures, Sec. 6.1
    investigations--conduct of House Members, officers, and employees, 
        Sec. 6.3
    investigations--crime, Sec. 6.2
    investigations--government research, Sec. 6.4
    investigations--military involvement in Southeast Asia, Sec. 6.5
    investigations--small business, Sec. 6.6
    investigations--welfare and education of congressional pages, 
        Sec. 6.7
    limited duration, establishing select committee of, Sec. 5.5
    military involvement in Southeast Asia, investigation of, Sec. 6.5
    pages, congressional, investigation of welfare and education of, 
        Sec. 6.7
    privilege of authorizing resolution, Sec. 5.4 resolution creating 
        select committee as privileged, Sec. 5.1
    resolution establishing select committee, contents of, Sec. 5.2
    standing committee, creating select committee under authority of, 
        Sec. 5.3
Senate amendments to appropriation bills, jurisdiction of 
    Appropriations Committee as to, Sec. 31.2
Senate committee, special, establishing, Sec. 7.6
Seniority
    adjustment of rank, Sec. Sec. 11.2, 11.3
    demotions, effect on other Members, Sec. 11.2
    designation of rank on resolution, Sec. Sec. 9.6, 9.7, 11.1
    order of names on resolution as showing, Sec. 11.1
    resolution electing members to standing committees, order of names 
        on, Sec. 11.1
    resolution to adjust seniority rankings, amendment of, Sec. 11.3
Sessions of House, committees as permitted to sit during
    generally, Sec. Sec. 16.1-16.6
    authorization to sit during sessions and recesses, Sec. Sec. 16.9, 
        16.10
    reading of measure for amendment, during, Sec. Sec. 16.1-16.6
    unauthorized meeting, effect of, on committee action, 
        Sec. Sec. 16.7, 16.8
Simultaneous election of members to standing committees, Sec. 9.1
Simultaneous service on two or more committees, Sec. 9.15
Social Security Act provisions applicable to certain employees in 
    agriculture--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 51.1, 51.2
Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. Sec. 50.1, 50.2
Speaker and leaders, appointment of, to select committee or commission, 
    Sec. 10.9
Speaker as announcing appointments to select committee or commission, 
    Sec. Sec. 10.5, 10.6
Speaker as appointing members to select committee or commission, 
    Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.2
Special rule, necessity of, in expediting business, Sec. 52.5

[[Page 2513]]

Standing committees, electing members to
    Majority Leader, election of, to committee, Sec. 9.14
    multiple committees, serving on, Sec. 9.15
    newly created committees, Sec. 9.2
    party ratios, significance of, Sec. Sec. 9.4, 9.5
    privileged status of electing resolution, Sec. 9.3
    rank, designation of, Sec. Sec. 9.6, 9.7
    resolution, privileged status of, Sec. 9.3
    resolution, use of, to elect members, Sec. Sec. 9.1, 9.2
    retroactive, membership as, Sec. 9.16
    two or more committees, serving on, Sec. 9.15
Stream Pollution Control, Division of--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 46.22
Subcommittees' expenses, contingent fund moneys for, Sec. 4.6
Subversives in government, investigation of, authorized, Sec. 3.1
Survivors' death benefits for military retirees--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 50.6
Tax-exempt foundation and charitable trusts, impact on economy of--
    committee jurisdiction, Sec. 33.6
Time for filing committee report
    adjournment, form of resolution authorizing filing during, 
        Sec. Sec. 62.12, 62.13
    adjournment sine die, filing after, Sec. Sec. 62.1-62.3
    adjournment sine die, form of request authorizing filing after, 
        Sec. 62.14
    expiration of select committee, filing after, Sec. 62.8
    joint committee, filing by, Sec. Sec. 62.9-62.11
    midnight, leave to file before, Sec. Sec. 62.4-62.7
    nonlegislative day, filing date falling on, Sec. 62.9
    select committee, filing after expiration of, Sec. 62.8
Tin smelting and production--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 33.10
Trade agreements, information required from Secretary of State 
    regarding--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 51.5
Transfer of membership and documents to another committee, Sec. 2.5
Troop commitments, agreements affecting--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 37.11
Two or more committees, serving on, Sec. 9.15
Underestimation of fiscal year expenses, use of contingent fund due to, 
    Sec. 4.7
Unreported proceedings, disclosure of
    debate, in, Sec. Sec. 20.1-20.3
    point of order, disclosure of proceedings to support, Sec. 20.3
Urban development grants, coordination of--committee jurisdiction, 
    Sec. 33.3
Vacancies on standing committees, electing members to, Sec. 9.8
Veterans, promotion of state bonds issued to provide payment of cash 
    bonuses to--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 33.9
Washington Metropolitan Problems, Joint Committee on, Sec. 7.9
Water conservation--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 30.6
Waters, inland, boundaries of--committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 40.7, 
    40.8
Watershed work plans--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 30.7
Whaling, regulation of--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 37.6

[[Page 2514]]

Wiretap on Member's telephone, investigation of--committee 
    jurisdiction, Sec. 39.9
Witnesses
    compensation, increasing, Sec. 14.2
    five-minute rule for interrogation, Sec. 14.1
World Science Pan-Pacific Exposition--committee jurisdiction, Sec. 47.4

[[Page 2515]]



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                 A. CREATING AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEES
 
Sec. 1. In General



    There are three types of committees that are common to the House--
(1) standing committees, (2) special or select committees, and (3) 
joint committees. Standing committees which are usually, though not 
necessarily, established by amending the rules of the House, comprise 
the largest group. The jurisdiction of standing committees 
(1) is usually set out in the rules (2) and the 
Speaker refers (3) measures or matters to them pursuant to 
those provisions. Members of standing committees are elected and serve 
through the Congress for which elected. Special or select committees 
are established by a resolution setting forth the particular 
jurisdiction and the method of selection for membership.(4) 
Normally the Speaker appoints special or select committees, and they 
expire with their report or at the end of the Congress or as otherwise 
provided.(5) Joint committees are established by an act of 
Congress or concurrent resolution (6) which sets forth the 
particular subject matter of concern to both Houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 2.1, infra. See also Sec. Sec. 30-51, 53, infra.
 2. In 1973, for example, the jurisdiction of the standing committees 
        was set forth in Rule XI. See Rule XI clauses 1-22, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. Sec. 677-725 (1973). The Committee Reform 
        Amendments of 1974, H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        transferred the jurisdiction of the standing committees to Rule 
        X, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
 3. See Sec. 27, infra.
 4. See Sec. 5.2, infra, for example. As to subjects of investigation 
        by select or special committees, and the distinction between 
        such committees, see Sec. 6, infra.
 5. See Sec. 5.5, infra, for an instance in which a select committee 
        was reconstituted and given an express calendar day limitation 
        on the filing of its final report.
 6. See Sec. 7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reader should note that citations to Rule X and Rule XI 
contained in the precedents sometimes referred to older sections of 
Rule X and Rule XI. Those rules were rewritten and redesignated by the 
adoption of House Resolution 988, the Committee Reform Amendments of 
1974.

[[Page 2516]]

Select Committee to Study House Committee System

Sec. 1.1 The House considered under a special rule and agreed to a 
    resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, creating a select 
    committee to study House committee jurisdiction, staffing, 
    procedures and facilities and to report to the House. Under the 
    resolution, committee membership and staff expenses were to be paid 
    from the contingent fund on vouchers approved by the Speaker.

    On Jan. 31, 1973,(7) the House agreed to a resolution 
(H. Res. 176) reported out by the Committee on Rules which provided 
that upon its adoption the House would consider in the House a 
resolution (H. Res. 132) to create a select committee to study the 
operation and implementation of Rules X and XI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 2804-12, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (8) then directed the Clerk to read House 
Resolution 132, which stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That there is hereby created a select committee to be 
    composed of ten Members of the House of Representatives to be 
    appointed by the Speaker; five from the majority party and five 
    from the minority party, one of whom he shall designate as 
    chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the committee 
    shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was 
    made.
        The select committee is authorized and directed to conduct a 
    thorough and complete study with respect to the operation and 
    implementation of rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives, including committee structure of the House, the 
    number and optimum size of committees, their jurisdiction, the 
    number of subcommittees, committee rules and procedures, media 
    coverage of meetings, staffing, space, equipment, and other 
    committee facilities.
        The select committee is authorized and directed to report to 
    the House by bill, resolution, or otherwise, with respect to any 
    matters covered by this resolution.
        For the purposes of this resolution, the select committee or 
    any subcommittee thereof is authorized to sit and act during 
    sessions of the House and during the present Congress at such times 
    and places whether or not the House has recessed or adjourned. The 
    majority of the members of the committee shall constitute a quorum 
    for the transaction of business, except that two or more shall 
    constitute a quorum for the purpose of taking evidence.
        To assist the select committee in the conduct of its study 
    under this resolution, the committee may employ investigators, 
    attorneys, individual consultants or organizations thereof, and 
    clerical, stenographic, and other assist

[[Page 2517]]

    ants; and all expenses of the select committee, not to exceed 
    $1,500,000 to be available one-half to the majority and one-half to 
    the minority, shall be paid from the contingent fund of the House 
    on vouchers signed by the chairman of the select committee and 
    approved by the Speaker.

    Following some debate on the measure, the vote was ultimately taken 
by electronic device,(9) and the resolution was agreed to--
yeas 282, nays 91.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 2815, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Id. at p. 2816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The provision authorizing the Speaker to 
approve the committee's vouchers was intended to bypass approval by the 
Committee on House Administration, which is required by House rules 
(11) and by law.(12) House Resolution 132 was not 
a privileged resolution because it contained this provision paying 
money from the contingent fund (a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on House Administration). Thus the Committee on Rules 
reported House Resolution 176 providing for consideration of House 
Resolution 132 in the House (in effect a ``closed'' rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XI clauses 9(a), 9(b), 9(c), 9(f), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 693 (1973).
12. 2 USC Sec. 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuing Authority of Committees During Subsequent Congress

Sec. 1.2 The Senate being a ``continuing body,'' its committees remain 
    in existence from one Congress to the next, and may be authorized 
    by simple resolution to conduct investigations during the 
    subsequent Congress.

    On Dec. 31, 1970,(13) Senator Abraham Ribicoff, of 
Connecticut, was recognized by unanimous consent by the Presiding 
Officer (14) of the Senate. Senator Ribicoff submitted a 
resolution (S. Res. 504) which provided for the granting of authority 
to the Committee on Government Operations to continue its 
investigations, hearings, and reports on efficiency and economy in 
government pursuant to a previously agreed upon 
resolution.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 44456, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
14. William B. Saxbe (Ohio).
15. S. Res. 308. See 116 Cong. Rec. 3411, 3412, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Feb. 16, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Chair's request, the legislative clerk read Senate 
Resolution 504, as follows:

[[Page 2518]]

                                 Resolution

        Continuing for 1 month certain authority for investigations by 
            the Committee on Government Operations into the efficiency 
            and economy of operations of all branches of Government

        Resolved. That the authority to make investigations conferred 
    upon the Committee on Government Operations by Senate Resolution 
    308, Ninety-first Congress, agreed to February 16, 1970, together 
    with any authority contained in section 7 of such resolution, is 
    extended until February 28, 1971. In carrying out investigations, 
    holding hearings, and reporting such hearings under the authority 
    of such resolution and this resolution, the Committee on Government 
    Operations is authorized to expend any part of the amount specified 
    in section 8 of such Senate Resolution 308 which remains unexpended 
    on January 31, 1970.

    When the Presiding Officer asked if there were any objections to 
the present consideration of the resolution, Senator Jacob Javits, of 
New York, reserving the right to object, proceeded to ask Senator 
Ribicoff two questions. Although the resolution was ultimately agreed 
to,(16) the discussion which ensued illustrates at once the 
``continuing nature'' of the Senate as a legislative body while 
underscoring Senatorial concern for those constitutional 
(17) safeguards designed to prevent usurpation of power by 
one Congress over a succeeding Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 44457, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 31, 1970.
17. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2. See also House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 59 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exchange, in pertinent part, took place as follows:

        Mr. Javits: Mr. President . . . I did want to ask two questions 
    for the Record.
        One, is it assumed that this resolution will mean, aside from 
    the continuance of the work of the committee, any change in 
    existing law respecting whether there is any authority to extend 
    the work, in view of the fact that we will have a new Congress?
        Mr. Ribicoff: Mr. President, not at all. My understanding is 
    that basically, until the new committees are constituted, the work 
    of the old committee will continue. The authority of this committee 
    to act extends until January 31, 1971. There are some 
    investigations now currently in process on which hearings are 
    slated to be held in January and February. There will be no need 
    for further funds. The committee has sufficient funds in its prior 
    authority. I do not conceive of any new authority being given to 
    the committee.
        Mr. Javits: Mr. President, if I may make the situation clear to 
    the Senate, will it be understood that if this resolution is 
    considered and acted on, whatever the law provides with respect to 
    the power to continue this authority will continue to be the law, 
    unchanged by this resolution; and will it also be understood that 
    this resolution represents no waiver of precedent or otherwise 
    adversely affects the right of Senators who will be sworn in or who 
    will continue as Senators in the new Congress to challenge the 
    continuance

[[Page 2519]]

    of the rules of the Senate under the Constitution which provides 
    that each body shall deal with its own rules in every new Congress.
        Mr. Ribicoff: That is my understanding of the situation.
        Mr. Javits: Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I have no 
    desire in any way to stand in the way of my own committee. However, 
    I did not wish by allowing this resolution to go through to yield 
    or compromise any of the rights in respect of the power of the 
    Senate to write new rules in the new Congress.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate's status as a continuing body 
is, of course, directly attributable to the method by which it is 
constituted. ``So that one-third may be chosen every second year,'' 
(~l8) the Constitution divided the first group of Senators 
into three classes with terms of two, four, and six years; thereafter, 
each succeeding term was to last six years. The House, by contrast, has 
always been ``composed of Members chosen every second year.'' 
(l9) Because the Constitution provides that ``each House may 
determine the rules of its proceedings,'' (20) the 
committees of the House of Representatives may remain in existence only 
as long as the particular Congress which created them. While most of 
the House's standing committees are usually reconstituted when one 
Congress succeeds another, all House committees spring into existence 
only after a new House has adopted rules or other resolutions 
specifically creating them anew. The House also reconstitutes select 
committees from time to time;'' (1) however, in the absence 
of express authority from a new House, a select committee expires with 
the term of the Congress in which it was created. Joint committees 
(2) established by statute, of course, remain in existence 
beyond the Congress of their creation unless otherwise provided by the 
House; the House members of such joint committees, however, must be 
appointed or elected in each new Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, clause 2.
19. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, clause 1.
20. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2.
 1. See Sec. 5.5, infra.
 2. See Sec. 7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                 A. CREATING AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEES
 
Sec. 2. Establishing Standing Committees; Procedure

Establishing Standing Committee by Resolution

Sec. 2.1 A resolution establishing a standing committee [but not 
    specifically amending the rules of the House] is reported and 
    called up as privileged by the Committee on Rules.

[[Page 2520]]

    On Apr. 13, 1967,(3) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 9425, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 418 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.

    The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 418

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

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (~4) The gentleman from 
    Mississippi is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Establishing Standing Committee by Amending House Rules

Sec. 2.2 The establishment of a new standing committee is normally 
    proposed by way of an amendment to the House rules, and such a 
    resolution is reported and called up as privileged.

    On July 29, 1970,(6) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
17654) amending House rules to improve the operation of the legislative 
branch of the federal government. In the course of the bill's 
consideration, Mr. James C. Cleveland, of New Hampshire, offered an 
amendment (7) which, if adopted and upon enactment of the 
bill into law, would have created a new committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 26413, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. Id. at p. 26421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk read Mr. Cleveland's proposed amendment, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Cleveland: On page 39, immediately 
    following line 4, insert the following:

[[Page 2521]]

        ``Sec--.(a) Clause 1 of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
    following new paragraph:
        `` `(v) Minority Committee on Investigations, to consist of 
    fifteen members as follows: Ten members of the minority party and 
    five members of the majority party.' ''
        ``(b) The rules of the House of Representatives are amended by 
    adding at the end thereof the following new rules:

                                `` `Rule XLV

                  `` `Minority Committee On Investigations

        `` `1. The Minority Committee on Investigations is authorized, 
    acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof, to conduct 
    studies and examinations of any activity of any department, agency, 
    wholly owned Government corporation, establishment, or 
    instrumentality of the Government of the United States or the 
    government of the District of Columbia.
        `` `2. The Minority Committee on Investigations is further 
    authorized to sit and act at such times and places within the 
    United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or 
    has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance of 
    such witnesses, and the production of such books, papers, 
    documents, or vouchers by subpena or otherwise, and to take such 
    testimony and records as it deems necessary.
        `` `3. Subpena may be issued over the signature of the chairman 
    of the committee or subcommittee, or by any person designated by 
    him, and shall be served by such person or persons as the chairman 
    of the committee or subcommittee may designate.
        `` `4. The chairman of the committee or subcommittee, or any 
    member thereof, may administer oaths to witnesses.' ''

Sec. 2.3 The rules of the House were amended by resolution to provide 
    for the creation of a new standing committee to be known as the 
    Committee on Science and Astronautics.

    On July 21, 1958,(8) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, called up House Resolution 580 
and asked for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the 
resolution, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 104 Cong. Rec. 14513, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives are 
    hereby amended as follows:
        Rule X, clause 1, is hereby amended by inserting after (p) the 
    following:
        ``(q) Committee on Science and Astronautics, to consist of 25 
    members.'' . . .
        Rule XI is further amended by inserting after clause 16 the 
    following:
        ``17. Committee on Science and Astronautics.
        ``(a) Astronautical research and development, including 
    resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.
        ``(b) Bureau of Standards, standardization of weights and 
    measures, and the metric system.
        ``(c) National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.

[[Page 2522]]

        ``(d) National Science Foundation.
        ``(e) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
        ``(f) Science scholarships.
        ``(g) Scientific research and development.''

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Bolling offered the following 
amendment:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bolling: On page 2, line 24, strike 
    out line 24 through the remainder of the resolution and in lieu 
    thereof insert the following:
        ``(c) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
        ``(d) National Aeronautics and Space Council.
        ``(e) National Science Foundation.
        ``(f) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
        ``(g) Science Scholarships.
        ``(h) Scientific research and development,''. . . .

    Mr. Bolling explained (9) that the perfecting amendment 
was offered in order that the language establishing the new committee 
would conform to a bill (H.R. 12575) then on the President's desk which 
was expected to become law and which would establish the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Following further discussion 
(10) in which Mr. Bolling stated that the standing committee 
would continue the work begun by the then-existing Select Committee on 
Astronautics and Space Exploration, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, put 
the question on the amendment 11 which was agreed to, and on 
the resolution, as amended, which was also agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For a direct quote of Mr. Bolling's explanation as well as some 
        further details regarding this measure, see  47.1, infra.
10. See 47.1, infra.
11. 104 Cong. Rec. 14514, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rules Amendment Changing Committee Name

Sec. 2.4 The House agreed to an amendment to its rules changing the 
    name of the Committee on Public Lands to the Committee on Interior 
    and Insular Affairs.

    On Feb. 2, l951,(12) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. John E. Lyle, Jr., of Texas, called up House Resolution 100 
and asked for its immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 883, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution, which was adopted shortly 
thereafter,(13) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 884.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That Clause (a) 14 of rule X of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives (14) is amended by striking
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. This clause identified the Committee on Public Lands as being one 
        of the standing committees of the House and specified the 
        number of members thereon. H. Jour. 1288, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. 
        (1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2523]]

    out ``Committee on Public Lands'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
    ``Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.''

        Clause (1) (n) of rule XI (15) is amended by 
    striking out ``Committee on Public Lands'' and inserting in lieu 
    thereof ``Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. This clause prescribed the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public 
        Lands. H. Jour. 1290, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. (1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Clause (2)(a) of rule XI(16) is amended by striking 
    out ``Committee on Public Lands'' where it appears in the said 
    clause and inserting in lieu thereof Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. This clause specified those subjects as to which the committee had 
        leave to report at any time. H. Jour. 1291, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. 
        (1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Clause 1 of rule XII (1) is amended by striking out 
    ``Public Lands'' where it appears in said clause and inserting in 
    lieu thereof ``Interior and Insular Affairs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. This clause specified that the [then] Delegate from Hawaii, the 
        Resident Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico, 
        and the [then] Delegate from Alaska would be elected to serve 
        as additional members on the committee and would be accorded 
        the same powers and privileges in the committee as they would 
        possess in the House, and be permitted to make any motion 
        except the motion to reconsider. H. Jour. 1291, 81st Cong. 2d 
        Sess. (1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transfer of Membership and Documents From One Committee to Another

Sec. 2.5 The House agreed to a resolution providing that those Members 
    elected to the Committee on Public Lands were ``hereby elected'' to 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and transfer. ring 
    all records, papers, bills, resolutions, communications, documents, 
    petitions, and memorials heretofore referred to the Committee on 
    Public Lands to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

    On Feb. 2, 1951,(2) immediately after the adoption of a 
resolution changing the name of the Committee on Public Lands to the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Mr. John R. Murdock, of 
Arizona, offered the following resolution (H. Res. 111) to implement 
the resolution just adopted (H. Res. 100) and asked for its immediate 
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 97 Cong. Rec. 884, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That those Members of the House elected to the 
    Committee on Public Lands are hereby elected to the

[[Page 2524]]

    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and all records and 
    papers of the Committee on Public Lands are hereby transferred to 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
        That all bills, resolutions, communications, papers, documents, 
    petitions, and memorials heretofore referred to the Committee on 
    Public Lands are hereby referred to the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs.

    The resolution was agreed to.

Abolition of One Committee and Replacement With Another

Sec. 2.6 The House agreed to an amendment to its rules abolishing the 
    Committee on Un-American Activities and transferring its 
    jurisdiction,(3) records, and property to a new standing 
    committee to be known as the Committee on Internal Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.T1 There were differences of opinion on the floor as to whether the 
        jurisdiction of the Committee on Un-American Activities had 
        been merely transferred. The process by which the latter 
        committee was abolished and the Committee on Internal Security 
        was created did not involve a simple renaming. Discussion 
        ensued as to whether the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
        Internal Security amounted to a major expansion of the 
        jurisdiction of the Committee on Un-American Activities. See  
        29.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 18, 1969,(4) William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 89 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution called for the 
amending of Rules X and XI to abolish the Committee on Un-American 
Activities and to create in its place a new standing committee of the 
House to be known as the Committee on Internal Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 3723, 3724, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 89

            Resolved, That rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended--
            (1) by striking out clause 19;
            (2) by renumbering clauses 11 through 18 as clauses 12 
        through 19, respectively; and
            (3) by inserting immediately after clause 10 the following 
        new clause:
            ``1. Committee on Internal Security.
            ``(a) Communist and other subversive activities affecting 
        the internal security of the United States.
            ``(b) The Committee on Internal Security, acting as a whole 
        or by subcommittee, is authorized to make investigations from 
        time to time of (1) the extent, character, objectives, and 
        activities within the United States of organizations or groups, 
        whether of foreign or domestic origin, their members, agents, 
        and af

[[Page 2525]]

        filiates, which seek to establish, or assist in the 
        establishment of, a totalitarian dictatorship within the United 
        States, or to overthrow or alter, or assist in the overthrow or 
        alteration of, the form of government of the United States or 
        of any State thereof, by force, violence, treachery, espionage, 
        sabotage, insurrection, or any unlawful means, (2) the extent, 
        character, objectives, and activities within the United States 
        of organizations or groups, their members, agents, and 
        affiliates, which incite or employ acts of force, violence, 
        terrorism, or any unlawful means, to obstruct or oppose the 
        lawful authority of the Government of the United States in the 
        execution of any law or policy affecting the internal security 
        of the United States, and (3) all other questions, including 
        the administration and execution of any law of the United 
        States, or any portion of law, relating to the foregoing that 
        would aid the Congress or any committee of the House in any 
        necessary remedial legislation.
            ``The Committee on Internal Security shall report to the 
        House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in 
        session) the results of any such investigation, together with 
        such recommendations as it deems advisable.
            ``For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee 
        on Internal Security, or any subcommittee thereof, is 
        authorized to sit and act at such times and places within the 
        United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, 
        or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, and to require, by 
        subpena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such 
        witnesses and the production of such books, records, 
        correspondence, memorandums, papers, and documents, as it deems 
        necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the 
        chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any member 
        designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any 
        person designated by any such chairman or member.''
            Sec. 2. (a) Rule X of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended--
            (1) by striking out clause 1(s);
            (2) by redesignating clauses 1(k) through 1(r) as clauses 
        1(l) through 1(s), respectively; and
            (3) by inserting immediately after clause 1(j) the 
        following:
            ``(k) Committee on Internal Security, to consist of nine 
        Members.''
            (b) Clause 31 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended by striking out ``Un-American 
        Activities'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Internal 
        Security''.
            Sec. 3. As of the date of adoption of this resolution, all 
        property (including records) of the Committee on Un-American 
        Activities is hereby transferred to the Committee on Internal 
        Security and shall be available for use by the latter committee 
        to the same extent as if such property (including records) was 
        originally that of the Committee on Internal Security.
            Sec. 4. Nothing in this resolution shall affect (1) the 
        validity of any action or proceeding of the Committee on Un-
        American Activities or of the House of Representatives before 
        the date of adoption of this resolution, or (2) the validity of 
        any action or proceeding by any officer or agency of the 
        executive branch of the Government, or by any court of 
        competent jurisdiction, based on any action or proceeding 
        referred to in clause (1) of this sentence. Any action or 
        proceeding referred to in clause (2) of the preceding sentence 
        and pending on the date of adoption of this resolution shall be 
        continued by the officer, agency, or court concerned in the 
        same manner and to the same extent as if this resolution had 
        not been adopted.

[[Page 2526]]

    Following extended debate, the resolution was ultimately agreed 
to,(5) and the rules were amended, accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 3746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                 A. CREATING AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEES
 
Sec. 3.--Authorizing Investigations

    As of 1973, only four standing committees possessed standby 
authority under the rules (6) to sit and act and to hold 
hearings at such times and places within the United States as the 
committees deemed necessary. The powers to subpena or otherwise require 
the attendance and testimony of witnesses and to compel the production 
of papers and documents were also limited under the standing rules to 
those same four committees. Accordingly, investigative authority was 
granted to all other standing, as well as special or select 
(7) committees by means of individual resolutions 
(8) reported from the Committee on Rules. While these 
circumstances were to change in 1975,(9) the need to obtain 
such specific authorizations prior to undertaking an investigation was 
an historic fact for most committees for more than a century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Committee on Appropriations, Rule XI clause 2(b), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 679 (1973); Committee on Government Operations, 
        Rule XI clause 8(d), House Rules and Manual Sec. 691 (1973); 
        Committee on Internal Security, Rule XI clause 11 (b), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 703A (1973); and Committee on Standards 
        of Official Conduct, Rule XI clause 19(h), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 720 (1973).
 7. For treatment of special and select committee investigations, see 
        Ch. 15, supra.
 8. There were instances where two committees received investigative 
        authority in one resolution. See Sec. 3.9, infra.
 9. See Rule XI clause 2(m), House Rules and Manual Sec. 718 (1977) and 
        further editions of this work. The Committee Reform Amendments 
        of 1974, H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., gave all committees 
        listed under Rule X the power to conduct investigations within 
        the United States and to issue subpenas, effective Jan. 3, 
        1975.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investigation of Alleged Subversives in Government

Sec. 3.1 The House approved a resolution authorizing the Committee on 
    Appropriations to investigate allegations that certain persons 
    employed by the federal government were unfit for continued 
    employment because of subversive affiliations. The resolution also 
    provided that any legislation approved by the committee as a result

[[Page 2527]]

    of its investigation could be incorporated in any general or 
    special appropriation measure emanating from the committee 
    notwithstanding the House rule against the inclusion of legislation 
    in appropriation bills.

    On Feb. 9, 1943,(10~) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, 
a member of the Committee on Rules submitted the following privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 105) and asked for its immediate consideration:

        Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations, acting through 
    a special subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman of such 
    committee for the purposes of this resolution, is authorized and 
    directed to examine into any and all allegations or charges that 
    certain persons in the employ of the several executive departments 
    and other executive agencies are unfit to continue in such 
    employment by reason of their present association or membership or 
    past association or membership in or with organizations whose aims 
    or purposes are or have been subversive to the Government of the 
    United States. Such examination shall be pursued with the view of 
    obtaining all available evidence bearing upon each particular case 
    and reporting to the House the conclusions of the committee with 
    respect to each such case in the light of the factual evidence 
    obtained. The committee, for the purposes of this resolution, shall 
    have the right to report at any time by bill, amendment, or 
    otherwise, its findings and determination. Any legislation approved 
    by the committee as a result of this resolution may be incorporated 
    in any general or special appropriation measure emanating from such 
    committee or may be offered as a committee amendment to any such 
    measure notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 734, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the purposes of this resolution, such committee or any 
    subcommittee thereof is hereby authorized to sit and act during the 
    present Congress at such times and places within the United States, 
    whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, to 
    hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses, 
    and the production of such books or papers or documents or vouchers 
    by subpena or otherwise, and to take such testimony and records as 
    it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued over the signature of 
    the chairman of the committee or subcommittee, or by any person 
    designated by him, and shall be served by such person or persons as 
    the chairman of the committee or subcommittee may designate. The 
    chairman of the committee or subcommittee, or any member thereof, 
    may administer oaths to witnesses.
        With the following committee amendment:
        Page 2, line 4, after the period, strike out all of the 
    language following up to the period in line 6.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The language to be struck under the committee amendment consisted 
        of the resolution's third sentence--granting the committee 
        ``the right to report at any time by bill, amendment or 
        otherwise, its findings and determination.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2528]]

    The House, by a two-thirds vote' agreed to consider the measure 
immediately. Following debate, the committee amendment was 
adopted,(13) and the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 742, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investigations of Executive Agency [Veterans' Administration]

Sec. 3.2 The House authorized a standing committee, the Committee on 
    World War Veterans' Legislation (now, the Committee on Veterans' 
    Affairs), to investigate the Veterans' Administration.

    On Mar. 27, 1945,(14) Mr. Roger C. Slaughter, of 
Missouri, by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up and asked 
for the immediate consideration of the following resolution (H. Res. 
192):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 2871, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on World War Veterans' 
    Legislation, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized 
    and directed to conduct an investigation of the Veterans' 
    Administration with a particular view to determining the efficiency 
    of the administration and operation of Veterans' Administration 
    facilities.
        The committee shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the 
    House if the House is not in session), as soon as practicable 
    during the present Congress, the results of its investigation, 
    together with such recommendations for legislation as it deems 
    advisable.
        For the purposes of this resolution the committee, or any 
    subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act during the 
    present Congress at such times and places within the United States, 
    whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has 
    adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such 
    witnesses and the production of such records, documents, and 
    papers, to administer oaths, and to take such testimony, as it 
    deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the 
    chairman of the committee, or by any member designated by such 
    chairman, and may be served by any person designated by such 
    chairman or member.

    As Mr. Slaughter explained, two investigatory resolutions had been 
under consideration by the Committee on Rules, and:

        It was the judgment of the Rules Committee, however, that [one 
    of the two proposals] was somewhat too sweeping in character and 
    embraced subjects that, at least in the judgment of the committee, 
    should not be taken up at this time. After a full and frank 
    discussion of these two resolutions it was concluded to report the 
    so-called Rankin resolution which provides for an investigation of 
    the Veterans' Bureau by the committee that has juris

[[Page 2529]]

    diction of that Bureau and by the committee which presumptively is 
    the committee best advised as to the operation of the Veterans' 
    Administration.

    Shortly thereafter,(15) the resolution was agreed to on 
a roll call vote.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 2881.
16. Duties of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation were 
        assumed by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs which was 
        established in 1947. See Rule X clause 1(u), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 690 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defining Extent of Probe

Sec. 3.3 The House authorized the Committee on the District of Columbia 
    to conduct investigations within its jurisdiction as set forth in 
    the House rules.

    On Mar. 6, 1973,(17) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, a member of that committee, 
called up and asked for the immediate consideration of the following 
resolution (H. Res. 162):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 6385, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That, effective January 3, 1973, the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, is 
    authorized to conduct full and complete studies and investigations 
    and make inquiries within its jurisdiction as set forth in clause 5 
    of rule XI (18) of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives. However, the committee shall not undertake any 
    investigation of any subject which is being investigated for the 
    same purpose by any other committee of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. This provision defines the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
        District of Columbia as extending to ``all measures relating to 
        the municipal affairs'' of the city, in general, ``other than 
        appropriations therefor [Rule XI clause 5(a) (1973)].'' The 
        remaining clauses [5(b)-5(i)] clarify what subjects are 
        included therein. See Rule XI clause 5, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 685 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigations and 
    studies, the committee or any subcommittee thereof is authorized to 
    sit and act, subject to clause 31 of rule XI (19) of the 
    Rules of the House of Representatives, during the present Congress 
    at such times and places within the United States, whether the 
    House is meeting, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such 
    hearings and require, by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and 
    testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
    records, correspondence, memorandums, papers, and documents, as it 
    deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued over the signature of the 
    chairman of the committee or any member designated by him and may 
    be served by any person
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. This provision requires all but five standing committees to obtain 
        ``special leave'' in order to sit ``while the House is reading 
        a measure for amendment under the five-minute rule.'' See Rule 
        XI clause 31, House Rules and Manual Sec. 739 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2530]]

    designated by such chairman or member. The chairman of the 
    committee, or any member designated by him, may administer oaths to 
    any witness.

        (b) Pursuant to clause 238 of rule XI (20) of the 
    Rules of the House of Representatives, the committee shall submit 
    to the House, not later than January 2, 1975, a report on the 
    activities of that committee during the Congress ending at noon on 
    January 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. This reference (to ``clause 238'') appears to be a typographical 
        error in the Record, and most likely refers to Sec. 738 of Rule 
        XI [i.e., Rule XI clause 30, House Rules and Manual Sec. 738 
        (1973)] which requires certain salary and accounting 
        information to be reported by each committee to the Clerk's 
        office biannually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediate consideration of the resolution was agreed to by a two-
thirds vote,(1) end shortly thereafter, the resolution, 
itself, was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 6386, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the effective date of House 
Resolution 988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., which gave all committees listed 
under Rule X the power to conduct investigations and issue subpenas, 
only specified committees had such permanent authority under the rules. 
Other committees were authorized by separate resolution, of which the 
above is typical, to conduct investigations. The present rule is 
contained in Rule XI clause 2(m), House Rules and Manual Sec. 718 
(1979).

Expansion of Investigations Beyond U.S. Borders

Sec. 3.4 The House authorized the Committee on Public Works to send 
    abroad a limited number of its members and staff (1 ) to attend the 
    United Nations Conference on the Human Environment being held in 
    Sweden; and (2) to inspect, on the return trip, various projects 
    relating to public works, resource usage, and pollution control in 
    specified foreign lands.

    On June 1, 1972,(2) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, called up and asked for the 
immediate consideration of House Resolution 985, which read, in part as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 118 Cong. Rec. 19486, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of H. Res. 142, 
    Ninety-second Congress,(3) the Committee on

[[Page 2531]]

    Public Works is authorized to send not more than three members of 
    such committee as congressional adviser and alternates to the 
    United States delegation to the United Nations Conference on the 
    Human Environment (such adviser having been designated by the 
    Speaker of the House and appointed by the Secretary of State), and 
    not more than two staff assistants, to attend the conference to be 
    held in Stockholm, Sweden, during June 5 through June 16, 
    inclusive; and in returning to the United States, also to inspect 
    various projects and programs of significant national and 
    international importance relating to public works, resource 
    management and development, and anti-pollution in the Netherlands, 
    Germany, Scandinavia, and the United Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 142 [117 Cong. Rec. 4604, 4605, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 
        2, 1971] as amended and agreed to by the House, was an 
        investigatory and funding authorization which permitted the 
        Public Works Committee for the purposes of its studies to ``sit 
        and act . . . at such times and places within the United 
        States, Commonwealths, territories and possessions thereof, 
        Canada, Mexico, and those Central American and South American 
        countries in which the Pan American Highway is located . . . as 
        it deems necessary. [Sec. 2. (a)].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Notwithstanding the provisions of H. Res. 142 of the Ninety-
    second Congress, first session, local currencies owned by the 
    United States shall be made available to the members of the 
    Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives and 
    employees engaged in carrying out their official duties for the 
    purpose of carrying out the authority as set forth in this 
    resolution, to travel outside the United States.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Res. 142 had limited committee use of local currencies owned by 
        the United States to the countries specified in the immediately 
        preceding footnote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two proposed committee amendments (5) were agreed to, 
after which the resolution was briefly debated and agreed 
to.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. The amendments did not materially affect the quoted passages. The 
        first specified the departure date [June 3]; and, the second 
        specified the date of return [June 23].
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 19487, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.5 The House authorized a limited number of members from the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service (which had been limited 
    by prior resolution to domestic investigations) to study civilian 
    manpower usage by the Department of Defense in Far Eastern and 
    Western European countries.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(7) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, called up and asked for the 
immediate consideration of the following resolution (H. Res. 1048):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That (a) notwithstanding the provisions of H. Res. 
    245, Eighty-ninth Congress,(8) the Committee on

[[Page 2532]]

    Post Office and Civil Service is authorized to send not more than 
    two members, and not more than two staff assistants, of such 
    committee to such Far Eastern and Western European countries as the 
    committee may determine, for the purpose of conducting studies with 
    respect to the policies, operations, activities, and administration 
    by the Department of Defense of the United States Government of the 
    civilian manpower requirements, utilization, and employment 
    policies of the Department in such countries, with particular 
    reference to--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H. Res. 245 [111 Cong. Rec. 6242, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 29, 
        1965] provided investigative and travel authorizations for the 
        Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. As amended, the 
        measure provided that ``Funds authorized are for expenses 
        incurred in the committee's activities within the United States 
        and . . . local currencies owned by the United States in 
        foreign countries shall not be made available . . . for 
        expenses of [committee] members or other Members or employees 
        traveling abroad.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) the determination of the appropriate means of ascertaining 
    the number of civilian employees needed by the Department of 
    Defense in such countries, including the utilization of United 
    States civil service employees, the direct hiring by the Department 
    of Defense of foreign nationals, and the indirect hiring by the 
    Department of Defense of foreign nationals through the government 
    of the foreign countries concerned;
        (2) the determination of whether sound manpower utilization 
    policies are being applied by the Department of Defense in such 
    countries; and
        (3) the propriety of the use by the Department of Defense of 
    personnel furnished by private contractors in such countries.
        (b) Notwithstanding section 1754 of title 22, United States 
    Code, or any other provision of law, local currencies owned by the 
    United States shall be made available to the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service of the House of Representatives and 
    employees engaged in carrying out their official duties under 
    section 190d of title 2, United States Code, except that--
        (1) no member or employee of said committee shall receive or 
    expend local currencies for subsistence in any country at a rate in 
    excess of the maximum per diem rate set forth in section 502(b) of 
    the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 88-633, 
    approved October 7, 1964;
        (2) no member or employee of said committee shall receive or 
    expend an amount for transportation in excess of actual 
    transportation costs; and
        (3) no appropriated funds shall be expended for the purpose of 
    defraying expenses of members of said committee or its employees in 
    any country where counterpart funds are available for this purpose.
        (c) Each member or employee of said committee shall make to the 
    chairman of said committee an itemized report showing the number of 
    days visited in each country where local currencies were spent, the 
    amount of per diem furnished, and the cost of transportation if 
    furnished by public carrier, or if such transportation is furnished 
    by an agency of the United States Government, the identification of 
    the agency. All such individual reports shall be filed by the 
    chairman with the Committee on House Administration and shall be 
    open to public inspection.

[[Page 2533]]

    Shortly thereafter, the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 3.6 The House authorized the Speaker to appoint certain members 
    from a standing committee to attend an international conference in 
    Geneva--thereby extending the geographic bounds of that committee's 
    investigatory authorization.

    On May 29, 1963,(9) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, called up and asked for the 
immediate consideration of the following resolution (H. Res. 368):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 109 Cong. Rec. 9799, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives is 
    hereby authorized to appoint a member from the majority and a 
    member from the minority of the Committee on Education and Labor to 
    attend the International Labor Organization Conference in Geneva, 
    Switzerland, between June 1, 1963, and June 30, 1963.
        He is further authorized to appoint as alternates a member from 
    the majority and a member from the minority of the said committee.
        Notwithstanding section 1754 of title 22, United States Code, 
    or any other provision of law, local currencies owned by the United 
    States shall be made available to the aforesaid delegates and 
    alternates from the Committee on Education and Labor of the House 
    of Representatives engaged in carrying out their official duties 
    under section 190(d) of title 2, United States Code: Provided, (1) 
    That no member of said committee shall receive or expend local 
    currencies for subsistence in an amount in excess of the maximum 
    per diem rates approved for oversee travel as set forth in the 
    Standardized Government Travel Regulations, as revised and amended 
    by the Bureau of the Budget; (2) that no member of said committee 
    shall receive or expend an amount for transportation in excess of 
    actual transportation costs; (10) (3) no appropriated 
    funds shall be expended: for the purpose of defraying expenses of 
    members of said committee in any country where counterpart funds 
    are available for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The language of this paragraph was necessitated by the passage of 
        H. Res. 103 [109 Cong. Rec. 1553, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
        31, 1963] earlier in the session. H. Res. 103 was an 
        investigatory and fund-authorizing measure for the Committee on 
        Education and Labor which provided, among other things that 
        ``Funds authorized are for expenses incurred in the committee's 
        activities within the United States; and, notwithstanding 
        section 1754 of title 22, United States Code, or any other 
        provision of law, local currencies owned by the United States 
        in foreign countries shall not be made available to the 
        Committee on Education and Labor for expenses of its members or 
        other Members or employees traveling abroad.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That each member of said committee shall make to the chairman 
    of said committee an itemized report showing

[[Page 2534]]

    the number of days visited in each country whose local currencies 
    were spent, the amount of per diem furnished and the cost of 
    transportation if furnished by public carrier, or if such 
    transportation is furnished by an agency of the U.S. Government, 
    the identification of the agency. All such individual reports shall 
    be filed by the chairman with the Committee on House Administration 
    and shall be open to public inspection.

    In the debate which ensued, Mr. Sisk noted that a ``somewhat 
similar resolution'' had been looked upon ``with some concern'' 
(11) when it was brought to the floor several days earlier. 
He explained that the resolution under consideration, however, was a 
simpler measure. These remarks prompted the following exchange: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. On May 14, 1963 [109 Cong. Rec. 8512-20, 88th Cang. 1st Sess.], the 
        House entertained consideration of, and ultimately chose to 
        reject [id. at p 8520] a resolution (H. Res. 340) authorizing 
        the Committee on Education and Labor to send four of its 
        members to the identical conference.
12. 109 Cong. Rec. 9800, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson [of Texas]: The reason for this 
    resolution is the simple fact that the Education and Labor 
    Committee does not have authorization to travel outside the 
    continental limits of the United States. This authority was not 
    included in their authorizing legislation permitting money to be 
    appropriated to the committee for the conduct of their committee 
    business. Is that correct?
        Mr. Sisk: The gentleman is exactly right and I think very 
    clearly states the need for this resolution.
        Mr. Burleson: There was some misunderstanding at the time this 
    matter was on the floor a few days ago. There was obviously some 
    confusion as to the necessity for this resolution to be brought 
    before us. I thought it was well to develop this point.

    Debate continued briefly on the resolution after which it was 
agreed to--yeas 278, nays 52--by roll call vote.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 9802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.7 By unanimous consent the House considered and agreed to a 
    resolution ordered reported but not formally filed by the Committee 
    on Rules, amending a previously adopted resolution to provide for 
    geographic extension of the investigative authority of the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce during the 85th 
    Congress.

    On Mar. 14, 1957,(14) Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, sought to call up House Resolution 
197 to extend the territorial jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 3722, 85th Cong. 1st. Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following exchange took place:

[[Page 2535]]

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke to the 
    Speaker about a minor resolution reported from the Committee on 
    Rules. May I be recognzed on behalf of the Committee on Rules to 
    call up this resolution for consideration?
        The Speaker: (15) The Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman from Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules I present a privileged resolution and ask 
    unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 197

            Resolved, That House Resolution 99, 85th Congress, is 
        amended by striking out the words ``within the United States'' 
        where they appear on lines 19 and 20, page 3, of said engrossed 
        resolution, and inserting in lieu thereof the words ``within 
        the United States, its Territories and possessions, and the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.''

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, will the gentleman explain the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Yes. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules 
    so far this session has not granted foreign travel privileges to 
    any committee. We have, however, included in the resolution the 
    right to visit any offshore territories and possessions. 
    Inadvertently that was omitted from the resolution of the 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and this merely corrects 
    that oversight. It is unanimously approved by the Committee on 
    Rules.
        Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
    The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Virginia?

        There was no objection.
        The resolution was agreed to and a motion to reconsider was 
    laid on the table.

Sec. 3.8 In the 92d Congress, the House, by privileged resolution 
    reported from the Committee on Rules, authorized the Committee on 
    Ways and Means to conduct investigations within its jurisdiction, 
    to hold hearings, to travel outside the United States, and to use 
    counterpart funds.

    On Nov. 5, 1971,(16) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, a member of that committee, 
called up the privileged resolution (H. Res. 597) described above. In 
the course of the ensuing discussion, Mr. Bolling yielded some of his 
time to Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, who proceeded to explain the need for the resolution, as 
follows: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 39513, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Id. at p. 39514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mills: . . . [I]n all fairness to the membership of the 
    House, this idea did not originate with the committee. We do not 
    want to take credit for it.
        We were asked by the Commissioners of the European Common Mar

[[Page 2536]]

    ket through an official invitation to visit some sessions of the 
    European Common Market in order to discuss problems of trade 
    between the European Common Market and the United States. This was, 
    we thought, a matter that we could not treat lightly. We discussed 
    it in committee. I think the committee was unanimous in its feeling 
    that we should at least consider the invitation. It was not 
    possible for us, because of the schedule of the committee, to avail 
    ourselves of the opportunity to go at the time first suggested by 
    the commissioners. That was the first week of November of this 
    year--this week, in fact.
        Now they are asking us to consider the possibility of being 
    there for some 3 or 4 days sometime during the month of January. No 
    decision has yet been made, and in all frankness, I am not certain 
    yet that the committee or a part of the committee will actually go. 
    But in the event we do go, it is necessary for us to have this 
    permission from the House in order to do so.

    Shortly thereafter, the resolution was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Counterpart funds are local currencies 
owned by the United States which, under 22 USC Sec. 1754(b) may be made 
available to committees of Congress studying the application, 
administration and execution of laws, or parts of laws, the subject 
matter of which is within their jurisdiction.

Resolution Authorizing Investigation by Two Committees

Sec. 3.9 The House in one resolution authorized two standing 
    committees, the Committee on Military Affairs and the Committee on 
    Naval Affairs [each later combined into the Committee on Armed 
    Services] to investigate, with subpena authority, the progress of 
    the national defense program insofar as it related to matters 
    within the jurisdiction of each committee.

    On Apr. 2, 1941,(18) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, who, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, called up and asked for the immediate consideration 
of the following resolution :(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 87 Cong. Rec. 2898, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Id. at p. 2899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 162

        Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the 
    Committee on Naval Affairs, respectively, each acting as a whole or 
    by subcommittee, are authorized and directed to conduct thorough 
    studies and investigations of the progress of the national-defense 
    program insofar as it relates to matters coming within the 
    jurisdiction of such committees, respectively, with a view to 
    determining whether such program is being carried forward 
    efficiently, expeditiously, and economically.
        The Committee on Military Affairs and the Committee on Naval 
    Affairs shall report to the House during the

[[Page 2537]]

    present Congress the results of their studies and investigations, 
    together with such recommendations for legislation as they deem 
    desirable.
        For the purposes of this resolution, the respective committees, 
    or any subcommittees thereof, are authorized to hold such hearings, 
    to sit and act during the present Congress at such times and places 
    whether or not the House is in session, has recessed, or has 
    adjourned, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the 
    production of such books, papers, and documents by subpena or 
    otherwise, and to take testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas 
    may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the respective 
    committees and shall be served by any person designated by such 
    chairmen. The chairman of each committee or any member thereof may 
    administer oaths to witnesses.

    A clerical error in the measure was corrected by unanimous consent, 
whereupon brief debate ensued, and the resolution was agreed to 
(20) on a roll call vote--yeas 327, nay 1.
    Parliamentarian's Note: In 1947, the Committee on Military Affairs 
and the Committee on Naval Affairs were combined to establish the 
Committee on Armed Services pursuant to the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1946.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 2907.
 1. See Rule XI clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 682 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specificity in Investigative Resolutions

Sec. 3.10 The House authorized the standing Committee on Veterans' 
    Affairs to conduct an investigation of veterans' programs and 
    benefits, specifying the subjects of compensation and pensions, 
    hospitalization and medical care, insurance, housing and business 
    loans, education and training, and the furnishing of burial 
    allowances.

    On Feb. 5, 1957,(2) Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 64 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution, in pertinent 
part, contained the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 103 Cong. Rec. 1554, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, acting as a 
    whole or by subcommittee, is authorized and directed to conduct a 
    full and complete investigation and study of the following programs 
    of benefits for veterans and their dependents and survivors:
        (1) The programs of compensation and pension;
        (2) The programs of hospitalization, domiciliary care, medical 
    and dental care and treatment, and furnishing of prosthetic 
    appliances;
        (3) The insurance and indemnity programs;

[[Page 2538]]

        (4) The housing and business loan programs, and the program of 
    furnishing assistance for the acquisition of specially adapted 
    housing;
        (5) The programs of education and training (including 
    vocational rehabilitation);
        (6) The furnishing of burial allowances; and
        (7) The furnishing of unemployment compensation under the 
    Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952; with a view to 
    determining whether or not such programs are being conducted 
    economically, efficiently, in the best interests of the Government 
    and the beneficiaries of such programs, and in such a manner as to 
    avoid the misuse of Government funds; whether or not such programs 
    adequately serve the needs and protect the welfare of the 
    beneficiaries of such programs; and whether changes in the law or 
    in the administration and operation of the programs either will 
    lead to greater efficiency and economy or will make such programs 
    more adequately serve the needs of the beneficiaries of such 
    programs.

    Following House agreement to proposed committee 
amendments,(3) the resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. In the excerpt quoted above, the words ``and directed'' were struck 
        and the resolution was (retroactively) made ``effective from 
        January 4, 1957.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.11 The House specified matters for investigation by the standing 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs through passage of an 
    authorizing resolution.

    On Feb. 5, 1957,(4) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. James W. Trimble, of Arkansas, called up for immediate 
consideration a resolution (H. Res. 94) which read, in part, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 1557, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 
    may make investigations and studies into the following matters 
    within its jurisdiction: In Alaska--the aboriginal and possessory 
    rights of the Eskimos, Aleuts, and Indians in and to the public 
    lands; in Hawaii--the operation of the Hawaiian Homes Commission 
    under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, and the return of 
    federally held lands to local authority and/or private ownership; 
    in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and Pacific-flag 
    areas--the provisions and local conditions for an organic act for 
    the trust territory; legislation concerning American Samoa; 
    operation and administration of the Organic Act of Guam; and 
    legislation affecting the civilian population of the Ryukyu 
    Islands; in Puerto Rico--the return of federally held lands to 
    local authority; in the Virgin Islands--the operation and 
    administration of the Revised Organic Act of 1954 and the Virgin 
    Islands Corporation; in the continental United States, Hawaii, 
    Alaska, and the Virgin Islands--the operation and administration of 
    the units of the national park system; in the continental

[[Page 2539]]

    United States and Alaska--the mineral resources of the public lands 
    and mining interests generally, including but not limited to the 
    condition, problems, and needs of the mining and minerals 
    industries; the proposed long-range domestic minerals programs to 
    be submitted by the Secretary of the Interior, with the approval of 
    the President, during the first session of the 85th Congress; 
    mineral resources surveys, exploration, development, production, 
    and conservation minerals research, including coal research, 
    required to improve the position of domestic minerals industries; 
    the administration and operation of Public Law 633 (84th Cong., 2d 
    sess.) with a view to determining the extent to which the intent of 
    Congress to provide interim assistance to those mining industries 
    producing tungsten, fluorspar, asbestos, and columbium-tantalum 
    bearing ores, has been carried out; the administration and 
    operation of Public Law 167 (84th Cong., 1st sess.) known as the 
    Multiple Surface Use Act, and Public Law 359 (84th Cong., 1st 
    sess.), known as the Mining Claims Restoration Act; proposed 
    changes in the general mining laws, and the mineral leasing laws, 
    including the laws which govern the development, utilization, and 
    conservation of the oil, gas, and associated petroleum resources of 
    the public lands and outer Continental Shelf of the United States 
    and Alaska; in the continental United States--irrigation and 
    reclamation projects proposed for authorization, including but not 
    limited to the San Luis project in California, the Fryingpan-
    Arkansas project in Colorado, the San Angelo project in Texas, the 
    Norman project in Oklahoma, the Garrison Dam diversion project in 
    North Dakota, the Mid-State project in Nebraska, developments in 
    the Middle and Upper Snake River Basin in Idaho, developments in 
    the Columbia Basin in the vicinity of Wenatchee and Spokane in 
    Washington, and developments in the Rio Grande River Basin in New 
    Mexico, projects proposed for construction under the Small 
    Reclamation Projects Act of 1956; disposal of Federal interests in 
    the towns of Boulder City, Nev., and Coulee Dam, Wash., and 
    policies relating to the establishment of such Federal cities at 
    future damsites; applicability to Federal agencies and activities 
    of State and Territorial laws governing the control, appropriation 
    and use of water; in the United States and Alaska--the 
    administration and operation of the laws governing the development, 
    utilization, and conservation of the surface and subsurface 
    resources of the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
    Management and the forest reserves created out of the public 
    domain; on various Indian and native lands and reservations in the 
    United States and Alaska--for the purpose of improving the 
    management of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; the administration and 
    operation of the Indian health program; and for the purpose of 
    planning the ultimate release of the Indians from Federal wardship.

    After agreement to proposed committee amendments,(5) the 
resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Only one amendment affected the quoted portion of the resolution. 
        It was made ``effective from January 4, 1957.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2540]]

Sec. 3.12 The House authorized the Committee on Banking and Currency to 
    investigate prices of lumber and plywood, and conferred special 
    subpena authority for the purpose of carrying out the 
    investigation.

    On Aug. 14, 1972,(6) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, called up for immediate 
consideration the following resolution (H. Res. 1037):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 28076, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on Banking and Currency, acting as 
    a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized and directed to conduct a 
    full and complete investigation and study of the high price of 
    lumber and plywood.
        For the purpose of carrying out this resolution the committee 
    or subcommittee is authorized to sit and act during the present 
    Congress at such times and places within the United States, 
    including any Commonwealth or possession thereof, whether the House 
    is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such 
    hearings, and to require, by subpena or otherwise, the attendance 
    and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
    records, correspondence, memorandums, papers, and documents, as it 
    deems necessary; except that neither the committee nor any 
    subcommittee thereof may sit while the House is meeting unless 
    special leave to sit shall have been obtained from the House. 
    Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the 
    committee or any member of the committee designated by him . . . 
    and may be served by any person designated by such chairman or 
    member.
        The committee shall report to the House on or before November 
    1972 the results of its investigation and study, together with such 
    recommendations as it deems advisable. Any such report which is 
    made when the House is not in session shall be filed with the Clerk 
    of the House.

    Shortly after agreeing to two proposed amendments,(7) 
the House agreed to the resolution.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The combined effect of the amendments was to strike out the words 
        ``and directed'' and to insert at that point the words ``and 
        requested''.
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 28077, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection of Authorizing Resolution

Sec. 3.13 The House rejected a resolution authorizing the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency to make certain investigations.

    On June 15, 1955,(9) the following resolution (H. Res. 
210) was reported from the Committee on Rules and called up by Mr. W. 
Homer Thornberry, of Texas, who asked for its immediate consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 8310, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on Banking and Currency, acting as 
    a

[[Page 2541]]

    whole or by subcommittee, is authorized and directed to conduct 
    full and complete studies and investigations and make inquiries 
    with respect to any matter or matters concerning (1) the 
    composition, operation, and activities of the Federal Open Market 
    Committee, (2) the fluctuation in rates of interest and prices of 
    securities issued by the United States and the effect of such 
    fluctuations on the public debt, general price level, employment, 
    the cost of State and municipal financing, and other segments of 
    the national economy, (3) the various types of Government 
    securities, manner of issue, method of payment, maturities, 
    character of investors, and amount and degree of speculation 
    therein, and (4) the various proposals for Federal assistance 
    (other than grants) in the financing of State, county, and 
    municipal (or instrumentalities thereof) highway and school 
    programs.

    Following debate, the previous question was ordered, and, on a yea 
and nay vote, there were yeas 178, nays 214. So the resolution was 
rejected.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 8322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.14 A resolution authorizing the Committee on Education and Labor 
    to send four Members to the International Labor Organization 
    Conference in Geneva, and one designated member of that group to 
    conduct further studies in Europe, specifying the travel permitted 
    at government expense, and permitting the use of local currencies 
    for official business, was rejected by the House.

    On May 14, 1963,(11) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, called up House Resolution 340 
and asked for its immediate consideration. The Clerk then read the 
resolution, as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 8512, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Id. at pp. 8512, 8513.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That, notwithstanding the provisions of H. Res. 103, 
    Eighty-eighth Congress, the Committee on Education and Labor is 
    hereby authorized to send two of its majority members and two of 
    its minority members to attend the International Labor Organization 
    Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, during June 1963.
        It is Resolved, further, That Congressman James Roosevelt, who 
    will be one of the majority members of the Committee on Education 
    and Labor attending the International Labor Organization 
    Conference, is hereby authorized to proceed from Geneva to Greece; 
    Israel; Rome, Italy; and Paris, France, for the purpose of studying 
    labor-management relations in said countries, and then return from 
    Paris, via London, England, to the United States.
        Notwithstanding section 1754 of title 22, United States Code, 
    or any other provisions of law, local currencies owned by the 
    United States shall be made available to the committee members 
    engaged in carrying out their offi

[[Page 2542]]

    cial duties under section 190(d) of title 2, United States Code: . 
    . .

    The yeas and nays were demanded, and ordered, and there were--yeas 
153, nays 217, answered ``present'' 1. Hence, the resolution was 
rejected.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 8520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                 A. CREATING AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEES
 
Sec. 4. Committee Expenses; Use of Contingent Fund

    Funds for compensation of standing committees' professional and 
clerical staff are carried in the annual legislative appropriations 
acts, which also place money in the contingent fund of the House. Each 
committee, other than the Committee on Appropriations,(14) 
and (more recently) the Committee on the Budget,(15) must 
obtain authorization for the payment of those expenses not covered by 
the legislative appropriation acts from the contingent fund of the 
House. The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 
effective Jan. 3, 1975), in clause 1(b), Rule XI provided authorization 
for all committees to conduct investigations within their jurisdictions 
and to incur expenses subject to the adoption of expense resolutions 
reported from the Committee on House Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XI clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732(a) (1979).
15. See Rule XI clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732(a) (1979). 
        This exemption emanated from the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974 (88 Stat. 297) and dates from July 12, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules provide (16) that such an authorization 
initially shall be procured by one primary expense resolution providing 
funds for the payment of all the committee's expenses for the year from 
the contingent fund. The resolution may not be considered in the House 
unless a printed report on the resolution has been available to Members 
for at least one calendar day prior to consideration. The report, 
itself, must:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XI clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) state the total amount of the funds to be provided to the 
    committee under the primary expense resolution for all anticipated 
    activities and programs of the committee; and
        (2) to the extent practicable, contain such general statements 
    regarding the estimated foreseeable expenditures for the respective 
    anticipated activities and programs of the committee as may be 
    appropriate to provide the House with basic estimates with respect 
    to the expenditure generally of the funds to be provided to the 
    committee under the primary expense resolution.

    In practice, each standing committee goes before the Committee on 
House Administration with its

[[Page 2543]]

funding request. The latter committee possesses jurisdiction under the 
rules over appropriations and expenditures from the contingent 
fund.(17) In addition, the rules (18) accord 
privileged status to the reporting of any matter by the Committee on 
House Administration which pertains to the expenditure of the 
contingent fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule X clauses 1(j)(1), 1(j)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679(a) 
        (1979).
18. Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the adoption of a committee's primary expense resolution 
by the House, authorization for the payment from the contingent fund of 
additional committee expenses not covered by statutory appropriations 
or by the primary expense resolution may be obtained by one or more 
additional expense resolutions. Again, any such expense resolution must 
be accompanied by a printed report made available to Members at least 
one calendar day prior to the consideration of the 
resolution.(19) And, the report accompanying such an 
additional expense resolution must:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Rule XI clause 5(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732 (b) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) state the total amount of additional funds to be provided 
    to the committee under the additional expense resolution and the 
    purpose or purposes for which those additional funds are to be used 
    by the committee; and
        (2) state the reason or reasons for the failure to procure the 
    additional funds for the committee by means of the primary expense 
    resolution.

    It should be noted none of the requirements applicable to primary 
and additional expense resolutions obtain with respect to those 
resolutions providing for contingent fund payment of a committee's 
expenses from and after the beginning of a year and before the adoption 
by the House of the committee's primary expense 
resolution.(20) Similarly ex

[[Page 2544]]

cluded from such requirements is: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. In recent Congresses, ``continuing'' resolutions have been 
        considered by unanimous consent at the beginning of each 
        Congress (where the Committee on House Administration had not 
        been organized and could not report privileged resolutions) to 
        provide for temporary payments from the contingent fund, 
        usually for a period of up to three months and at rates in 
        existence at the end of the prior Congress, for expenses of 
        standing and select committees established in House rules (see 
        e.g., H. Res. 84, 121 Cong. Rec. 1160, 1161, 94th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 23, 1975; H. Res. 11, 123 Cong. Rec. 74, 95th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977; H. Res. 49, 125 Cong. Rec.--, 96th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 18, 1979). See also Sec. Sec. 13.1-13.9, 
        infra, for discussion of resolutions permitting continued 
        committee employment in new Congresses. This concept of 
        ``continuing resolutions'' is to be distinguished from 
        ``continuing appropriations joint resolutions'' for operation 
        of departments of government pending enactment of annual 
        general appropriations bills, discussed in Ch. 25 
        (Appropriations), infra, in this work.
 1. Rule XI clause 5(c)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732 (c) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        any resolution providing in any Congress, for all of the 
    standing committees of the House, additional office equipment, 
    airmail and special delivery postage stamps, supplies, staff 
    personnel, or any other specific item for the operation of the 
    standing committees, and containing an authorization for the 
    payment from the contingent fund of the House of the expenses of 
    any of the foregoing items provided by that resolution, subject to 
    and until enactment of the provisions of the resolution as 
    permanent law.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Information with respect to the compensation of committee 
        employees, as well as particulars about their appointment and 
        employment may be found at Sec. 13, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allocation of Funds for Committee Personnel; for Minority Party Funding

Sec. 4.1 The 92d Congress by resolution adopted rules striking out the 
    statutory requirement (which was contained as a rulemaking exercise 
    in an Act passed the previous year) that not less than one-third of 
    funds for standing committee investigative personnel be made 
    available to the minority party, and inserting the requirement that 
    the minority be given fair consideration in the allocation of such 
    funds.

    On Jan. 21, 1971,(3) Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, offered a privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and asked for 
its immediate consideration. The resolution provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 14, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
    first Congress, together with all applicable provisions of the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, and the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, be, and they are hereby 
    adopted as the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
    second Congress, with the following amendments as part thereof. . . 
    .

    Among the amendments which were then listed was the following:

        In Rule XI, strike out clause 32(c) (4) and insert 
    in lieu thereof the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. On July 16, 1970 [116 Cong. Rec. 24590, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.], by a 
        teller vote of 105 ayes to 63 nays, the Committee of the Whole 
        agreed to an amendment to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
        1970 (H.R. 17654), offered by Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of New 
        Jersey, which amended section (c) of the newly proposed clause 
        32, Rule XI, such that the latter provision [clause 32(c), Rule 
        XI] would read thusly: ``The minority party on any such 
        standing committee is entitled to if they so request not less 
        than one-third of the funds provided for the appointment of 
        committee staff personnel pursuant to each such primary or 
        additional expense resolution.'' This provision, frequently 
        referred to as the ``Thompson-Schwengel amendment'' owing to 
        its joint authorship by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Fred Schwengel, of 
        Iowa, remained intact when the Legislative Reorganization Act 
        of 1970 became law [Pub. L. No. 91-510], and thus was in effect 
        as of Jan. 1, 1971.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2545]]

        ``(c) The minority party on any such standing committee is 
    entitled to and shall receive fair consideration in the appointment 
    of committee staff personnel pursuant to each such primary or 
    additional expense resolution.''

    On Jan. 22, 1971,(5) as discussion of House Resolution 5 
continued, much of the debate focused on the minority staffing 
amendment. The Democratic Caucus had bound (6) its members 
to vote to remove that provision of clause 32(c) [Rule XI which 
entitled the minority party of an affected committee to control at 
least one-third of the funds set aside for the appointment of committee 
staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 132, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. A brief discussion of the extent to which caucus members were 
        ``bound'' was provided by Mr. Frank Thompson, of New Jersey 
        [Id. at p. 138]. For further details as to the role of party 
        caucuses, in general, see Ch. 3, supra, particularly Sec. 10, 
        discussing the extent to which party decisions could be made 
        binding on members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those in favor of modifying the ``one-third funding'' provision 
cited that rule's inflexible and ``arbitrary'' standard which, it was 
argued, would impose divisiveness and controversy into committees which 
already had agreeable and workable arrangements.(7) It was 
also felt that the rigid standard would be a step in the direction of a 
``spoils'' system and away from the development of professional staff 
careers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See remarks of Mr. John A. Blatnik (Minn.) at 117 Cong. Rec. 138, 
        92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those opposing change in the funding provision argued that the 
``one-third funding'' provision ensured development of a minority staff 
capable of constructively evaluating legislation offered by the 
majority; offering intelligent alternatives in a strengthened adversary 
system; fully clarifying or defending minority views; and protecting 
against abuses in the executive branch.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See, generally, 117 Cong. Rec. 135140, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2546]]

    After debate, the resolution was amended (9) in a manner 
not affecting the minority staffing provision. As amended, House 
Resolution 5 was agreed to,(10) on a roll call vote thereby 
eliminating the ``one-third control'' proviso and substituting the 
requirement of ``fair consideration'' in the allocation of such funds 
to the minority.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Subsequently, in the 93d Congress, the 
House tentatively restored, effective Jan. 3, 1975, the requirement for 
one-third minority staff funding (the Committee Reform Amendments of H. 
Res. 988, 93d Cong.). This requirement,, however, was never 
effectuated, being in turn superseded on Jan. 14, 1975, by clause 5(d) 
Rule XI, in which the 94th Congress provided instead a new mechanism 
for staff entitlement and selection. Thus, for example, one 
subcommittee staff member is provided for each chairman and ranking 
minority subcommittee member, to be counted against permanent staff 
positions unless made available pursuant to an expense resolution 
reported from the Committee on House Administration. (See future 
editions for more detailed treatment of this rule.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 143.
10. Id. at pp. 143, 144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution Paying Expenses from Contingent Fund; Privilege of 
    Resolution

Sec. 4.2 A resolution reported by the Committee on House 
    Administration, providing for the payment of a standing committee's 
    expenses from the contingent fund of the House, is reported and 
    called up as privileged.

    On Aug. 10, 1967,(11) Charles M. Price, of Illinois, 
Chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, introduced 
a resolution (H. Res. 871) authorizing funds for the operation of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct pursuant to House Resolution 
418.(12) The measure was referred to the Committee on House 
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 22340, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. See Sec. 2.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several weeks later, on Sept. 21, 1967,(13) Mr. Samuel 
N. Friedel, of Maryland, was recognized by the Speaker (14) 
and proceeded to make the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 26375, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House 
    Administration, I submit a privileged report (Repts. No.

[[Page 2547]]

    651) on the resolution (H. Res. 871) authorizing funds for the 
    operation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
    pursuant to House Resolution 418, and ask for immediate 
    consideration of the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 871

            Resolved, That, effective April 13, 1967, in carrying out 
        its duties during the Ninetieth Congress, the Committee on 
        Standards of Official Conduct is authorized to incur such 
        expenses (not in excess of $10,000) as it deems advisable. Such 
        expenses shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House 
        on vouchers authorized and approved by such committee, and 
        signed by the chairman thereof.
            Sec. 2. Funds authorized by this resolution shall be 
        expended pursuant to regulations established by the Committee 
        on House Administration under existing law.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rules provide that certain committees 
shall ``have leave to report at any time'' on certain 
matters.(15) Under this proviso, the Committee on House 
Administration may report at any time ``on all matters of expenditure 
of the contingent fund of the House,'' among other things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XI clause 22, House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Motion to Recommit Relative to Funding

Sec. 4.3 That which may not be done directly by amendment may not be 
    done indirectly by motion to recommit with instructions; thus, 
    where the amount of authorized funds provided in an investigatory 
    resolution is diminished by floor amendment, a motion to recommit 
    with instructions to restore the difference by again changing the 
    same sum is out of order.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(16) the House entertained consideration 
of a privileged resolution (H. Res. 221) reported from the Committee on 
House Administration providing investigatory funds from the contingent 
fund for the Committee on Un-American Activities. The proposed 
authorization having then been reduced by floor amendment 
(17) from $400,000 to $350,000, Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio, who offered 
the following motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 8419-43, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Id. at p. 8441.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook moves to recommit the resolution (H. Res. 221) to 
    the Committee on House Administration with instructions to report 
    the resolution forthwith with the following amendment: On page 1, 
    line 5, strike out ``$350,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
    ``$400,000.''

    Immediately thereafter, the ensuing exchange took place:

[[Page 2548]]

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion to recommit on the grounds that the House has just adopted 
    the committee amendment to cut the amount from $400,000 to 
    $350,000. The gentleman now offers a motion to recommit to restore 
    it from the $350,000 to $400,000 and it is clearly out of order.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashbrook] desire 
    to be heard?
        Mr. Ashbrook: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that we voted to order the 
    previous question on the amendments and the motion to recommit, in 
    my opinion, would be a proper motion to recommit. I hope that the 
    Chair will so hold.
        The Speaker: The Chair will call attention to that fact that 
    the previous question was ordered and the amendments were adopted 
    by the House.
        It is not in order to do indirectly by a motion to recommit 
    with instructions that which may not be done directly by way of 
    amendment.
        An amendment to strike out an amendment already adopted is not 
    in order. The subject matter of the motion to recommit has already 
    been passed upon by the House.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 8441, 8442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.4 The House having under consideration an investigatory, funding 
    resolution for the Committee on Un-American Activities, a motion to 
    recommit that resolution to the Committee on House Administration 
    with instructions that open hearings be held to justify such 
    funding, was rejected on a roll call vote.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(19) following lengthy consideration of 
an investigatory funding resolution (H. Res. 221) for the Committee on 
Un-American Activities, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Don Edwards, of California, who offered the following 
motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 8442, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edwards of California moves to recommit the resolution (H. 
    Res. 221) to the Committee on House Administration with 
    instructions that open hearings be held on justification for such 
    additional funds of the House Committee on Un-American Activities 
    as provided in House Resolution 221.

    Immediately thereafter, the Chair put the question on the motion, 
and on a roll call vote of yeas 92, nays 304, it was rejected.

Sec. 4.5 A resolution providing for payment of a standing committee's 
    expenses out of the contingent fund of the House is subject to a 
    motion to recommit (with instructions).

[[Page 2549]]

    On Mar. 1, 1961,(20) after the previous question was 
ordered on a resolution (H. Res. 167) providing $331,000 for the 
operations of the Committee on Un-American Activities, the Speaker 
(21) initiated the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 2989, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
21. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Roosevelt: Is it not proper to offer a motion to recommit 
    at this point?
        The Speaker: If the gentleman can qualify.
        Mr. Roosevelt: I think I can qualify, Mr. Speaker.
        I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Roosevelt: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Roosevelt moves to recommit the resolution to the 
        Committee on House Administration with instructions to report 
        forthwith with the following amendment: On page 2, after the 
        period, line 1, add the following: ``Provided, That the 
        committee shall not use any of its funds to undertake any 
        investigation of any subject which is being investigated by any 
        other committee of the House.''

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.

    The motion to recommit was rejected and the resolution was agreed 
to.

Contingent Fund Moneys for Subcommittee's Expenses

Sec. 4.6 The House refused to agree to a resolution authorizing the use 
    of contingent fund moneys to cover the expenses incurred by a 
    subcommittee on poverty created by the Committee on Education and 
    Labor.

    On Aug. 14, 1964,(22) by direction of the Committee on 
House Administration, Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, called up 
House Resolution 663. The Clerk then read the resolution, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 110 Cong. Rec. 19711, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the expenses of an investigation authorized by 
    H. Res. 103, Eighty-eighth Congress, with respect to the proposals 
    for an attack on poverty recommended by the President in a special 
    message to Congress incurred by the ad hoc subcommittee of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor which was specially created to 
    make such investigation, not to exceed $20,000, including 
    expenditures for the employment of necessary professional and 
    stenographic assistance, and all expenses necessary for travel and 
    subsistence incurred by members and employees who will be engaged 
    in the ac

[[Page 2550]]

    tivities of the subcommittee, shall be paid out of the contingent 
    fund of the House. All accounts authorized to be paid out of the 
    contingent fund by this resolution shall be paid on vouchers 
    authorized and signed by the chairman of the committee, and 
    approved by the Committee on House Administration.
        With the following committee amendment:
        Page 1, line 7, strike out ``$20,000'' and insert ``$10,000''.

    Discussion ensued, and in an effort to clarify what had transpired, 
Mr. James Roosevelt, of California, stated: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 19712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roosevelt: May I say again that I must emphasize what the 
    distinguished chairman of the Committee on House Administration 
    said, that the full committee did not envision any such activity as 
    was called for under the poverty program, and that the chairman of 
    the Committee on Education and Labor found it necessary to form an 
    ad hoc committee to undertake that work, and that we then went to 
    the Committee on House Administration and asked for a reasonable 
    sum, $10,000, in order that this very special work might be carried 
    out.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen, Jr., of New 
Jersey, was recognized and responded to Mr. Roosevelt's statement, 
saying:

        . . . The only problem was that the Committee on House 
    Administration took no action with respect to that request for 
    additional funds. Yet the Committee on Education and Labor in 
    effect went ahead and spent the money anyway. It strikes me that 
    this is unconscionable procedure. I am not saying the bill should 
    not be paid, because that would just be making a bad matter worse, 
    but I am pointing out the irregularity under which our committee 
    operates. I am not pointing the finger of blame at any one 
    individual. I am just saying if we were in charge of that 
    committee, we would not be spending money unless it were available 
    and we had some positive assurance that our request for funds was 
    going to be honored. So far as I know, there was no such informal 
    understanding that something would be forthcoming and therefore, 
    the Committee on Education and Labor could go ahead and spend the 
    money and simply submit its bill.

    Following additional discussion of the matter, Speaker pro tempore 
Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, put the question on the 
resolution.(2) The yeas and nays were then demanded and 
ordered, the question was taken again; and there were--yeas 115, nays 
156, answered ``present'' 1. Accordingly, the resolution was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 19714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Contingent Fund Where Fiscal Year Expenses of Committees 
    Underestimated

Sec. 4.7 The House has authorized by resolution the transfer of certain 
    sums from the contingent fund to meet com

[[Page 2551]]

    mittee payrolls where committee expenses had been underestimated 
    for the fiscal year, resulting in a shortage of appropriated funds.

    On June 29, 1966,(3) Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, who called up the 
following resolution (H. Res. 900, reported from the Committee on House 
Administration on that day) and asked for its immediate consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 14623, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Clerk of the House be and is hereby directed 
    to pay such sum as may be necessary, from the contingent fund of 
    the House of Representatives, to meet the June 1966 payroll of 
    committee employees.

    No objection was heard to Mr. Burleson's request, and shortly 
thereafter the question was put,(4) and the resolution was 
agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id, at p. 14624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                 A. CREATING AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEES
 
Sec. 5. Establishing Select Committees; Procedure

Privilege of Resolution Creating Select Committee

Sec. 5.1 A House resolution providing for the creation of a select 
    committee is reported and called up as privileged by the Committee 
    on Rules.

    On July 8, 1969,(5) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
reported, from the Committee on Rules, a resolution (H. Res. 472) 
creating a select committee to be known as the Committee on the House 
Restaurant The resolution was referred to the House Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 18712, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two days later, on July 10, 1969,(6) Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Madden who proceeded to 
make the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 19080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Resolved, That (a) there is hereby created a select committee 
    to be known as the ``Committee on the House Restaurant,'' which 
    shall be composed of five Members of the House of Representatives 
    to be appointed by the Speaker, not more than three of whom shall 
    be of the majority party, and one of whom shall be designated as 
    chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the committee 
    shall be filled in the same manner in which the original 
    appointment was made.
        (b) On and after July 15, 1969, until otherwise ordered by the 
    House, the

[[Page 2552]]

    Architect of the Capitol shall perform the duties vested in him by 
    section 208 of Public Law 812, 76th Congress (40 U.S.C. 174k) under 
    the direction of the select committee herein created.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Rules may report at any 
time ``on rules, joint rules, and order of business.'' (7) 
And, it is always in order to call up for consideration a report from 
that committee (8) providing the report is not called up for 
consideration on the same day it is presented to the House [unless so 
determined by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the Members 
voting].(9) A resolution creating a select committee is 
deemed to be the equivalent of a new rule. Hence, the privileged status 
which attaches to such a measure when reported out by the Committee on 
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XI clause 22, House Rules and Manual Sec.  726 (1973).
 8. See Rule XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec.  729 (1973).
 9. This proviso, itself, does not apply during the last three days of 
        a session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elements of Typical Resolution

Sec. 5.2 The House adopted a resolution establishing a select committee 
    to investigate government research programs, providing for 
    appointment of a chairman and members by the Speaker, and 
    specifying the powers and jurisdiction of the committee.

    On Sept. 11, 1963,(10) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Carl A. Elliott, of Alabama, who, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 504 and 
asked for its immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 16744, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See Guidelines for the Establishment of Select Committees, 
        Subcommittee on the Rules and Organization of the House, 
        Committee on Rules, Committee Print, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 
        31, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        Resolved, That there is hereby created a select committee to be 
    composed of nine Members of the House of Representatives to be 
    appointed by the Speaker, one of whom he shall designate as 
    chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the committee 
    shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was 
    made.
        The said committee is directed to make a complete, full, and 
    thorough investigation of the numerous research programs being 
    conducted by sundry departments and agencies of the Federal 
    Government and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, 
    the committee shall give special attention to the following: (1) 
    the overall total amount of annual expenditures on re

[[Page 2553]]

    search programs; (2) what departments and agencies of the 
    Government are conducting research and at what costs; (3) the 
    amounts being expended by the various agencies and departments in 
    grants and contracts for research to colleges, private industry, 
    and every form of student scholarships; (4) what facilities, if 
    any, exist for coordinating the various and sundry research 
    programs, including grants to colleges and universities as well as 
    scholarship grants.
        In order that this investigation of the numerous research 
    programs may be better coordinated, without limiting the scope of 
    the said committee's investigation, it is directed, among other 
    investigative procedures, to make use of information currently 
    available in the various committees of Congress which have 
    legislative jurisdiction over Government research activities to the 
    end that the said select committee may be able to recommend the 
    necessary legislation to coordinate and prevent unjustifiable 
    duplication in the numerous projects and activities of the 
    Government relating to scientific research.

        The committee shall report its findings to the House with such 
    recommended legislation as the committee may deem appropriate to 
    correct any deficiencies. The committee shall make such reports to 
    the House prior to December 1, 1964, and may submit such interim 
    reports as it deems advisable. Any reports submitted when the House 
    is not in session may be filed with the Clerk of the House.
        For the purposes of this resolution the committee, or any 
    subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act during the 
    present Congress at such times and places within the United States, 
    whether or not the House has recessed or adjourned, to hold such 
    hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the 
    production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such 
    testimony as the committee deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued 
    under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any 
    properly designated chairman of a subcommittee, or any member 
    designated by him and may be served by any person designated by 
    such chairman or member. The chairman of the committee or any 
    member thereof may administer oaths to Witnesses.
        The majority of the members of the committee shall constitute a 
    quorum for the transaction of business, except two or more shall 
    constitute a quorum for the purpose of taking of evidence including 
    sworn testimony.

    Shortly thereafter, the previous question was ordered, and the 
Speaker put the question on the resolution. There were--yeas 336, nays 
0. Accordingly, the resolution was agreed to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 16754. See also Sec. 13.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creating Select Committee Under Authority of Standing Committee

Sec. 5.3 The Committee on Rules reported a resolution creating a Select 
    Committee on the House Restaurant, placing that committee under the 
    authority of the Committee

[[Page 2554]]

    on House Administration and transferring jurisdiction and control 
    over all food service facilities in the House from the Architect of 
    the Capitol to the Committee on House Administration.

    On Mar. 25, 1971,(12) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, called up and asked for the 
immediate consideration of the following resolution (H. Res. 317):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 7961, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That (a) there is hereby created, as of January 3, 
    1971, a select committee to be known as the Select Committee on the 
    House Restaurant, which shall be composed of five Members of the 
    House of Representatives to be appointed by the Speaker, not more 
    than three of whom shall be of the majority party, and one of whom 
    shall be designated as chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the 
    membership of the committee shall be filled in the same manner in 
    which the original appointment was made.
        (b) In the Ninety-second Congress, the select committee shall 
    exercise direction and supervision over the immediate management 
    and operation of the House Restaurant and the cafeteria and other 
    food service facilities of the House of Representatives, subject to 
    the authority of the Committee on House Administration as provided 
    in section 2 of this resolution.
        Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other authority with respect to 
    the jurisdiction and control over the management of the House 
    Restaurant and the cafeteria and other food service facilities of 
    the House of Representatives, the jurisdiction over such restaurant 
    and facilities and authority over the direction and supervision of 
    the immediate management and operation thereof shall be vested in 
    the Committee on House Administration; and the immediate management 
    and operation of such restaurant and facilities may be vested in 
    such official or other authority, acting as the agent of the 
    committee, as the committee may designate; and the official or 
    authority so designated shall perform the duties vested in the 
    Architect of the Capitol by section 208 of the First Supplemental 
    Civil Functions Appropriation Act, 1941 (54 Stat. 1056; Public, No. 
    812, Seventy Sixth Congress; 40 U.S.C. 174k).
        (b) The Architect of the Capitol is hereby authorized and 
    directed to transfer, as the Committee on House Administration 
    directs, all accounts, records, supplies, equipment, and assets of 
    the House Restaurant and the cafeteria and other food service 
    facilities of the House which are in the possession or under the 
    control of the Architect of the Capitol in order that all such 
    items may be available for the maintenance and operation of the 
    House Restaurant under the authority of, and as directed by, the 
    Committee on House Administration.
        (c) All authority, responsibility, and functions vested in or 
    imposed upon the Architect of the Capitol in connection with the 
    special deposit account established by section 208 of the First 
    Supplemental Civil Functions Appropriation Act, 1941 (40 U.S.C. 
    174k),

[[Page 2555]]

    shall be vested in or imposed upon such other official, authority, 
    or authorities as the Committee on House Administration may 
    designate.
        (d) The provisions of this section shall become effective on 
    the first day of the first calendar month beginning after the date 
    of adoption of this resolution, until otherwise provided by law.

    Shortly thereafter,(13) the resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 7962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Contingent Fund for Committee Expenses; Privilege of Authorizing 
    Resolution

Sec. 5.4 A resolution providing funds for a select committee out of the 
    contingent fund of the House, reported from the Committee on House 
    Administration, is both reported and called up as privileged under 
    the rules.

    On Aug. 6, 1969,(14) by direction of the Committee on 
House Administration, Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman of that 
committee, submitted a privileged report (H. Rept. No. 91-428) on House 
Resolution 508 and asked for its immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 22546, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution read as follows:

        Resolved, That effective July 10, 1969, in carrying out its 
    duties, the select committee created by House Resolution 472 is 
    authorized to incur such expenses not to exceed $40,000, as it 
    deems advisable. Such expenses shall be paid out of the contingent 
    fund of the House on vouchers authorized and approved by such 
    committee, signed by the chairman thereof, and approved by the 
    Committee on House Administration.
        Sec. 2. Funds authorized by this resolution shall be expended 
    pursuant to regulations established by the Committee on House 
    Administration under existing law.

    Its privileged status was derived from the rules (15) 
which, in pertinent part, provides that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XI clause 22, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 726, 727 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The following-named committees shall have leave to report at 
    any time on the matters herein stated, namely: . . . the Committee 
    on House Administration . . . on all matters of expenditure of the 
    contingent fund of the House.

Establishing Select Committee of Limited Duration

Sec. 5.5 By adoption of a privileged resolution reported from the 
    Committee on Rules, the House created a Select Committee on Crime 
    and required the final report of the select committee to be filed 
    no later than June 30, 1973, on which date the committee would 
    ``cease to exist,''

[[Page 2556]]

    with all records to be transferred to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.

    On Feb. 28, 1973,(16) Speaker pro tempore Charles M. 
Price, of Illinois, recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, who 
proceeded to call up House Resolution 256 by direction of the Committee 
on Rules for its immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 5920, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution read as follows:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at pp. 5920, 5921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That effective January 3, 1973, and until June 30, 
    1973, there is hereby created a select committee to be composed of 
    eleven Members of the House of Representatives to be appointed by 
    the Speaker, one of whom he shall designate as chairman. Any 
    vacancy occurring in the membership of the select committee shall 
    be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was 
    made.
        Sec. 2. The select committee is authorized and directed to 
    conduct a full and complete investigation and study of all aspects 
    of crime affecting the United States, including, but not limited 
    to, (1) its elements, causes, and extent; (2) the preparation, 
    collection, and dissemination of statistics and data; (3) the 
    sharing of information, statistics, and data among law enforcement 
    agencies, Federal, State, and local, including the exchange of 
    information, statistics, and data with foreign nations; (4) the 
    adequacy of law enforcement and the administration of justice, 
    including constitutional issues and problems pertaining thereto; 
    (5) the effect of crime and disturbances in the metropolitan urban 
    areas; (6) the effect, directly or indirectly, of crime on the 
    commerce of the Nation; (7) the treatment and rehabilitation of 
    persons convicted of crime; (8) measures relating to the reduction, 
    control, or prevention of crime; (9) measures relating to the 
    improvement of (A) investigation and detection of crime, (B) law 
    enforcement techniques, including, but not limited to, increased 
    cooperation among the law enforcement agencies, and (C) the 
    effective administration of justice; and (10) measures and programs 
    for increased respect for the law and constituted authority.
        Sec. 3. For the purpose of making such investigations and 
    studies, the committee or any subcommittee thereof is authorized to 
    sit and act, subject to clause 31 of rule XI of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives, during the present Congress at such times 
    and places within the United States, including any Commonwealth or 
    possession thereof, whether the House is meeting, has recessed, or 
    has adjourned, and to hold such hearings and require, by subpena or 
    otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 
    production of such books, records, correspondence, memorandums, 
    papers, and documents, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be 
    issued over the signature of the chairman of the committee or any 
    member designated by him and may be served by any person designated 
    by such chairman or member.
        Sec. 4. The select committee shall report to the House as soon 
    as possible with respect to the results of its inves

[[Page 2557]]

    tigations, hearings, and studies, together with such 
    recommendations as it deems advisable and shall submit its final 
    report not later than June 30, 1973. Any such report or reports 
    which are made when the House is not in session shall be filed with 
    the Clerk of the House. The select committee shall cease to exist 
    on June 30, 1973, and its records, files, and all current material 
    in its possession shall be transferred to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.

    The proposed creation of the select committee was, in fact, more in 
the nature of a ``reconstitution'', since a similar committee had been 
in existence since 1969.(2) Mr. Bolling described the 
resolution's origins in his initial remarks, when he stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 6.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, this resolution extending the Select Committee on 
    Crime until the 30th of June is a compromise. It was a compromise 
    arrived at with very considerable difficulty. A number of people 
    wanted the committee to continue for the full period of this 
    Congress, and a number of people wanted the committee to terminate 
    on the first day of this Congress. The view of the committee's 
    effectiveness was mixed, but I think everyone will agree that 
    during its life it has accomplished something. There are critics of 
    a variety of types, and there are supporters of all kinds, and the 
    compromise included more than the date when that committee would 
    cease to function. It included the understanding of those who were 
    parties to that compromise that the Committee on the Judiciary 
    would give special attention to the functions undertaken by this 
    select committee, and make a judgment which would result in some of 
    those functions at least being prosecuted in some fashion by the 
    Committee on the Judiciary. That is, not only is the Crime 
    Committee phased out, but there are commitments that some of its 
    functions will be undertaken by the Committee on the Judiciary, 
    which felt that it should have the responsibility for this work.

    A brief discussion ensued after which the Chair put the question on 
the resolution,(3) it was taken; and, the Speaker pro 
tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. H. R. Gross, 
of Iowa, then made a point of no quorum which culminated in an 
automatic roll call. The vote then being taken by electronic device, 
there were--yeas 317, nays 75, answered ``present'' 2. Accordingly, the 
resolution was agreed to.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 119 Cong. Rec. 5924, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Id. at p. 5925.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorizing lnvestigation With Clerk

Sec. 5.6 The House agreed to a privileged resolution, reported from the 
    Committee on Rules, establishing a select committee to investigate 
    and report on campaign expenditures and practices by

[[Page 2558]]

    candidates for the House, and authorizing the select committee and 
    the Clerk of the House to jointly investigate alleged violations of 
    the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (utilizing the 
    committee's subpena power).

    On Feb. 28, 1972,(5) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, called up for 
immediate consideration the following resolution (H. Res. 819):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 118 Cong. Rec. 5717, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That a special committee of five Members be appointed 
    by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to investigate and 
    report to the House not later than January 11, 1973, with respect 
    to the following matters:

        (1) The extent and nature of expenditures made by all 
    candidates for the House of Representatives in connection with 
    their campaign for nomination and election to such office.
        (2) The amount subscribed, contributed, or expended, and the 
    value of services rendered, and facilities made available 
    (including personal services, use of advertising space, radio and 
    television time, communications media, office space, moving picture 
    films, and automobile and any other transportation facilities) by 
    any individual, individuals, or group of individuals, committee, 
    partnership, corporation, or labor union, to or on behalf of each 
    such candidate in connection with any such campaign or for the 
    purpose of influencing the votes cast or to be cast at any 
    convention or election held in 1972 to which a candidate for the 
    House of Representatives is to be nominated or elected.
        (3) The use of any other means or influence (including the 
    promise or use of patronage) for the purpose of aiding or 
    influencing the nomination or election of any such candidates.
        (4) The amounts, if any, raised, contributed, and expended by 
    an individual, individuals, or group of individuals, committee, 
    partnership, corporation, or labor union, including any political 
    committee thereof, in connection with any such election, and the 
    amounts received by any political committee from any corporation, 
    labor union, individual, individuals, or group of individuals, 
    committee, or partnership.
        (5) The violations, if any, of the following statutes of the 
    United States:
        (a) The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
        (b) The Act of August 2, 1939, as amended, relating to 
    pernicious political activities, commonly referred to as the Hatch 
    Act.
        (c) The provisions of section 304, chapter 120, Public Law 101, 
    Eightieth Congress, first session, referred to as the Labor-
    Management Relations Act, 1947.
        (d) Any statute or legislative Act of the United States or of 
    the State within which a candidate is seeking nomination or 
    reelection to the House of Representatives, the violation of which 
    Federal or State statute, or statutes,

[[Page 2559]]

    would affect the qualification of a Member of the House of 
    Representatives within the meaning of article I, section 5 of the 
    Constitution of the United States.
        (6) Such other matters relating to the election of Members of 
    the House of Representatives in 1972, and the campaigns of 
    candidates in connection therewith, as the committee deems to be of 
    public interest, and which, in its opinion, will aid the House of 
    Representatives in enacting remedial legislation, or in deciding 
    contests that may be instituted involving the right to a seat in 
    the House of Representatives.
        (7) The committee is authorized to act upon its own motion and 
    upon such information as in its judgment may be reasonable or 
    reliable. Upon complaint being made to the committee under oath, by 
    any person, candidate, or political committee, setting forth 
    allegations as to facts which, under this resolution, it would be 
    the duty of said committee to investigate, the committee shall 
    investigate such charges as fully as though it were acting upon its 
    own motion, unless, after a hearing upon such complaint, the 
    committee shall find that the allegations in such complaint are 
    immaterial or untrue. All hearings before the committee, and before 
    any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, shall be public, and all 
    orders and decisions of the committee, and of any such 
    subcommittee, shall be public.
        (8) The Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and 
    directed when carrying out assigned responsibilities under the 
    Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 that prior to taking 
    enforcement action thereunder, to initiate a request for 
    consultation with and advice from the committee, whenever, at his 
    discretion, election campaign matters arise that are included 
    within sections (1) through (6) above and may affect the interests 
    of the House of Representatives.
        (9) The committee is authorized and directed to consult with, 
    advise, and act in a timely manner upon specific requests of the 
    Clerk of the House of Representatives either when he is so acting 
    on his own motion or upon a written complaint made to the Clerk of 
    the House under oath setting forth allegations of fact under the 
    Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The committee or a duly 
    authorized subcommittee thereof when acting upon the requests of 
    the Clerk shall consult with him; shall act jointly with him; and 
    shall jointly investigate such charges as though it were acting on 
    its own motion, unless, after a hearing upon such complaint, the 
    committee or a duly authorized subcommittee thereof shall find the 
    allegations in such complaint are immaterial or untrue. 
    Consultation with the committee or a duly authorized subcommittee 
    thereof may be either in executive or in public sessions, but all 
    hearings before the committee when acting jointly, shall be public, 
    and all orders and decisions and advice given to the Clerk of the 
    House of Representatives by the committee or a duly authorized 
    subcommittee thereof shall be public.
        For the purpose of this resolution, the committee or any duly 
    authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold such public 
    hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the 
    sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Ninety-second 
    Congress, to employ such attorneys, experts, cler

[[Page 2560]]

    ical, and other assistants, to require by subpena or otherwise the 
    attendance of such witnesses and the production of such 
    correspondence, books, papers, and documents, to administer such 
    oaths, and to take such testimony as it deems advisable. Subpenas 
    may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee 
    or any subcommittee, or by any member designated by such chairman, 
    and may be served by any person designated by any such chairman or 
    member.
        (10) The committee is authorized and directed when acting on 
    its own motion or upon a complaint made to the committee, to report 
    promptly any and all violations of any Federal or State statutes in 
    connection with the matters and things mentioned herein to the 
    Attorney General of the United States in order that he may take 
    such official action as may be proper. The committee or a duly 
    authorized subcommittee thereof is authorized and directed when 
    acting upon the specific request of the Clerk of the House to 
    render advice promptly in order to give the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives the prior benefits of its advice and in order that 
    he may then take such official action under the Federal Election 
    Campaign Act of 1971 as the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
    deems to be proper.
        (11) Every person who, having been summoned as a witness by 
    authority of said committee or any subcommittee thereof, willfully 
    makes default, or who having appeared, refuses to answer any 
    question pertinent to the investigation heretofore authorized, 
    shall be held to the penalties prescribed by law.
        That said committee is authorized and directed to file interim 
    reports whenever in the judgment of the majority of the committee, 
    or of the subcommittee conducting portions of said investigation, 
    the public interest will be best served by the filing of said 
    interim reports, and in no event shall the final report of said 
    committee be filed later than January 11, 1973, as hereinabove 
    provided.

    Shortly thereafter,(6) the resolution was agreed 
to.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 5718.
 7. See Ch. 8, supra, for more information on campaign expenditure 
        committees. See also Sec. 6.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Select committees to investigate campaign 
expenditures are no longer established, since the Committee on House 
Administration with jurisdiction over campaign expenditures, now has 
standing investigatory authority and subpena power, as do all other 
standing committees (see Ch. 8, Sec. 14, supra).
    In the 93d Congress, the House granted the Committee on House 
Administration subpena power to investigate election practices, thereby 
enabling that standing committee to assume the functions of the select 
committee (H. Res. 737, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.).



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                 A. CREATING AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEES
 
Sec. 6. --Subjects of Investigation or Study

    Select or special committees are usually created for one of four

[[Page 2561]]

purposes: (1) to investigate conditions or events about which 
allegations have been made; (2) to study and report on a particular 
matter with a view toward subsequent legislative action by standing 
committees; (3) to report to the House on the merits of specific 
legislative proposals and to encourage coordinated legislative 
decisions; and (4) to supervise certain routine housekeeping 
functions.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. ``Guidelines for the Establishment of Select Committees,'' report 
        of the Subcommittee on the Rules and Organization of the House, 
        Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives, 95th Cong. 
        (Oct. 31, 1977), p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The distinction between a select and special committee is merely 
one of emphasis. A ``select'' committee is so designated to emphasize 
the manner of the appointment of its membership (usually by the 
Speaker). In the case of a ``special'' committee, the designation 
emphasizes its purpose of performing a specific function. In fact, most 
special committees are select committees, and vice versa.
    Arguments that were advanced in support of creating select 
committees usually contended: (1) that the matter which the select 
committee would study was of major and immediate national importance; 
(2) that it required a comprehensive inquiry by Congress as a necessary 
precursor to legislation; (3) that the jurisdictional alinements of the 
standing committees were such that no one standing committee could 
examine the matter fully; and (4) that, therefore, a select committee 
would be the most appropriate mechanism available in that its mandate 
and authority could be carefully drawn to conform with the requirements 
of its inquiry, and in that it could provide the House with the 
information it required without encroaching on the established 
legislative prerogatives of the standing committees.(9) In 
addition, it was sometimes argued that particular standing committees 
were simply too overburdened with current responsibilities to delve 
into the subject matter of a particular investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally speaking, most select committees have been authorized to 
make legislative recommendations although few, until recently, have 
been empowered to report legislation directly to the House. Another 
general rule is that committee composition usually reflects the 
prevailing party ratios at the time of the select committee's 
creation.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Exceptions to this custom include the Select Committee on Standards 
        and Conduct and the Select Committee on Committees. In each 
        case the unique importance of the mission of the committee, 
        i.e., ethics in the first instance and House organization in 
        the second, seemed to warrant avoidance of even the appearance 
        of partisanship.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2562]]

    The following information provides data on each select and special 
committee created by the House of Representatives from 1947 through 
1977. Excluded from the list are select or special committees in 
existence prior to 1947, but which were subsequently 
recreated.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Between the 74th and 79th Congresses, the House continued, 
        reconstituted, or created the following select committees: 
        Special Committee on Wild Life Resources, Special Committee on 
        Un-American Activities, Select Committee to Investigate Real 
        Estate Bondholders' Reorganization, Special Investigating 
        Committee on Cross Licensing and Pooling of Patents, Special 
        Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures, Special 
        Committee Investigating American Retail Federation and Trade 
        Practices of Big Scale Wholesale and Retail Buying and Selling 
        Organizations and Their Associations, Special Committee to 
        Investigate Old-Age Pension Plans, Select Committee to 
        Investigate Executive Agencies of the Government, Select 
        Committee on Government Organization, Special Committee to 
        Investigate Un-American Activities, Special Committee to 
        Investigate the National Labor Relations Board, Select 
        Committee to Investigate the Interstate Migration of Destitute 
        Citizens, Special Committee to Study the Anthracite Emergency 
        Program, Select Committee Investigating National Defense 
        Migration, Select Committee to Investigate Air Accidents, 
        Select Committee on Small Business, Select Committee to 
        Investigate the Federal Communications Commission, Select 
        Committee to Investigate Acts of Executive Agencies Beyond the 
        Scope of Their Authority, Special Committee on Post-War 
        Economic Policy and Planning, Select Committee on Post-War 
        Military Policy, Select Committee to Investigate Seizure of 
        Montgomery Ward & Company, Select Committee to Investigate and 
        Study Small Business, Select Committee to Investigate Acts of 
        Executive Agencies Which Exceed Their Authority, Select 
        Committee to Investigate Supplies and Shortages of Food, 
        Particularly Meat, Special Committee on Reconstruction of House 
        Roofs and Skylights, and Select Committee to Investigate 
        Disposition of Surplus Property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information on each select committee includes its date of 
creation, authorizing resolution, number of members, functions and 
mandate, presence or absence of subpena and/or legislative authority, 
authority to report, special authority, extensions, and termination 
date.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. ``Guidelines for the Establishment of Select Committees,'' report 
        of the Subcommittee on the Rules and Organization of the House, 
        Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives, 95th Cong. 
        (Oct. 31, 1977), pp. 30-87.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2563]]

       Select Committee To Conduct a Study and Investigation of All 
      Matters Related to the Need for Adequate Supplies of Newsprint, 
       Printing, and Wrapping Paper, Paper Products, Paper Pulp and 
                                  Pulpwood

             (Also known as the Select Committee on Newsprint)

        Date of creation.--February 26, 1947.
        Citation.--H. Res. 58, 80th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by a 
    record vote of 269-100).
        Membership.--Number of members: 7. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized to 
    conduct a study and investigation of all matters related to the 
    need for adequate supplies, for use in the United States (including 
    use in time of war), of newsprint, printing and wrapping paper, 
    paper products, paper pulp and pulpwood, and of all matters related 
    to means by which adequate supplies thereof may be produced or 
    secured, with particular references to--
        ``(1) The short-range and long-range possibilities of increased 
    production thereof in the continental United States (including 
    Alaska);
        ``(2) The short-range and long-range prospects of securing 
    increased supplies thereof from Canada and other sources outside 
    the United States; and
        ``(3) The extent to which agencies or officers of the United 
    States may be able to assist in furthering the objective of 
    securing increased production and supplies thereof.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    submit preliminary reports to the House from time to time as it 
    deemed advisable. The Select Committee was ordered to submit its 
    final report to the House together with any recommendations as soon 
    as practicable during the 80th Congress, upon completion of its 
    investigation.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 80th Congress.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: Final report submitted to the House on 
    December 31, 1948. . . .

                      Select Committee on Foreign Aid

        Date of creation.--July 22, 1947.
        Citation.--H. Res. 296; 80th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 19. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to make a study of: (1) Actual and prospective needs of 
    foreign nations and peoples, including those within United States 
    military zones, both for relief in terms of food, clothing, and so 
    forth, and of economic rehabilitation; (2) resources and facilities 
    available to meet such needs within and without the continental 
    United States; (3) existing or contemplated agencies, whether 
    private, public, do

[[Page 2564]]

    mestic, or international, qualified to deal with such needs; (4) 
    any or all measures which might assist in assessing relative needs 
    and in correlating such assistance as the United States can 
    properly make without weakening its domestic economy.''
        Significant changes in form or mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House was 
    not in session) from time to time as it deemed appropriate, but not 
    later than March 1, 1948 (later extended to May 1, 1948).
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: None. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: March 1, 1948 (H. Res. 
    296).
        Extensions: Extended to May 1, 1948 by H. Res. 476 on February 
    24, 1948.
        Actual termination: Final report submitted to the House on May 
    3, 1948. On June 8, 1948 the House passed H. Res. 601 which 
    transferred all records of the Select Committee on Foreign Aid to 
    the Joint Committee on Foreign Economic Cooperation created by 
    section 124 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 (Public Law 472). 
    . . .

     Select Committee To Investigate Transactions on Commodity Exchange

        Date of creation.--December 18, 1947.
        Citation.--H. Res. 404; 80th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 7. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized to 
    conduct a full and complete investigation of purchases and sales of 
    commodities for future delivery and including: (a) The activities 
    of any department or agency of the United States Government in 
    connection with the purchase and sale of commodities, and into any 
    other activities of any such agency or department that may have 
    heretofore affected, or may hereafter affect. the price of food and 
    other commodities; (b) the private acts, and official activities of 
    any individual in the United States Government in connection with 
    the purchase or sale of commodities.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    submit a report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the 
    House was not in session) upon completion of its investigation as 
    soon as practicable during the 80th Congress.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes.
        Termination.--Orginal termination date: End of 80th Congress.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: End of 80th Congress; final report 
    submitted to the House on December 31, 1948. . . .

                  Select Committee on Lobbying Activities

        Date of creation.--August 12, 1949.
        Citation.--H. Res. 298, 81st Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 7. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    di

[[Page 2565]]

    rected to conduct a study and investigation of: (1) All lobbying 
    activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard 
    legislation; and (2) all activities of agencies of the Federal 
    Government intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard 
    legislation.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.

        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    submit preliminary reports to the House from time to time as it 
    deemed advisable; and to submit its final report on the results of 
    its study and investigations prior to the close of the 81st 
    Congress.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 81st Congress.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination date: End of 81st Congress. . . .

     Select Committee To Investigate the Use of Chemicals, Pesticides, 
           and Insecticides in and With Respect to Food Products

        Date of creation.--June 20, 1950.
        Citation.--H. Res. 323; 81st Congress, 2d Session, adopted by a 
    voice vote. H. Res. 74; 82d Congress, 1st Session, February 2, 1951 
    (adopted by voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 7. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study 
    of--
        ``(1) The nature, extent, and effect of the use of chemicals, 
    compounds, and synthetics in the production, processing, 
    preparation and packaging of food products to determine the effect 
    of the use of such chemicals, compounds, and synthetics: (a) upon 
    the health and welfare of the Nation; and (b) upon the stability 
    and well-being of our agricultural economy;
        ``(2) The nature, extent, and effect of the use of pesticides 
    and insecticides with respect to food and food products, 
    particularly the effect of such use of pesticides and insecticides 
    upon the health and welfare of the consumer by reason of toxic 
    residues remaining on such food and food products as a result of 
    such use; and
        ``(3) The nature, effect, and extent of the use of chemicals, 
    compounds, and synthetics in the manufacture of fertilizer, 
    particularly the effect of such use of chemicals, compounds, and 
    synthetics upon: (a) The condition of the soil as a result of the 
    use of such fertilizer; (b) the quantity and quality of the 
    vegetation growing from such soil; (c) the health of animals 
    consuming such vegetation; (d) the quantity and quality of food 
    produced from such soil; and (e) the public health and welfare 
    generally.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: During the 82d 
    Congress, 1st Session, on October 15, 1951, the House agreed to H. 
    Res. 447 which expanded the mandate of the Committee to include ``. 
    . . an investigation and study of the nature, extent, and effect of 
    the use of chemicals, compounds, and synthetics in the production, 
    processing, preparation, and packaging of cosmetics to determine 
    the effect of the use of such chemicals, compounds, and synthetics 
    upon the health and welfare of the Nation.''

[[Page 2566]]

        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was originally 
    authorized to report to the House (or the Clerk of the House if the 
    House was not in session) as soon as practicable during the 81st 
    Congress on the result of its investigation, together with any 
    recommendations for legislation. The reporting date was later 
    extended to the end of the 82d Congress by H. Res. 74, adopted on 
    February 2, 1951.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 81st Congress.
        Extensions: Extended to end of 82d Congress by H. Res. 74 on 
    February 2, 1951.
        Actual termination: Final report submitted to the House on 
    January 3, 1953. . . .

     Select Committee To Investigate Abuses in Education, Training and 
              Loan Guaranty Programs of World War II Veterans

        Date of creation.--August 28, 1950.
        Citation.--H. Res. 474, 81st Congress, 2d session (adopted by a 
    voice vote). H. Res. 93, 82d Congress, 1st session, February 2, 
    1951 (adopted by a voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 9. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of 
    the alleged abuses in the education and training program of World 
    War II veterans, and of action taken or the lack of action taken by 
    the responsible officers and employees of the Veterans' 
    Administration and State approving authorities to prevent abuses 
    under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, as amended.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: H. Res. 93, 
    adopted on February 2, 1951, to reestablish the Select Committee 
    for the 82d Congress, expanded the mandate of the Select Committee 
    to include loan guaranty programs for veterans.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The original establishing resolution 
    authorized the Select Committee to submit a report on the results 
    of its investigation, as soon as practicable during the 81st 
    Congress. H. Res. 93, reauthorized the Committee and extended the 
    reporting date to the end of the 82d Congress.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 81st Congress.
        Extensions: Reestablished by H. Res. 93 for the 82d Congress on 
    February 2, 1951.
        Actual termination: Final report submitted to the House on 
    September 11, 1952. . . .

    Select Committee To Conduct an Investigation and Study of the Katyn 
                              Forest Massacre

        Date of creation.--September 18, 1951.
        Citation.--H. Res. 390; 82d Congress, 1st Session (adopted by a 
    voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 7. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of 
    the facts,

[[Page 2567]]

    evidence, and extenuating circumstances both before and after the 
    massacre of thousands of Polish officers buried in a mass grave in 
    the Katyn Forest on the banks of the Dnieper in the vicinity of 
    Smolensk, which was then a Nazi-occupied territory formerly having 
    been occupied and under the control of the Union of Soviet 
    Socialist Republics.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: H. Res. 539 of 
    March 11, 1952 amended H. Res. 390 to permit the Select Committee 
    to hold hearings outside the United States.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was ordered to 
    report, upon completion of its hearings, to the House (or to the 
    Clerk of the House if the House was not in session) before the 
    adjournment of the 82d Congress. The reporting date was later 
    extended to January 3, 1953 (commencement of the 83d Congress) by 
    H. Res. 539.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 82d Congress.
        Extensions: Extended by H. Res. 539 to January 3, 1953.
        Actual termination: December 22, 1952. . . .

     Select Committee To Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations and Other 
                               Organizations

        Date of creation.--April 4, 1952.
        Citation.--H. Res. 561, 82d Congress, 2d Session (adopted by a 
    record vote of 194-158). H. Res. 217, 83d Congress, 1st Session, 
    July 27, 1953 (adopted by a vote of 209-163).
        Membership.--Number of members: 7. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of 
    educational and philanthropic foundations and other comparable 
    organizations which are exempt from Federal income taxation to 
    determine which such foundations and organizations are using their 
    resources for purposes other than the purposes for which they were 
    established, and especially to determine which such foundations and 
    organizations are using their resources for un-American and 
    subversive activities or for purposes not in the interest or 
    tradition of the United States.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: H. Res. 217 of 
    July 27, 1953, which reestablished the Select Committee for the 83d 
    Congress expanded the Select Committee's jurisdiction; authorizing 
    it to investigate tax exempt foundations and organizations to 
    determine if any such organizations were using their resources for 
    political purposes, propaganda, or attempts to influence 
    legislation.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House was 
    not in session) on the results of its investigations on or before 
    January 1, 1953. The reporting date was later extended by H. Res. 
    217 to January 3, 1955.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: January 1, 1953.
        Extensions: Extended to January 3, 1955 by H. Res. 217 on July 
    27, 1953.
        Actual termination: December 16, 1954. . . .

[[Page 2568]]

    Select Committee To Conduct an Investigation and Study of Offensive 
             and Undesirable Books, Magazines, and Comic Books

        Date of creation.--May 12, 1952.
        Citation.--H. Res. 596; 82d Congress, 2d Session (adopted by a 
    voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 9. . . .
        Mode of selecting members: H. Res. 596 specified that the 
    members of the Select Committee ``be appointed by the Speaker, 
    three from the Committee on the Judiciary, three from the Committee 
    on Post Office and Civil Service, and three from the membership of 
    the House without reference to any committee.'' The resolution also 
    specified that not more than five members of the Select Committee 
    were to be appointed from the same political party. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study: 
    (1) To determine the extent to which current literature-books, 
    magazines, and comic books-containing immoral, obscene, or 
    otherwise offensive matter, or placing improper emphasis on crime, 
    violence, and corruption, are being made available to the people of 
    the United States through the United States mails and otherwise; 
    and (2) to determine the adequacy of existing law to prevent the 
    publication and distribution of books containing immoral, 
    offensive, and other undesirable matter.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House was 
    not in session) as soon as practicable during the 82d Congress, on 
    the results of its investigations and study, together with any 
    recommendations, including recommendations for legislation as it 
    deemed advisable.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 82d Congress.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: December 31, 1952. . . .

    Select Committee To Investigate Incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia, 
                       and Estonia Into The U.S.S.R.

          (Also known as Select Committee on Communist Aggression)

        Date of creation.--July 27, 1953.
        Citation.--H. Res. 346; 83d Congress, 1st Session (adopted by a 
    voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 7 (increased to 9 by H. Res. 
    438 on March 4, 1954). . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of 
    said seizure and forced `incorporation' of Lithuania, Latvia, and 
    Estonia by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the 
    treatment of the said Baltic peoples during and following said 
    seizure and `incorporation'.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: H. Res. 438 on 
    March 4, 1954, amended the establishing resolution by expanding the 
    mandate of the Select Committee, increasing its mem

[[Page 2569]]

    bership, and authorizing it to conduct hearings outside the United 
    States after March 1, 1954. The Committee's expanded mandate is as 
    follows:

            The committee is authorized and directed to conduct a full 
        and complete investigation and study of: (1) The seizure and 
        forced ``incorporation'' of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia by 
        the Union of Soviet Socia]ist Republics and the treatment of 
        the said Baltic peoples during and following said seizure and 
        ``incorporation''; and (2) the subversion and destruction of 
        free institutions and human liberties in all other areas 
        controlled, directly or indirectly, by world communism, 
        including the treatment of the peoples in such areas.

        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House was 
    not in session) as soon as practicable during the 83d Congress on 
    the results of its investigation and study together with such 
    recommendations as it deemed advisable.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 83d Congress.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual Termination: December 31, 1954. . . .

      Select Committee To Investigate and Study Certain Benefits for 
    Surviving Dependents of Deceased Members and Former Members of The 
                                Armed Forces

        Date of creation.--August 4, 1954.
        Citation.--H. Res. 549, 83d Congress, 2d Session (adopted by a 
    voice vote).
        H. Res. 35; 84th Congress, 1st Session, February 2, 1955 
    (adopted by a voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members:
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed: (1) To conduct a full and complete investigation and 
    study of the benefits provided under Federal law for the surviving 
    dependents of deceased members and former members of the Armed 
    Forces; and (2) on the basis of such investigation, and study, to 
    make such recommendations as it may deem advisable and to prepare 
    such legislation as it may consider appropriate to carry out such 
    recommendations. ''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: Yes, 84th Congress only.
        The establishing resolution, H. Res. 549 authorized the Select 
    Committee ``to prepare such legislation as it may consider 
    appropriate to carry out such recommendations.'' H. Res. 35, 
    approved February 2, 1955, which reauthorized the Select Committee 
    during the 84th Congress, expanded the authority of the Committee 
    by authorizing it to ``report to the House, by bill or otherwise .
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House on the results of its investigations as soon as 
    practicable during the 83d Congress. The reporting date was later 
    extended to January 15, 1956 by H. Res. 35, adopted on February 2, 
    1955.

        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: No. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 83d Congress.

[[Page 2570]]

        Extensions: Extended to January 15, 1956 by H. Res. 35 on 
    February 2, 1955.
        Actual termination: January 15, 1956. . . .

    Select Committee To Investigate and Study The Financial Position of 
                     The White County Bridge Commission

        Date of creation.--May 25, 1955.
        Citation.--H. Res. 244; 84th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a record vote of 205-166).
        Membership.--Number of members: 3. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of 
    the financial position of the White County Bridge Commission 
    established by Public Law 37, 77th Congress, with a view to 
    ascertaining when it may be expected that the bridge and approaches 
    thereto operated by such commission near New Harmony, Ind., will 
    become free of tolls, and what money has been received, and what 
    expenditures have been made, by such commission since its 
    establishment in 1941.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House was 
    not in session) as soon as practicable during the 84th Congress on 
    the results of its investigation and study, together with its 
    recommendations.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 84th Congress.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: Report submitted to the House on April 25, 
    1956. . . .

               Select Committee on the Houserecording Studio

        Date of creation.--June 27, 1956.
        Citation.--Public Law 84-624; 84th Congress, 2d Session (2 
    U.S.C. 123b) (H.R. 11473, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 
    1957, approved June 27, 1956).
        Membership.--Number of members: 3. . . .
        Mode of selecting members: The law directed that the Select 
    Committee be composed of three Members of the House, two from the 
    majority party and one from the minority party, to be appointed by 
    the Speaker. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: Public Law 84-624 directed that the House 
    Recording Studio be operated by the ``Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives under the direction and control of a committee 
    which is hereby created . . . composed of three members. . . .'' 
    The Select Committee was ``authorized to issue such rules and 
    regulations relating to operation of the House Recording Studio as 
    it may deem necessary.'' The law directed that price fixing of 
    disk, film, and recordings by the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives be subject to approval by the Select Committee. 
    Expenditures by the House Recording Studio are subject to 
    regulations approved by the Select Committee. The Clerk of the 
    House of Representatives was authorized, subject to the approval of 
    the Select Committee,

[[Page 2571]]

    to fix the compensation of a Director of the House Recording Studio 
    and such other employees as are deemed necessary to its operation.
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: Not specified.
        Authority to report: Not specified.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: None. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: Not specified.
        Actual termination: Still in existence [Speaker appoints 
    members each Congress].

           Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration

        Date of creation.--March 5, 1958.
        Citation.--H. Res. 496; 85th Congress, 2d Session (adopted by a 
    voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 13. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a thorough and complete study and investigation 
    with respect to all aspects and problems relating to the 
    exploration of outer space and the control, development, and use of 
    astronautical resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: Yes, the Select Committee was authorized 
    to consider all bills and resolutions proposing legislation in the 
    field of astronautics and space exploration.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House by bill or otherwise by June 1, 1958, or the 
    earliest date thereafter, but by no later than January 3, 1959.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subponeas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: January 3, 1959.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: On July 21, 1958, the House approved H. 
    Res. 580 which established a standing Committee on Science and 
    Astronautics to continue the work of the Select Committee. On 
    January 7, 1959, the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space 
    Exploration issued two reports. . . .

    Select Committee To Investigate and Study the Administration of the 
                         Export Control Act of 1949

        Date of creation.--September 7, 1961.
        Citation.--H. Res. 403, 87th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a division of 90-1).
        Membership.--Number of members: 5. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of 
    the administration, operation, and enforcement of the Export 
    Control Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 7), as amended, with a view to 
    assessing the accomplishments under that Act, determining whether 
    improvements can be made in the administration, operation, or 
    enforcement thereof, and improving congressional oversight and 
    guidance over the formation of United States policies involved in 
    such Act. In carrying out such investigation and study, the 
    committee shall give particular attention to the following matters:
        ``(1) The problems involved in the control of trade between the 
    United

[[Page 2572]]

    States and foreign countries comprising the Sino-Soviet bloc.
        ``(2) Present methods and procedures in the formulation of 
    policy with respect to the determination of which articles, 
    materials, supplies, and technical data shall be controlled under 
    such Act, and the extent of such control.
        ``(3) Procedures followed under such Act in obtaining 
    information, advice, and opinions with respect to determination of 
    which articles, materials, supplies, and technical data shall be 
    controlled under such Act, from departments and agencies of the 
    United States which are concerned with aspects of our domestic or 
    foreign policies and operations which have a bearing on exports.
        ``(4) The extent to which decisions heretofore made under such 
    Act concerning the control of exports have adversely affected the 
    security of the United States.
        ``(5) Whether or not such Act is being administered by the 
    appropriate department of the Federal Government.
        ``(6) The interrelationship between such Act and related Acts 
    (such as the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951, and the 
    Trading With the Enemy Act) and other discussions or agreements 
    entered into by the United States (such as the coordinating 
    committee (COCOM) discussions and agreements) which affect or 
    relate to the control of trade between the United States and 
    foreign countries.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None. ''
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House was 
    not in session) the results of its investigation and study, 
    together with any recommendations it deemed advisable.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 87th Congress.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: Report submitted to the House on May 31, 
    1962. . . .

    Select Committee To Investigate Expenditures for Research Programs 
     Conducted by or Sponsored by the Departments and Agencies of the 
                             Federal Government

        (Also known as the Select Committee on Government Research)

        Date of creation.--September 11, 1963.
        Citation.--H. Res. 504; 88th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a vote of 336 to 0).
        Membership.--Number of members: 9. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``directed to 
    make a complete, full, and thorough investigation of the numerous 
    research programs being conducted by sundry departments and 
    agencies of the Federal Government and, without limiting the 
    generality of the foregoing, the committee shall give special 
    attention to the following: (1) The overall total amount of annual 
    expenditures on research programs; (2) what departments and 
    agencies of the Government are conducting research and at what 
    costs; (3) the amounts being expended by the

[[Page 2573]]

    various agencies and departments in grants and contracts for 
    research to colleges, private industry, and every form of student 
    scholarships; (4) what facilities, if any, exist for coordinating 
    the various and sundry research programs, including grants to 
    colleges and universities as well as scholarship grants.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report ``its findings to the House with such recommended 
    legislation as the committee may deem appropriate to correct any 
    deficiencies. `` The Select Committee was authorized to submit 
    interim reports, and its final report prior to December 1, 1964.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Special authorities: H. Res. 504 provided the following: ``In 
    order that this investigation of the numerous research programs may 
    be better coordinated, without limiting the scope of the same 
    committee's investigation, it is directed, among other 
    investigative procedures, to make use of information currently 
    available to the various committees of Congress which have 
    legislative jurisdiction over Government research activities to the 
    end that the said select committee may be able to recommend the 
    necessary legislation to coordinate and prevent justifiable 
    duplication in the numerous projects and activities of the 
    Government relating to scientific research.''. . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: December 1, 1964.
        Extensions: Extended to January 3, 1965, by H. Res. 810 on 
    August 5,1964.
        Actual termination: January 3, 1965. . . .

       Select Committee To Study the Factors Relating to the General 
                Welfare and Education of Congressional Pages

        Date of creation.--September 30, 1964.
        Citation.--H. Res. 847; 88th Congress, 2d Session (adopted by a 
    voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 5. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of 
    all of the factors relating to the general welfare and education of 
    congressional pages, including, but not limited to, a study and 
    investigation of the residential, dining, recreational, 
    educational, and physical training facilities and opportunities for 
    such pages, and rates of pay, hours of work, and other conditions 
    governing the employment of such pages.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.

        Authority to report: The Select Committee was directed to 
    report to the House as soon as practicable during the 88th Congress 
    on the results of its investigation and study. The Select Committee 
    was authorized to make ``recommendations regarding the feasibility 
    and desirability of raising the minimum age for Capitol pages to 
    eighteen years, of requiring secondary school graduation as a 
    prerequisite for appointment as a Capitol page, and of providing 
    for the establishment and

[[Page 2574]]

    construction of a Capitol page school and residence, and such other 
    recommendations as it deems advisable.''
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Not specified in 
    establishing resolution. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 88th Congress.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: Report submitted to the House on January 4, 
    1965. . . .

                 Select Committee on Standards and Conduct

        Date of creation.--October 19, 1966.
        Citation.--H. Res. 1013; 89th Congress, 2d Session (adopted by 
    a recorded vote of 256-0).
        Membership.--Number of members: 12. . . .
        Mode of selecting members: The establishing resolution 
    stipulated that the twelve members of the Committee be appointed by 
    the Speaker as follows: six from the majority party and six from 
    the minority party. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee on Standards and 
    Conduct, was authorized to:
        ``(1) Recommend to the House, by report or resolution such 
    additional rules or regulations as the Select Committee shall 
    determine to be necessary or desirable to insure proper standards 
    of conduct by Members of the House and by officers or employees of 
    the House, in the performance of their duties and the discharge of 
    their responsibilities; and
        ``(2) Report violations, by a majority vote of the Select 
    Committee, of any law to the proper Federal and State 
    authorities.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: Yes.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    make recommendations to the House by report or resolution on the 
    subjects under its jurisdiction. No reporting date was specified in 
    the establishing resolution.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 89th Congress.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: Final report submitted to the House on 
    December 27, 1966. On April 13, 1967 the House agreed to H. Res. 
    418 creating a standing Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. 
    . . .

     Special Committee To Report to the House Upon the Question of the 
      Right of Adam Clayton Powell To Be Sworn In as a Representative 
              From the State of New York in the 90th Congress

        Date of creation.--January 10, 1967.
        Citation.--H. Res. 1, 90th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by a 
    vote of 363-65).
        Membership.--Number of members: 9. . . .
        Mode of selecting members: All members of the Special Committee 
    were appointed by the Speaker. H. Res. 1 specified that four of the 
    nine members be members of the minority party and appointed after 
    consultation with the Minority Leader. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Special Committee was appointed to 
    consider the ``question of the right of Adam Clayton Powell to be 
    sworn in as a

[[Page 2575]]

    Representative from the State of New York in the Ninetieth 
    Congress, as well as his final right to a seat therein as 
    Representative. . . .''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Special Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House within five weeks after the appointment of the 
    members of the Special Committee.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: Five weeks after the 
    appointment of the members of the Special Committee, who were 
    appointed January 19, 1967.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: February 23, 1967. . . .

                 Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop

        Date of creation.--December 6, 1967.
        Citation.--H. Res. 1000; 90th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a voice vote). H. Res. 258; 91st Congress, 1st Session, February 
    19, 1969 (adopted by a voice vote). Public Law 91-145, December 12, 
    1969, Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 1970.
        Membership.--Number of members: 3. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The establishing resolution directed that 
    ``until otherwise ordered by the House, the management of the House 
    Beauty Shop and all matters connected therewith shall be under the 
    direction of the Select Committee . . . and shall be operated under 
    such rules and regulations as such Committee may prescribe for the 
    operation and the employment of necessary assistance for the 
    conduct of said Beauty Shop by such business methods as may produce 
    the best results consistent with economical and modern 
    management.'' The Select Committee was authorized by H. Res. 1000 
    of the 90th Congress to purchase equipment and materials for 
    initial operations of the shop at a cost not to exceed $15,000, to 
    be paid from the contingent fund of the House of Representatives.
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: The Legislative 
    Branch Appropriations Act Approved on December 12, 1969, authorized 
    the establishment of a Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop. 
    The jurisdiction and membership of the Select Committee was not 
    changed. However, the law provided for the establishment of a 
    revolving fund for the House Beauty Shop in the United States 
    Treasury. The General Accounting Office was authorized to audit the 
    activities of the Beauty Shop when directed to do so by the Select 
    Committee.
        Legislative authority: Not specified.
        Authority to report: Not specified.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: No. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 90th Congress.
        Extensions: Extended by H. Res. 258, 90th Congress, 1st Session 
    on February 19, 1969, to the end of the 91st Congress; and 
    reauthorized by Public Law 91-145 on December 12, 1969.
        Actual termination: Still in existence.

       Select Committee To Regulate Parking on the House Side of the 
                                  Capitol

        Date of creation.--March 13, 1969.

[[Page 2576]]

        Citation.--H. Res. 282; 91st Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a voice vote). H. Res. 24; 92d Congress, 1st Session, February 10, 
    1971 (adopted by a voice vote). H. Res. 145; 93d Congress, 1st 
    Session, February 7, 1973 (adopted by a voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 3. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized to 
    exercise direction over the Sergeant at Arms of the House of 
    Representatives in the assignment of space for outdoor parking of 
    automobiles in squares 639, south of 635, and 692, located adjacent 
    to the House Office Buildings, and for all other outdoor parking of 
    automobiles on the House side of the United States Capitol 
    Grounds.'' The establishing resolution also directed the House 
    Office Building Commission ``to delegate so much of such duties as 
    pertain to the direction and supervision of the Architect of the 
    Capitol in the assignment of space for parking of automobiles in 
    the garages in the Rayburn House Office Building, the Cannon House 
    Office Building, and the two underground garages in squares 637 and 
    691, located adjacent to the House Office Buildings, and the 
    issuance of regulations governing such assignments, to the select 
    committee. . . .''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: Not specified in establishing resolution.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: None. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination: End of 91st Congress.
        Extensions: Reauthorized by H. Res. 24 for the 92d Congress on 
    February 10, 1971, and by H. Res. 145 for the 93d Congress on 
    February 7, 1973.
        Actual termination: End of the 93d Congress. At the beginning 
    of the 94th Congress, the Committee on House Administration created 
    a Subcommittee on Parking [having been given jurisdiction effective 
    Jan. 4, 1975, over parking facilities of the House (H. Res. 988, 
    93d Cong.)].

                         Select Committee on Crime

        Date of creation.--May 1, 1969.
        Citation.--H. Res. 17; 91st Congress, 1st Session (adopted by a 
    vote of 34518). H. Res. 115; 92d Congress, 1st Session, March 9, 
    1971 (adopted by a voice vote). H. Res. 256; 93d Congress, 1st 
    Session, February 28, 1973 (adopted by a vote of 317-75).

        Membership.--Number of members: 7 (increased to 11 by H. Res. 
    115 on March 9, 1971). . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of 
    all aspects of crime in the United States, including: (1) Its 
    elements, causes, and extent; (2) the preparation, collection, and 
    dissemination of statistics thereon, and the availability of 
    reciprocity of information among law enforcement agencies, Federal, 
    State, and local, including exchange of information with foreign 
    nations; (3) the adequacy of law enforcement and the administration 
    of justice, including constitutional issues pertaining thereto; (4) 
    the effect of crime and disturbances in the metropolitan urban 
    areas; (5) the effect, directly or indirectly, of crime on the 
    commerce of the Nation; (6) the treatment and rehabilitation of 
    persons con

[[Page 2577]]

    victed of crimes; (7) measures for the reduction, control, or 
    prevention of crime; (8) measures for the improvement of (a) 
    detection of crime, (b) law enforcement, including increased 
    cooperation among the agencies thereof, (c) the administration of 
    justice; and (9) measures and programs for increased respect for 
    the law.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: The membership 
    of the Select Committee was increased to eleven by H. Res. 115, 
    March 9, 1971 which reauthorized the Select Committee for the 92d 
    Congress.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House as soon as practicable during the 91st Congress 
    on the results of its investigation together with any 
    recommendations it deemed advisable. This date was later extended 
    to June 30, 1973.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 91st Congress.
        Extensions: H. Res. 115 on March 9, 1971 extended the Committee 
    for the duration of the 92d Congress, H. Res. 256 on February 28, 
    1973, extended the Select Committee to June 30, 1973.
        Actual termination: June 30, 1973 [records, files, and all 
    current material transferred to Committee on the Judiciary pursuant 
    to H. Res. 256, Feb. 28, 1973].

                  Select Committee on the House Restaurant

        Date of creation.--July 10, 1969.
        Citation.--H. Res. 472; 91st Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a voice vote). H. Res. 317; 92d Congress, 1st Session, March 25, 
    1971 (adopted by a voice vote). H. Res. 111; 93d Congress, 1st 
    Session, February 7, 1973 (adopted by voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 5. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was established to 
    supervise the operation of the House Restaurant. The establishing 
    resolution directed that ``[O]n and after July 15, 1969, until 
    otherwise ordered by the House, the Architect of the Capitol shall 
    perform the duties vested in him by section 208 of Public Law 812, 
    76th Congress (40 U.S.C. 174K) under the direction of the Select 
    Committee. . . .''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: H. Res. 317, on 
    March 25, 1971, reauthorized the Select Committee for the 92d 
    Congress and expanded its jurisdiction. The Committee on House 
    Administration was delegated authority over the direction and 
    supervision of the House Restaurant and facilities. The Select 
    Committee was authorized to ``exercise direction and supervision 
    over immediate management and operation of the House Restaurant and 
    the cafeteria and other food service facilities of the House of 
    Representatives, subject to the authority of the Committee on House 
    Administration. . . .''
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: Not specified in establishing resolution.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: None. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 91st Congress.
        Extensions: Extended to end of 92d Congress by H. Res. 317 on 
    March 25,

[[Page 2578]]

    1971. Extended to end of 93d Congress by H. Res. 111 on February 7, 
    1973.
        Actual termination: End of 93d Congress. At the beginning of 
    the 94th Congress, the House Committee on House Administration 
    [which, since abolition of the Committee on Accounts in 1946, has 
    possessed legislative jurisdiction over measures relating to the 
    House restaurant] created an Ad Hoc Subcommittee on the Restaurant.

       Select Committee To Investigate All Aspects of United States 
                  Military Involvement in South-east Asia

        Date of creation.--June 8, 1970.
        Citation.--H. Res. 976; 91st Congress, 2d Session (adopted by a 
    vote of 224-101).
        Membership.--Number of members: 12. [Majority]: 6. [Minority]: 
    6.
        Mode of selecting members: The establishing resolution 
    specified that the members of the Select Committee be chosen as 
    follows: ``two from the Armed Services Committee, two from the 
    Foreign Affairs Committee, and eight from the House at large. . . 
    .'' Appointed by the Speaker. . . .''
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    ``immediately proceed to Southeast Asia to investigate all aspects 
    of the United States military involvement in Southeast Asia.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House on the results of its investigation within 
    forty-five days after adoption of the authorizing resolution.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: No. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: July 23, 1970.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: Report submitted to the House on July 6, 
    1970. . . .

                       Select Committee on Committees

        Date of creation.--January 31, 1973.
        Citation.--H. Res. 132; 93d Congress, 1st Session (adopted by a 
    vote of 282-91).
        Membership.--Number of members: 10. [Majority]: 5, [Minority]: 
    5.
        Mode of selecting members: Appointed by the Speaker as 
    authorized in the establishing resolution: five members from the 
    majority and five from the minority. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a thorough and complete study with respect to 
    the operation and implementation of rules X and XI of the Rules of 
    the House of Representatives, including committee structure of the 
    House, the number and optimum size of committees, their 
    jurisdiction, the number of subcommittees, committee rules and 
    procedures, media coverage of meetings, staffing, space, equipment, 
    and other committee facilities.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: Yes.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized and 
    ``directed to report to the House by bill, resolution, or 
    otherwise, with respect to any matters covered by this 
    resolution.''
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: None. . . .

[[Page 2579]]

        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 93d Congress.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: December 20, 1974 (end of 93d Congress). . 
    . .

                         Select Committee on Aging

        Date of creation.--January 3, 1975.
        Citation.--H. Res. 988; 93d Congress, 2d Session (amendment 
    adopted by a vote of 323-84, on October 2, 1974).
        Membership.--Not specified in establishing resolution. 
    [Appointed by Speaker each Congress.]

        Number of members: Not specified in establishing resolution.
        94th Congress: 28. . . .
        95th Congress: 34. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The permanent Select Committee on Aging is 
    authorized--
        ``(1) To conduct a continuing comprehensive study and review of 
    the problems of the older American, including but not limited to 
    income maintenance, housing, health (including medical research), 
    welfare, employment, education, recreation, and participation in 
    family and community life as self-respecting citizens;
        ``(2) To study the use of all practicable means and methods of 
    encouraging the development of public and private programs and 
    policies which will assist the older American in taking a full part 
    in national life and which will encourage the utilization of the 
    knowledge, skills, special aptitudes, and abilities of older 
    Americans to contribute to a better quality of life for all 
    Americans;
        ``(3) To develop policies that would encourage the coordination 
    of both governmental and private programs designed to deal with 
    problems of aging; and
        ``(4) To review any recommendations made by the President or by 
    the White House Conference on Aging relating to programs or 
    policies affecting older Americans.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: Not specified in the establishing 
    resolution. Each House standing committee is required under rule 
    XI, clause 1(d) of the House Rules to submit to the House a report 
    on the activities of that committee no later than January 2 of each 
    odd-numbered year. To date, the House permanent Select Committee on 
    Aging has submitted annual reports to the House for 1975 and 1976.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--The Select Committee is a permanent Select 
    Committee [established under the standing rules of the House 
    pursuant to H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. See Rule X clause 6(g), House 
    Rules and Manual Sec. 702 (1979)].
        H. Res. 988, including the provision creating the Select 
    Committee, became effective on January 3, 1975.

                      Select Committee on Intelligence

        Date of creation.--February 19, 1975 and July 17, 1975.
        [On July 17, 1975, the House abolished the first Select 
    Committee on Intelligence established by H. Res. 138, and created a 
    second Select Committee on Intelligence with the same mandate, but 
    with its membership increased by three.]

[[Page 2580]]

        Citation.--H. Res. 138; 94th Congress, 1st Session (adopted on 
    a vote of 286-120). H. Res. 591; 94th Congress, 1st Session 
    (Adopted by a voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 10 (increased to 13 by H. Res. 
    591). . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The House Select Committee on Intelligence 
    was established ``to conduct an inquiry into the organization, 
    operations, and oversight of the intelligence community of the 
    United States Government.'' The Select Committee was ``authorized 
    and directed to conduct an inquiry into--
        ``(1) The collection, analysis, use, and cost of intelligence 
    information and allegations of illegal or improper activities of 
    intelligence agencies in the United States and abroad;
        ``(2) The procedures and effectiveness of coordination among 
    and between the various intelligence components of the United 
    States Government;
        ``(3) The nature and extent of executive branch oversight and 
    control of United States intelligence activities;
        ``(4) The need for improved or reorganized oversight by the 
    Congress of United States intelligence activities;
        ``(5) The necessity, nature, and extent of overt and covert 
    intelligence activities by United States intelligence 
    instrumentalities in the United States and abroad;
        ``(6) The procedures for and means of the protection of 
    sensitive intelligence information;
        ``(7) Procedures for and means of the protection of rights and 
    privileges of citizens of the United States from illegal or 
    improper intelligence activities; and
        ``(8) Such other related matters as the select committee shall 
    deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolution.''
        In carrying out the purposes of the establishing resolutions 
    the Select Committee on Intelligence was further ``authorized to 
    inquire into the activities of the following:
        ``(1) the National Security Council;
        ``(2) the United States Intelligence Board;

        ``(3) the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board;
        ``(4) the Central Intelligence Agency;
        ``(5) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
        ``(6) the intelligence components of the Departments of the 
    Army, Navy, and the Air Force;
        ``(7) the National Security Agency;
        ``(8) the Intelligence and Research Bureau of the Department of 
    State;
        ``(9) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
        ``(10) the Department of the Treasury and the Department of 
    Justice;
        ``(11) the Energy Research and Development Administration; and
        ``(12) any other instrumentalities of the United States 
    Government engaged in or otherwise responsible for intelligence 
    operations in the United States and abroad.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The House Select Committee on Intelligence 
    was ``authorized and directed to report to the House with respect 
    to the matters covered . . . as soon as practicable but no later 
    than January 31, 1976.'' The establishing resolution also stated 
    that the authority granted to the Select Committee ``shall expire 
    three months

[[Page 2581]]

    after the filing of the report with the House of Representatives.'' 
    On January 29, 1970, the House adopted H. Res. 982 by a vote of 246 
    to 129, which reversed the decision of the Select Committee to make 
    its final report public, and prohibited the release of the report 
    so long as it contained information that the President believed 
    would jeopardize the national security. The resolution directed 
    that ``the Select Committee on Intelligence shall not release any 
    report containing materials, information, data, or subjects that 
    presently bear security classification, unless and until such 
    reports are published with appropriate security markings and 
    distributed only to persons authorized to receive such classified 
    information, or until the report has been certified by the 
    President as not containing information which would adversely 
    affect the intelligence activities of the CIA in foreign countries 
    or the intelligence activities in foreign countries of any other 
    department or agency of the Federal Government. The resolution also 
    authorized the Select Committee to file a supplemental report 
    containing its recommendations by midnight on Wednesday, February 
    11, 1976.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Special authorities: Section 6 of the establishing resolution 
    authorized the Select Committee to ``institute and carry out such 
    rules and procedures as it may deem necessary to prevent: (1) The 
    disclosure, outside the select committee, of any information 
    relating to the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency or 
    any other department or agency of the Federal Government engaged in 
    intelligence activities, obtained by the select committee during 
    the course of its study and investigation, not authorized by the 
    select committee to be disclosed; and (2) the disclosure, outside 
    the select committee, of any information which would adversely 
    affect the intelligence activities of the Central Intelligence 
    Agency in foreign countries or the intelligence activities in 
    foreign countries of any other department or agency of the Federal 
    Government.''. . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: The Select Committee 
    was authorized to submit a report by January 31, 1976. The 
    authority granted the Select Committee was to expire three months 
    after the report was filed.
        Extensions: H. Res. 982 on January 29, 1976, granted Select 
    Committee until February 11, 1976, to file a supplemental report 
    containing its recommendations.
        Actual termination: February 11, 1976, report submitted to 
    House. [Rule XLVIII, House Rules and Manual (1979) established a 
    permanent select committee to be known as the permanent Select 
    Committee on Intelligence. The resolution creating the permanent 
    select committee directed the committee to make a study with 
    respect to intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the 
    United States and to report thereon, together with appropriate 
    recommendations, not later than the close of the 95th Congress (H. 
    Res. 658, section 3; see H. Rept. 95-1795, Oct. 14, 1978), and 
    transferred to the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence all 
    records, files, documents and other materials of the Select 
    Committee on Intelligence of the 94th Congress in the possession, 
    custody, or control of the Clerk of the House.]

           Ad Hoc Select Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf

        Date of creation.--April 22, 1975.

[[Page 2582]]

        Citation.--H. Res. 412; 94th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a voice vote). H. Res. 97; 95th Congress, 1st Session, January 11, 
    1977 [adopted by a voice vote upon being called up as privileged 
    from the floor pursuant to the Speaker's authority under Rule X 
    clause 5 (c) to create ad hoc select committees with approval of 
    the House].
        Membership.--Number of members: 16 (increased to 19 by the 
    Speaker on May 6, 1975). . . .
        Mode of selecting members: Appointed by the Speaker from the 
    following committees: (1) The Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs; (2) the Committee on the Judiciary; (3) the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries. H. Res. 97 which reauthorized the 
    Committee for the 95th Congress, also specified that the Select 
    Committee be composed of ``other members from other committees as 
    the Speaker may appoint so as to insure the expeditious 
    consideration ancl reporting of appropriate legislation.''
        Function.--Mandate: The ad hoc Select Committee on the Outer 
    Continental Shelf was authorized to consider and report to the 
    House on H.R. 6218, ``a bill to establish a policy for the 
    management of oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf; 
    to protect the marine and coastal environment; to amend the Outer 
    Continental Shelf Lands Act; and for other purposes, and on any 
    related matter on this subject within the jurisdiction . . .'' of 
    the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs, Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries, and the Judiciary which may be referred to it by the 
    Speaker.
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: Yes.

        Authority to report: The ad hoc Select Committee on the Outer 
    Continental Shelf was originally directed to transmit its findings 
    and make a full report to the House on January 31, 1976. The 
    reporting date was extended to March 31, 1976, by H. Res. 977 and 
    to May 4, 1976, by H. Res. 1121. H. Res. 97 reestablished the 
    Select Committee and extended its reporting date to the end of the 
    first session of the 95th Congress. Unless extended further, the 
    Committee was to expire ``upon completion of the legislative 
    process, including final disposition of any veto message with 
    respect to all legislation reported by the Committee.'' (H. Res. 
    97, 95th Congress, 1st Session, January 11, 1977 p. 3).
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Special authorities: Section 2 of the establishing resolution 
    provides that ``[I]nsofar as applicable, the provisions of rule XI, 
    clauses 1 and 2 shall apply to the Select Committee.'' Rule XI of 
    the Rules of the House relate to the rules of procedures for 
    standing committees, and clauses 1 and 2 focus on the following: 
    adoption of written rules for committees, regular meeting days, 
    additional and special meetings, absence of chairman, committee 
    records, open meetings and hearings, quorum for taking testimony 
    and certain other actions, prohibition against committee meetings 
    during five minute rule, calling and interrogation of witnesses, 
    investigative hearing procedures, committee procedures for 
    reporting bills and resolutions, power to sit and act, subpoena 
    power, and use of committee funds for travel. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: January 31, 1976.

[[Page 2583]]

        Extensions: Extended to March 31, 1976 by H. Res. 977 on 
    January 26, 1976. Extended to May 4, 1976, by H. Res. 1121 on March 
    31, 1976. [Since H.R. 6218 did not become law in the 94th Congress, 
    the Committee was reestablished in the 95th Congress by H. Res. 97 
    on Jan. 11, 1977, for purposes of considering H.R. 1614, the new 
    version of the bill. Upon submission of the final report of the 
    Committee, it was authorized to continue until completion of the 
    legislative process, ``including final disposition of any veto 
    message, with respect to all legislation reported by the 
    Committee.'']
        Actual termination: Still in existence during 1st Session of 
    the 95th Congress. . . .

     Select Committee To Study the Problem of United States Servicemen 
                    Missing in Action in Southeast Asia

        Date of creation.--September 11, 1975.
        Citation.--H. Res. 335; 94th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a vote of 395-3).
        Membership.--Number of members: 10. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was ``authorized and 
    directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study 
    of--
        ``(1) The problem of United States servicemen still identified 
    as missing in action, as well as those known dead whose bodies have 
    not been recovered, as a result of military operations in North 
    Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and the problem of 
    United States civilians identified as missing or unaccounted for, 
    as well as those known dead whose bodies have not been recovered in 
    North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia;
        ``(2) The need for additional international inspection teams to 
    determine whether there are servicemen still held as prisoners of 
    war or civilians held captive or unwillingly detained in the 
    aforementioned areas.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was directed to 
    submit a report to the House with respect to the results of its 
    investigation as soon as practicable, but not later than one year 
    after the adoption of the resolution establishing it (September 11, 
    1976). Extended to January 3, 1977 by H. Res. 1454 on August 2, 
    1976.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Special authorities: The Select Committee and its staff were 
    authorized to conduct field hearings and investigations and to 
    travel to Southeast Asia if necessary. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: The Select Committee 
    was directed to report not later than one year after adoption of 
    the establishing resolution (September 11, 1976). The authority of 
    the Select Committee was scheduled to expire ninety days after 
    submission of the final report.
        Extensions: Extended to January 3, 1977, by H. Res. 1454 on 
    August 2, 1976.
        Actual termination: Final report submitted to the House on 
    December 13, 1976. [Authority of Select Committee expired prior to 
    noon on Jan. 3, 1977, under terms of H. Res. 1454.]

[[Page 2584]]

                  Select Committee on Professional Sports

        Date of creation.--May 18, 1976.
        Citation.--H. Res. 1186; 94th Congress, 2d Session (adopted by 
    a voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 13. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee on Professional 
    Sports was authorized ``to conduct an inquiry into the need for 
    legislation with respect to professional sports.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was directed to 
    report to the House on the results of its inquiry as soon as 
    practicable during the 94th Congress.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination: End of 94th Congress.
        Extensions: None. On January 13, 1977, Mr. Sisk and others 
    introduced H. Res. 111, a resolution to reestablish the Select 
    Committee on Professional Sports for the 95th Congress. The House 
    Committee on Rules reported favorably on this resolution on March 
    3, 1977. However, on March 7, 1977, the measure was rejected by the 
    House on a rollcall vote of 75-271.
        Actual termination: Final report submitted to the House on 
    January 3, 1977. . . .

              Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control

        Date of creation.--July 29, 1976.
        Citation.--H. Res. 1350; 94th Congress, 2d Session (adopted by 
    a vote of 360-10). H. Res. 77; 95th Congress, 1st Session, January 
    11, 1977 (adopted by a voice vote).
        Membership.--Number of members: 18. . . .
        Mode of selecting members: The establishing resolution 
    specified that the members of the Select Committee be appointed by 
    the Speaker and that at least one member be chosen from each by the 
    following committees: the Committee on Armed Services, the 
    Committee on Government Operations, the Committee on International 
    Relations, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries, and the Committee on Ways and Means. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse 
    and Control was authorized: ``(1) To conduct a continuing 
    comprehensive study and review of the problems of narcotics abuse 
    and control, including, but not limited to, international 
    trafficking, enforcement, prevention, narcotics-related violations 
    of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, international treaties, 
    organized crime, drug abuse in the Armed Forces of the United 
    States, treatment and rehabilitation, and the approach of the 
    criminal justice system with respect to narcotics law violations 
    and crimes relating to drug abuse; and (2) to review any 
    recommendations made by the President, or by any department or 
    agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government, relating 
    to programs or policies affecting narcotics abuse or control.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None to date.
        Legislative authority: None.

[[Page 2585]]

        Authority to report: The Select Committee was directed to 
    submit an annual report to the House summarizing its activities and 
    to submit additional reports on the results of its investigations.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
    Special authorities: The Select Committee was authorized to hold 
field hearings and inspections. . . .

        Termination.--Original termination date: Not specified in 
    establishing resolution.
        Extensions: Reauthorized by H. Res. 77 on January 11, 1977, for 
    the 95th Congress.
        Actual termination: Still in existence in the 95th Congress. . 
    . .

     Select Committee To Investigate the Circumstances Surrounding the 
        Death of John F. Kennedy and the Death of Martin Luther King

           (Also known as the Select Committee on Assassinations)

        Date of creation.--September 17, 1976.
        Citation.--H. Res. 1540; 94th Congress, 2d Session (adopted by 
    a vote of 280-65). H. Res. 222; 95th Congress, 1st Session, 
    February 2, 1977 (adopted by vote of 237-164). H. Res. 433, 95th 
    Congress, 1st Session, March 30, 1977 (adopted by vote of 230-181).
        Membership.--Number of members: 12. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    ``conduct a full and complete investigation and study of the 
    circumstances surrounding the death of John F. Kennedy and the 
    death of Martin Luther King, Junior, and of any others the select 
    committee shall determine.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: H. Res. 222, 
    which reauthorized the Select Committee for the 95th Congress, 
    expanded its jurisdiction to include an ``investigation and study 
    of the circumstances surrounding the assassination and death of 
    President John F. Kennedy and the assassination and death of Martin 
    Luther King, Junior, and of any other persons the select committee 
    shall determine might be related to either death in order to 
    ascertain: (1) Whether the existing laws relating to the safety and 
    protection of the President of the United States, assassinations of 
    the President of the United States, deprivation of civil rights, 
    and conspiracies related thereto, as well as the investigatory 
    jurisdiction and capability of agencies and departments of the 
    United States Government, are adequate either in their provisions 
    or in the manner of their enforcement; and (2) whether there was 
    full disclosure and sharing of information and evidence among 
    agencies and departments of the United States Government during the 
    course of all prior investigations into those deaths; and whether 
    any evidence or information which was not in the possession of any 
    agency or department of the United States Government investigating 
    either death would have been of assistance to that agency or 
    department, and why such information was not provided to or 
    collected by the appropriate agency or department; and shall make 
    recommendations to the House, if the select committee deems it 
    appropriate, for the amendments of existing legisla

[[Page 2586]]

    tion or the enactment of new legislation.'' H. Res. 222 also 
    directed that the Select Committee adopt written rules of procedure 
    consistent with the House Rules and the establishing resolution.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The establishing resolution directed the 
    Select Committee to submit a report to the House on the results of 
    its investigation as soon as practicable during the 94th Congress. 
    H. Res. 222 extended the life of the Select Committee to March 31, 
    1977. On March 30, 1977, the House approved H. Res. 433 which 
    extended the life of the Select Committee for the duration of the 
    95th Congress.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Special authorities: The Select Committee was authorized by H. 
    Res. 222 to ``take testimony on oath anywhere within the United 
    States or in any other country and to authorize designated counsel 
    for the select committee to obtain statements from any witness who 
    is placed under oath by an authority who is authorized to 
    administer oaths in accordance with the applicable laws of the 
    United States or of any State . . . .'' [The House by resolution 
    authorized a select committee to make applications to courts and to 
    bring and defend lawsuits arising out of witnesses' refusals to 
    comply with committee subpenas and court immunity orders. In this 
    instance, where the Select Committee on Assassinations had been 
    established by resolution and given the authority conferred on 
    standing committees by law to request immunity orders in court for 
    witnesses, the Committee on Rules reported as privileged and the 
    House adopted a subsequent resolution permitting that committee to 
    make applications to courts and to bring and defend, but not to 
    intervene in, lawsuits in support of committee subpenas and court 
    immunity orders, when authorized by a majority of the committee. H. 
    Res. 760, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 28, 1977.] The chairman of 
    the Select Committee was authorized to establish subcommittees as 
    he considers appropriate. H. Res. 222 also specified that ``[T]he 
    select committee shall be considered a committee of the House of 
    Representatives for all purposes of law, including but not limited 
    to section 102 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 
    U.S.C. 192); and sections 6002 and 6005 of title 18, United States 
    Code, or any other Act of Congress regulating the granting of 
    immunity to witnesses.''. . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 94th Congress.
        Extensions: Extended to March 31, 1977, by H. Res. 222 on 
    February 2 1977. Extended to the end of the 95th Congress by H. 
    Res. 433 on March 30, 1977.
        Actual termination: Still in existence in the 95th Congress. . 
    . .

                         Select Committee on Ethics

        Date of creation.--March 9, 1977.
        Citation.--H. Res. 383; 95th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a vote of 410-1).

        Membership.--Number of members: 19. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee on Ethics was 
    authorized to ``consider and . . . report to the House on any bills 
    or resolutions which may

[[Page 2587]]

    include provisions incorporating and integrating into permanent law 
    applicable provisions and appropriate modifications of rule XLIII, 
    rule XLIV, rule XLV, rule XLVI, and rule XLVII of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives, and which may hereafter be referred to 
    the Select Committee by the Speaker. The select committee shall 
    have jurisdiction over the bills and resolutions referred to it.'' 
    The Select Committee was also authorized ``to adopt regulations, 
    and issue advisory opinions, regarding the application of rules 
    XLIII-XLVII of the Rules of the House.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: Yes.
        Authority to report: The establishing resolution specified that 
    the authority of the Select Committee on Ethics to report bills and 
    resolutions referred to it shall expire on September 30, 1977. The 
    Select Committee is scheduled to expire on December 31, 1977. Its 
    records will be transferred to the House Committee on Standards of 
    Official Conduct.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Special authority: Whenever appropriate, clauses 1, 2, and 3 of 
    rule XI of the House rules apply to the Select Committee on Ethics. 
    Rule XI governs rules of procedures for House committees generally 
    and clauses 1, 2, and 3 relate to committee rules, committee 
    records, and broadcasting of committee hearings. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: The authority to 
    report bills and resolutions expires on September 30, 1977. The 
    establishing resolution specified that the Select Committee shall 
    adopt regulations necessary for the application of rules XLIII-
    XLVII by December 1, 1977. The Select Committee on Ethics is 
    scheduled to expire on December 31, 1977.
        Extensions: [The committee and its functions were extended 
    through the ``completion of its official business'' in the 95th 
    Congress (H. Res. 871, Oct. 31, 1977).]
        Actual termination: Still in existence.

                Select Committee on Congressional Operations

        Date of creation.--March 28, 1977.
        Citation.--H. Res. 420; 95th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a vote of 211-147.)
        Membership.--Number of members: 7. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    continue the work of the Joint Committee on Congressional 
    Operations for the House, by:
        ``(1) Making a continuing study of the organization and 
    operation of the Congress of the United States and recommending 
    improvements in such organization and operation with a view toward 
    strengthening the Congress, simplifying its operations, developing 
    cooperation between the Houses of Congress, improving its 
    relationship with other branches of the United States Government, 
    and enabling it to meet its responsibilities under the Constitution 
    of the United States.
        ``(2) Identifying any court proceeding or action which, in the 
    opinion of the select committee, is of vital interest to the 
    Congress, or to the House of Representatives as a constitutionally 
    es

[[Page 2588]]

    tablished institution of the Federal Government, and calling such 
    proceeding or action to the attention of the House.
        ``(3) Conducting a continuing study of the jurisdiction of the 
    various standing committees of the House of Representatives and 
    their relative workloads, and of ways of rationalizing committee 
    jurisdictions between the two Houses of Congress, and reporting to 
    the Committee on Rules any recommendations on the more equitable 
    distribution of workload or the more rational combination of 
    jurisdictional responsibilities.''
        The Select Committee on Congressional Operations is directed to 
    ``avoid conflict or duplication with the activities of other 
    committees, commissions, or other entities established by the 
    House.''
        The Select Committee is also authorized to ``supervise and 
    control the functions, as they relate to the House, of the Office 
    of Placement and Office Management established by section 406 of 
    the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None. H. Res. 420 provides that nothing 
    in the resolution except as specifically provided in subsection (a) 
    (3) ``shall be construed to authorize the Select Committee to make 
    any recommendations with respect to the rules, parliamentary 
    procedure, practices, or precedents of the House, or the 
    consideration of any matter on the floor of the House, nor shall 
    anything . . . be construed to authorize the Select Committee to 
    operate or supervise a permanent system for the broadcast coverage 
    of the proceedings of the House without the express and prior 
    approval of the House.''
        Authority to report: The Select Committee was authorized to 
    report its recommendations on ``the more equitable distribution of 
    workload or the more rational combination of jurisdictional 
    responsibilities.''
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpenas: [A committee amendment 
    to II. Res. 420 removed the subpena power granted to the select 
    committee in the original resolution as introduced, by making 
    clauses 1 through 3 of Rule XI applicable ``insofar as 
    applicable,'' inasmuch as clause 2(m)(1) [Sec. 718, House Rules and 
    Manual, (1977)] only authorizes subpena power to committees in 
    carrying out functions under Rules X and XI, and the select 
    committee was not incorporated into the provisions of Rule X.]
        Special authorities: The provisions of rule XI, clauses 1, 2, 
    and 3, whenever applicable, shall apply to the Select Committee. 
    The Select Committee is directed to adopt written rules of 
    procedure which shall not be inconsistent with the House rules. . . 
    .
        Termination.--Original termination date: Not specified. 
    Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: Still in existence in the 95th Congress. . 
    . .

                         AD Hoc Committee on Energy

        Date of creation.--April 21, 1977.
        Citation.--H. Res. 508; 95th Congress, 1st Session [adopted by 
    a voice vote upon being called up as privileged from the floor 
    pursuant to the Speaker's authority under Rule X clause 5(c) to 
    create ad hoc select committees with approval of the House].

[[Page 2589]]

        Membership.--Number of members: 37 (increased to 40 by H. Res. 
    509). . . .
        Mode of selecting members: H. Res. 508 directed that the Ad Hoc 
    Committee on Energy be composed of members appointed by the Speaker 
    ``from those committees of the House which he determines have 
    subject-matter jurisdiction over the substance of the President's 
    Message, and from such other committees as the Speaker may 
    determine so as to insure the expeditious consideration and 
    reporting of appropriate legislation.''. . .
        Functions.--Mandate: The Ad Hoc Committee on Energy was 
    authorized ``to consider and report to the House on the Message of 
    the President dated April 20, 1977 (H. Doc. 95-128), on other 
    messages or communications related thereto, and on any bill or 
    resolution which the Speaker may sequentially refer thereto which 
    the Speaker determines relates to the substance of the President's 
    Message: Provided, however, that this paragraph shall not preclude 
    initial reference to the ad hoc Committee of a bill or resolution 
    incorporating the recommendations of the committees with subject-
    matter jurisdiction over the substance of the President's 
    Message.''

        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: Yes.
        Authority to report: The Ad Hoc Committee was authorized to 
    report to the House by bill or otherwise and shall expire ``upon 
    completion of the legislative process, including final disposition 
    of any veto message, with respect to all legislation referred to 
    the ad hoc Committee.''
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes.
        Provisions regarding staffing: The Ad Hoc Committee on Energy 
    was authorized by H. Res. 508 to ``utilize the services of the 
    staffs of those committees of the House from which Members have 
    been selected for membership on the ad hoc Committee.''. . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: Not specified in 
    establishing resolution; however, subsequent funding resolutions 
    contained expiration dates for the authorization granted to the 
    committee. Thus, H. Res. 1051 (95th Cong. 2d Sess.) stipulated that 
    such authorization would expire just prior to noon on Jan. 3, 1979, 
    or upon completion of the legislative process with respect to 
    legislation referred to the committee.
        Extensions: None.
        Actual termination: Still in existence as of 95th Cong. 2d 
    Sess. . . .

                 Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

        Date of creation.--July 14, 1977.
        Citation.--H. Res. 658; 95th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by 
    a vote of 229-169); adding new Rule XLVIII to standing rules.
        Membership.--Number of members: 13. . . .
        Mode of selecting members: The thirteen members of the Select 
    Committee shall include at least one member from the Committee on 
    Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
    International Relations, and the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
    establishing resolution specified that the majority and minority 
    leaders of the House be ex officio members of

[[Page 2590]]

    the Select Committee but shall not be counted for purposes of 
    determining a quorum. Service on the Select Committee is limited to 
    six years, exclusive of service during the 95th Congress. Beginning 
    with the 97th Congress and every Congress thereafter, at least four 
    of the members appointed to the Committee shall be Members with no 
    previous service on the Select Committee on Intelligence.
        Mode of selecting chairman: Not specified in establishing 
    resolution; however, all Select Committee appointments are made by 
    the Speaker.
        Functions.--Mandate: The House Select Committee on 
    Intelligence, established in accordance with H. Res. 591 on July 
    17, 1975, recommended that the House establish a permanent Select 
    Committee on Intelligence with legislative, budgetary, and 
    supervisory authority over all foreign and domestic intelligence 
    gathering activities of the United States Government. H. Res. 658 
    established the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to 
    oversee, make continuing studies, and reports to the House (by 
    legislation or otherwise) appropriate proposals concerning the 
    intelligence and intelligence-related programs and activities of 
    the United States Government.
        The Select Committee was authorized to consider ''all proposed 
    legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters 
    relating to the following:
        ``(1) The Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of 
    Central Intelligence.
        ``(2) Intelligence and intelligence-related activities of all 
    other departments and agencies of the Government, including, but 
    not limited to, the intelligence and intelligence-related 
    activities of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National 
    Security Agency, and other agencies of the Department of Defense; 
    the Department of State; the Department of Justice; and the 
    Department of the Treasury.
        ``(3) The organization or reorganization of any department or 
    agency of the Government to the extent that the organization or 
    reorganization related to a function or activity involving 
    intelligence or intelligence-related activities.
        ``(4) Authorizations for appropriations, both direct and 
    indirect, for the following: (a) the Central Intelligence Agency 
    and Director of Central Intelligence; (b) the Defense Intelligence 
    Agency; (c) the National Security Agency; (d) the intelligence and 
    intelligence-related activities of other agencies and subdivisions 
    of the Department of Defense; (e) the intelligence and 
    intelligence-related activities of the Department of State; and (f) 
    the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the Federal 
    Bureau of Investigation including all activities of the 
    Intelligence Division.''
        These provisions also apply to successors of the above-named 
    agencies. The Select Committee was directed to report to the House 
    on the nature and extent of the intelligence and intelligence-
    related activities of Federal Departments and agencies. The Select 
    Committee was also directed to conduct a study regarding specified 
    aspects of intelligence and intelligence-related activities.
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.

[[Page 2591]]

        Legislative authority: Yes.
        Authority to report: For the purposes of accountability to the 
    House, the Select Committee is authorized to ``make regular and 
    periodic reports to the House on the nature and extent of the 
    intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the various 
    departments and agencies of the United States.'' The Select 
    Committee is directed to call to the attention of the House or any 
    House Committee appropriate matters requiring the attention of the 
    House of Representatives. In making these reports to the House, the 
    Select Committee should follow procedures consistent with section 7 
    of H. Res. 658 concerning the public disclosure of information. The 
    Select Committee is directed to report on the study performed in 
    accordance with section 3 of H. Res. 658 no later than the close of 
    the 95th Congress.
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: Yes. . . .
        Special authorities: Section 7 established procedures by which 
    the Committee can recommend public disclosure of information 
    previously considered classified. [Special authority was also given 
    to determine Members' access to executive session records on an ad 
    hoc basis, as an exception from Rule XI clause 2 which gives all 
    Members access to other committees' files.]
        Termination.--Original termination date: As a permanent Select 
    Committee, it may only be terminated by an amendment to the House 
    rules.
        Extension: None.
        Actual termination: Still in existence.

                       Select Committee on Population

        Date of creation.--September 28, 1977.
        Citation.--H. Res. 70; 95th Congress, 1st Session (adopted by a 
    recorded vote of 258-147).
        Membership.--Number of members: 16. . . .
        Functions.--Mandate: H. Res. 70 authorized the creation of the 
    Select Committee ``to conduct a full and complete investigation and 
    study of--
        ``(1) The causes of changing population conditions and their 
    consequences for the United States and the world;
        ``(2) National, regional, and global population characteristics 
    relative to the demands on limited resources and ability of nations 
    to feed, clothe, house, educate, employ, and govern their citizens 
    and otherwise afford them an improved standard of living;
        ``(3) Various approaches to population planning (including the 
    study of family planning technology, with emphasis on measures 
    designed to reduce the frequency of conception rather than the 
    termination of pregnancy, and the relationship of improved economic 
    and social opportunities to family size) in order to ascertain 
    those policies and programs, within the United States as well as 
    other nations, which would be most effective in coping with 
    unplanned population change; and
        ``(4) The means by which the United States Government can most 
    effectively cooperate with and assist nations and international 
    agencies in addressing successfully, in a noncoercive manner, 
    various national, regional, and global population-related issues.''
        Significant changes in mandate during lifetime: None.
        Legislative authority: None.
        Authority to report: The Select Committee on Population is 
    authorized by

[[Page 2592]]

    H. Res. 70 to make a report on the results of its investigation and 
    study as soon as practicable during the 95th Congress. H. Res. 70 
    also directs that any report of the Select Committee ``be referred 
    to the committee or committees which have jurisdiction over the 
    subject matter. . . .''
        Authority.--Authority to issue subpoenas: No. . . .
        Special authorities: The provisions of rule XI, clauses 1, 2, 
    and 3 of the rules of the House which relate to rules of procedures 
    for House committees also to apply to the Select Committee. 
    However, clause 2(m) of the House rules relating to subpoena power 
    does not apply to the Select Committee on Population. . . .
        Termination.--Original termination date: End of 95th Congress.
        Extensions: None.                          -------------------

Campaign Practices and Expenditures

Sec. 6.1 In a number of Congresses, the House has by a privileged 
    resolution established a special committee to investigate campaign 
    practices and expenditures.

    On Aug. 4, 1970,(13) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Thomas P.O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, called up and asked 
for immediate consideration of the following resolution (H. Res. 1062):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong Rec. 27125, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That a special committee of five Members be appointed 
    by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to investigate and 
    report to the House not later than January 11, 1971, with respect 
    to the following matters:
        (1) The extent and nature of expenditures made by all 
    candidates for the House of Representatives in connection with 
    their campaign for nomination and election to such office.
        (2) The amount subscribed, contributed, or expended, and the 
    value of services rendered, and facilities made available 
    (including personal services, use of advertising space, radio and 
    television time, office space, moving picture films, and automobile 
    and any other transportation facilities) by any individual, 
    individuals, or group of individuals, committee, partnership, 
    corporation, or labor union, to or on behalf of each such candidate 
    in connection with any such campaign or for the purpose of 
    influencing the votes cast or to be cast at any convention or 
    election held in 1970 to which a candidate for the House of 
    Representatives is to be nominated or elected.
        (3) The use of any other means or influence (including the 
    promise or use of patronage) for the purpose of aiding or 
    influencing the nomination or election of any such candidates.
        (4) The amounts, if any, raised, contributed, and expended by 
    any individual, individuals, or group of individuals, committee, 
    partnership, corporation, or labor union, including any political 
    committee thereof, in connection with any such election, and the 
    amounts received by any political committee from any corporation, 
    labor union, individual, individuals, or group of individuals, 
    committee, or partnership.

[[Page 2593]]

        (5) The violations, if any, of the following statutes of the 
    United States:
        (a) The Federal Corrupt Practices Act.
        (b) The Act of August 2, 1939, as amended, relating to 
    pernicious political activities, commonly referred to as the Hatch 
    Act.
        (c) The provisions of section 304, chapter 120, Public Law 101, 
    Eightieth Congress, first session, referred to as the Labor-
    Management Relations Act, 1947.
        (d) Any statute or legislative Act of the United States or of 
    the State within which a candidate is seeking nomination or 
    reelection to the House of Representatives, the violation of which 
    Federal or State statute, or statutes, would affect the 
    qualification of a Member of the House of Representatives within 
    the meaning of article I, section 5, of the Constitution of the 
    United States.
        (6) Such other matters relating to the election of Members of 
    the House of Representatives in 1970, and the campaigns of 
    candidates in connection therewith, as the committee deems to be of 
    public interest, and which, in its opinion, will aid the House of 
    Representatives in enacting remedial legislation, or in deciding 
    contests that may be instituted involving the right to a seat in 
    the House of Representatives.
        (7) The committee is authorized to act upon its own motion and 
    upon such information as in its judgment may be reasonable or 
    reliable. Upon complaint being made to the committee under oath, by 
    any person, candidate or political committee, setting forth 
    allegations as to facts which, under this resolution, it would be 
    the duty of said committee to investigate, the committee shall 
    investigate such charges as fully as though it were acting upon its 
    own motion, unless, after a hearing upon such complaint, the 
    committee shall find that the allegations in such complaint are 
    immaterial or untrue. All hearings before the committee, and before 
    any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, shall be public, and all 
    orders and decisions of the committee, and of any such 
    subcommittee, shall be public.
        For the purpose of this resolution, the committee or any duly 
    authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold such public 
    hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the 
    sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Ninety-first 
    Congress, to employ such attorneys, experts, clerical, and other 
    assistants, to require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance of 
    such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, 
    papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, and to take such 
    testimony as it deems advisable. Subpeonas may be issued under the 
    signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or 
    by any member designated by such chairman, and may be served by any 
    person designated by any such chairman or member.
        (8) The committee is authorized and directed to report promptly 
    any and all violations of any Federal or State statutes in 
    connection with the matters and things mentioned herein to the 
    Attorney General of the United States in order that he may take 
    such official action as may be proper.
        (9) Every person who, having been summoned as a witness by 
    authority of said committee or any subcommittee

[[Page 2594]]

    thereof, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses 
    to answer any question pertinent to the investigation heretofore 
    authorized, shall be held to the penalties prescribed by law.
        That said committee is authorized and directed to file interim 
    reports whenever in the judgment of the majority of the committee, 
    or of the subcommittee conducting portions of said investigation, 
    the public interest will be best served by the filing of said 
    interim reports, and in no event shall the final report of said 
    committee be filed later than January 11, 1971, as hereinabove 
    provided.

    Shortly thereafter,(14) the resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 27126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In recent years no such committee has been 
established,(15) since the Committee on House Administration 
(with jurisdiction over campaign activities) now has standing 
investigatory and subpena authority (see Ch. 8, Sec. 14, supra). In the 
past, however, resolutions to establish such special committees had 
been a common occurrence.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 5.6, supra, however, where a select committee was 
        authorized to investigate certain campaign violations jointly 
        with the Clerk of the House. See also Ch. 8, Sec. 14, supra.
16. See, for example, 114 Cong. Rec. 25065, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 
        2, 1968 [resolution providing for payment from the contingent 
        fund of expenses of the Select Committee to Investigate 
        Campaign Expenditures]; 114 Cong. Rec. 24770, 90th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 1, 1968 [H. Res. 1239, authorizing the Speaker to 
        appoint a Special Committee on Campaign Expenditures]; 112 
        Cong. Rec. 19080, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 11, 1966 [H. Res. 
        929, authorizing the Speaker to appoint a Special Committee on 
        Campaign Expenditures]; and 108 Cong. Rec. 16000, 16012, 87th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 9, 1962 [H. Res. 753].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crime Affecting the United States

Sec. 6.2 By resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, the House 
    created a select committee to investigate crime affecting the 
    United States.

    On Mar. 9, 1971,(17) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, who stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 117 Cong. Rec. 5587, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up 
    House Resolution 115 and ask for its immediate consideration.

    The Clerk then read House Resolution 115, as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 5587, 5588.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That, effective January 3, 1971, there is hereby 
    created a select committee to be composed of seven Members of the 
    House of Representatives to be appointed by the Speaker,

[[Page 2595]]

    one of whom he shall designate as chairman. Any vacancy occurring 
    in the membership of the select committee shall be filled in the 
    same manner in which the original appointment was made.
        Sec. 2. The select committee is authorized and directed to 
    conduct a full and complete investigation and study of all aspects 
    of crime affecting the United States, including, but not limited 
    to, (1) its elements, causes, and extent; (2) the preparation, 
    collection, and dissemination of statistics and data; (3) the 
    sharing of information, statistics, and data among law enforcement 
    agencies, Federal, State, and local, including the exchange of 
    information, statistics, and data with foreign nations; (4) the 
    adequacy of law enforcement and the administration of justice, 
    including constitutional issues and problems pertaining thereto; 
    (5) the effect of crime and disturbances in the metropolitan urban 
    areas; (6) the effect, directly or indirectly, of crime on the 
    commerce of the Nation; (7) the treatment and rehabilitation of 
    persons convicted of crimes; (8) measures relating to the 
    reduction, control, or prevention of crime; (9) measures relating 
    to the improvement of (A) investigation and detection of crime, (B) 
    law enforcement techniques, including, but not limited to, 
    increased cooperation among the law enforcement agencies, and (C) 
    the effective administration of justice; and (10) measures and 
    programs for increased respect for the law and constituted 
    authority.
        Sec. 3. For the purpose of carrying out this resolution the 
    select committee, or any subcommittee thereof authorized by the 
    select committee, is authorized to sit and act during the present 
    Congress at such times and places within the United States, 
    including any Commonwealth or possession thereof, whether the House 
    is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such 
    hearings and conduct such investigations, and to require, by 
    subpena, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 
    production of such books, records, correspondence, memorandums, 
    papers, and documents, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be 
    issued under the signature of the chairman of the select committee 
    or any member of the select committee designated by him, and may be 
    served by any person designated by such chairman or member.
        Sec. 4. The select committee shall report to the House as soon 
    as practicable during the present Congress the results of its 
    investigations, hearings, and studies, together with such 
    recommendations as it deems advisable. Any such report or reports 
    which are made when the House is not in session shall be filed with 
    the Clerk of the House.
        With the following committee amendments:
        On page 1, line 2, strike the word ``seven'' and insert in lieu 
    thereof the word ``eleven''.
        Beginning on page 2, line 19, strike all through page 3, line 
    9, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        ``Sec. 3. For the purpose of making such investigations and 
    studies, the committee or any subcommittee thereof is authorized to 
    sit and act, subject to clause 31 of Rule XI of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives, during the present Congress at such times 
    and places within the United States,

[[Page 2596]]

    including any Commonwealth or possession thereof, whether the House 
    is meeting, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such 
    hearings and require, by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and 
    testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
    records, correspondence, memorandums, papers, and documents, as it 
    deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued over the signature of the 
    chairman of the committee or any member designated by him and may 
    be served by any person designated by such chairman or member.''

    As the ensuing discussion revealed, the select committee was 
initially created on May 1, 1969,(19) and proceeded to 
investigate, hold hearings, and publish reports for the remaining 20 
months of that Congress. The crux of the debate centered on whether the 
nature of the committee's investigation warranted the costs involved. 
When the previous question on the resolution was 
ordered,(20) however, the House agreed to adopt the 
resolution by voice vote.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 115 Cong. Rec. 11101, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 5610, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 9, 1971.
 1. See also Sec. 5.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conduct of House Members, Officers and Employees

Sec. 6.3 By resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, the House 
    created a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.

    On Sept. 7, 1966,(2) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, a 
member of the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 1013) which was referred to the House Calendar and 
ordered to be printed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 21949, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That (a) there is hereby established a select 
    committee of the House of Representatives to be known as the Select 
    Committee on Standards and Conduct (referred to hereinafter as the 
    ``Select Committee'') consisting of twelve Members of the House of 
    whom six shall be selected from members of the majority party and 
    six shall be selected from members of the minority party. The 
    chairman and other members thereof shall be appointed by the 
    Speaker of the House of Representatives.
        (b) Vacancies in the membership of the Select Committee shall 
    not affect the authority of the remaining members to execute the 
    functions of the Select Committee, and shall be filled in the same 
    manner as original appointments thereto are made.
        (c) A majority of the members of the Select Committee shall 
    constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that 
    the Select Committee may fix a lesser number as a quorum for the 
    purpose of taking sworn testimony. The Select Committee shall adopt 
    rules of procedure not inconsistent with the

[[Page 2597]]

    rules of the House governing standing committees of the House.
        Sec. 2. (a) It shall be the duty of the Select Committee in its 
    discretion to--
        (1) investigate allegations of improper conduct which may 
    reflect upon the House, violations of law, and violations of rules 
    and regulations of the House, relating to the conduct of 
    individuals in the performance of their duties as Members of the 
    House, or as officers or employees of the House, and to make 
    appropriate findings of fact and conclusions with respect thereto;
        (2) recommend to the House, by report or resolution by a two-
    thirds vote (eight members) of the Select Committee, disciplinary 
    action to be taken with respect to such violations which the Select 
    Committee shall determine, after according to the individuals 
    concerned due notice and opportunity for hearing, to have occurred;
        (b) the Select Committee from time to time shall transmit to 
    the House its recommendations as to any legislative measures which 
    it may consider to be necessary for the effective discharge of its 
    duties.
        Sec. 3. For the purpose of this resolution the Select Committee 
    or any subcommittee thereof is authorized to sit and act during the 
    present Congress at such times and places within the United States, 
    whether or not the House has recessed or adjourned, to hold such 
    hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the 
    production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such 
    testimony as the Select Committee deems necessary. Subpenas may be 
    issued under the signature of the chairman of the Select Committee 
    or by any member designated by such chairman and may be served by 
    any person designated by such chairman or member. The chairman of 
    the Select Committee or any member thereof may administer oaths to 
    witnesses.
        Sec. 4. As used in this resolution, the term ``officer or 
    employee of the House'' means--
        (a) an elected officer of the House of Representatives who is 
    not a Member of the House;
        (b) any person whose compensation is disbursed by the Clerk of 
    the House.

    Six weeks later, on Oct. 19, 1966,(3) by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, Mr. Pepper called up House Resolution 1013 and 
asked for its present consideration. A proposed committee amendment 
requiring that any allegation referred to in paragraph (1) be made 
under oath and state the facts on which it is based was agreed to by 
unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at pp. 27713, 27714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, an additional amendment was later proposed by Mr. Wayne L. 
Hays, of Ohio, to section 2 of the resolution, which the Clerk read, as 
follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 27727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Hays: On page 2, strike out line 12 
    through line 25, and on page 3 lines 1, 2, and 3, and insert ``(1) 
    recommend to the House, by report or resolution such additional 
    rules or regulations as the select committee shall determine to be 
    necessary or desirable to insure proper standards

[[Page 2598]]

    of conduct by Members of the House and by officers or employees of 
    the House, in the performance of their duties, and the discharge of 
    their responsibilities; and
        (2) report violations, by a majority vote of the select 
    committee, of any law to the proper Federal and State 
    authorities.''

    Discussion ensued, after which the question was put on the Hays 
amendment,(5) and it was agreed to. Immediately thereafter, 
the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 27729.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government Research Investigation

Sec. 6.4 In the 88th Congress, the House established a Select Committee 
    on Research and Development.

    On Sept. 11, 1963,(6) following discussion of the 
proposal,(7) the House agreed to the following resolution 
(H. Res. 504):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 16754, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. See Sec. 5.2, supra, for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That there is hereby created a select committee to be 
    composed of nine Members of the House of Representatives to be 
    appointed by the Speaker, one of whom he shall designate as 
    chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the committee 
    shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was 
    made.
        The said committee is directed to make a complete, full, and 
    thorough investigation of the numerous research programs being 
    conducted by sundry departments and agencies of the Federal 
    Government and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, 
    the committee shall give special attention to the following: (1) 
    the overall total amount of annual expenditures on research 
    programs; (2) what departments and agencies of the Government are 
    conducting research and at what costs; (3) the amounts being 
    expended by the various agencies and departments in grants and 
    contracts for research to colleges, private industry, and every 
    form of student scholarships; (4) what facilities, if any, exist 
    for coordinating the various and sundry research programs, 
    including grants to colleges and universities as well as 
    scholarship grants.
        In order that this investigation of the numerous research 
    programs may be better coordinated, without limiting the scope of 
    the said committee's investigation, it is directed, among other 
    investigative procedures, to make use of information currently 
    available in the various committees of Congress which have 
    legislative jurisdiction over Government research activities to the 
    end that the said select committee may be able to recommend the 
    necessary legislation to coordinate and prevent unjustifiable 
    duplication in the numerous projects and activities of the 
    Government relating to scientific research.
        The committee shall report its findings to the House with such 
    recommended legislation as the committee may deem appropriate to 
    correct any deficiencies. The committee shall make such reports to 
    the House

[[Page 2599]]

    prior to December 1, 1964, and may submit such interim reports as 
    it deems advisable. Any reports submitted when the House is not in 
    session may be filed with the Clerk of the House.
        For the purposes of this resolution the committee, or any 
    subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act during the 
    present Congress at such times and places within the United States, 
    whether or not the House has recessed or adjourned, to hold such 
    hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the 
    production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such 
    testimony as the committee deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued 
    under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any 
    properly designated chairman of a subcommittee, or any member 
    designated by him and may be served by any person designated by 
    such chairman or member. The chairman of the committee or any 
    member thereof may administer oaths to witnesses.
        The majority of the members of the committee shall constitute a 
    quorum for the transaction of business, except two or more shall 
    constitute a quorum for the purpose of taking of evidence including 
    sworn testimony.

U.S. Military Involvement in Southeast Asia

Sec. 6.5 In the 91st Congress, the House agreed to establish a select 
    committee to investigate U.S. military involvement in Southeast 
    Asia.

    On June 8, 1970,(8) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. William R. Anderson, of Tennessee, called up House 
Resolution 976. The resolution provided for the creation of a select 
committee to investigate all aspects of the U.S. military involvement 
in Southeast Asia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 18656, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After agreement to several committee amendments,(9) the 
resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 18657, 18658.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That--
        (1) The Speaker of the House shall appoint a select committee 
    of twelve Members of the House, six of which shall be from the 
    majority party and six from the minority party, as follows: two 
    from the Armed Services Committee, two from the Foreign Affairs 
    Committee, and eight from the House at large and shall designate 
    one Member to serve as chairman. The select committee shall 
    immediately proceed to Southeast Asia to investigate all aspects of 
    the United States military involvement in Southeast Asia. The 
    select committee shall, within forty-five days of the adoption of 
    this resolution, report to the House the results of its 
    investigation.
        (2) For the purpose of carrying out this resolution the 
    committee is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress 
    at such times and places as it deems appropriate whether the House 
    is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned.
        (3) The select committee may appoint and fix the compensation 
    of such clerks, experts, consultants, technicians, and clerical and 
    stenographic as

[[Page 2600]]

    sistants as it deems necessary and advisable. The select committee 
    is authorized to reimburse the members of its staff for travel, 
    subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the 
    performance of the duties vested in the select committee other than 
    expenses in connection with meetings of the select committee held 
    in the District of Columbia.
        (4) The expenses of the select committee shall be paid from the 
    contingent fund of the House of Representatives upon vouchers 
    signed by the chairman of the select committee.

    Following debate, the House agreed to the resolution by a yea and 
nay vote--yeas 224, nays 101.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 18669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Business

Sec. 6.6 By privileged resolution, reported from the Committee on 
    Rules, the House established a permanent Select Committee on Small 
    Business.

    On Mar. 2, 1971,(11) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
was recognized by Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, and called up House 
Resolution 19 for immediate consideration.
    The resolution, as amended by the committee, read (12) 
as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 117 Cong. Rec. 4593, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
12. House Resolution 19 in it original form may be found id. at pp. 
        4593, 4594.
13. Id. at p. 4594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That, effective January 3, 1971, there is created a permanent 
    Select Committee on Small Business (which is not a standing 
    committee of the House3 to be composed of nineteen Members of the 
    House of Representatives to be appointed by the Speaker, one of 
    whom he shall designate as chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the 
    membership of the committee shall be filled in the manner in which 
    the original appointment was made.
        Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of such committee to conduct 
    studies and investigations of the problems of all types of small 
    business, existing, arising, or that may arise, with particular 
    reference to--
        (1) the factors which have impeded or may impede the normal 
    operations, growth, and development of small business;
        (2) the administration of Federal laws relating specifically to 
    small business in order to determine (A) whether such laws and 
    their administration adequately serve the needs of small business, 
    and (B) whether Government agencies adequately serve and give due 
    consideration to the problems of small business; and
        (3) the problems of small business enterprises generally;
    and to obtain all facts possible in relation thereto which would 
    not only be of public interest but which would aid the Congress in 
    enacting remedial legislation. However, the committee shall not 
    undertake any investigation of any subject which is being 
    investigated for the same purpose by any other committee of the 
    House.

        Sec. 3. Such committee shall not have legislative jurisdiction 
    but is au

[[Page 2601]]

    thorized to make studies, investigations, and reports; however, no 
    bills or resolutions shall be referred to the committee.
        Sec. 4. The committee may submit from time to time to the House 
    such reports as the committee considers advisable and, prior to the 
    close of the present Congress, shall submit to the House a final 
    report of the committee on the results of its studies and 
    investigations, together with such recommendations as the committee 
    considers advisable. Any report submitted when the House is not in 
    session may be filed with the Clerk of the House.
        Sec. 5. For the purpose of this resolution, the committee, or 
    any subcommittee thereof, is authorized, subject to clause 31 of 
    Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, to sit and 
    act during the present Congress at such times and places within the 
    United States, whether or not the House is meeting, has recessed, 
    or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance 
    of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and 
    documents, and to take such testimony, as the committee considers 
    necessary. Subpenas may be issued over the signature of the 
    chairman of the committee, or by any member designated by such 
    chairman, and may be served by any person designated by any such 
    chairman or member. The chairman of the committee or any member 
    thereof may administer oaths to witnesses.
        Sec. 6. The majority of the members of the committee shall 
    constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that 
    two or more shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of taking 
    evidence including sworn testimony.
        Sec. 7. Funds authorized are for expenses incurred in 
    connection with the committee's activities within the United 
    States; and, notwithstanding section 502(b) of the Mutual Security 
    Act of 1954 (22 U.S.C. 1754), or any other provision of law, local 
    currencies owned by the United States in foreign countries shall 
    not be made available to the committee for expenses of its members 
    or employees, or other Members or employees, traveling abroad.''

    House Resolution 19 was discussed briefly, Mr. Bolling pointing out 
that:

        . . . The resolution before us now creates the usual Select 
    Committee on Small Business. This time it is described as a 
    permanent select committee, recognizing the fact that each 2 years 
    a new Congress establishes these select committees. So we are going 
    to accept it as a permanent select committee. But its authority is 
    not changed. The only change that takes place in its constitution 
    is its size, and at the request of the leadership on both sides it 
    has been increased from 15 to 19 in this Congress.

    After brief debate, the resolution was agreed to, as amended, by 
voice vote.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 4595.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Jan. 22, 1971,(2) the House 
had adopted rules (effective as of that date) for the 92d Congress, one 
of which established a permanent Select Committee on Small Business
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2602]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Rule X clause 3).(3) House Resolution 19 was required to 
establish the select committee retroactively (i.e., as of Jan. 3, 1971) 
for staff salary purposes and to confer subpena power and authority to 
travel outside the United States.(4)
 3. The rules were effected by the passage of H. Res. 5, the pertinent 
        text of which may be found at 117 Cong. Rec. 14, 92d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 21, 1971, although, as heretofore indicated, the 
        resolution, itself, was not agreed to until the following day.
            A standing Committee on Small Business was created 
        effective Jan. 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.), 
        transferring legislative jurisdiction over problems of small 
        business from the Committee on Banking and Currency and from 
        the Committee on the Judiciary.
 4. While the adoption of H. Res. 5 resulted in the incorporation into 
        the rules of the Select Committee on Small Business as a 
        permanent select committee, the resolution did not grant 
        investigatory authority, per se, to that committee. As was the 
        case with the overwhelming majority of standing committees, a 
        separate investigatory authorization was required to enable the 
        select committee to actually undertake an investigation or to 
        utilize subpena power. See Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welfare and Education of Congressional Pages

Sec. 6.7 The House adopted a resolution creating a select committee to 
    investigate and report on the welfare and education of 
    congressional pages.

    On Sept. 30, 1964,(5) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Carl A. Elliott, of Alabama, called up and asked for 
immediate consideration of the following resolution (H. Res. 847):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 23187, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That there is hereby created a select committee to be 
    composed of five Members of the House of Representatives to be 
    appointed by the Speaker, one of whom he shall designate as 
    chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the committee 
    shall be filled in the same manner in which the original 
    appointment was made.
        The Committee is authorized and directed to conduct a full and 
    complete investigation and study of all of the factors relating to 
    the general welfare and education of congressional pages, 
    including, but not limited to, a study and investigation of the 
    residential, dining, recreational, educational, and physical 
    training facilities and opportunities for such pages, and rates of 
    pay, hours of work, and other conditions governing the employment 
    of such pages.
        For the purpose of carrying out this resolution the Committee, 
    or any subcommittee thereof authorized by the Committee to hold 
    hearings, is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress 
    at such times and places

[[Page 2603]]

    within the District of Columbia, whether the House is in session, 
    has recessed, or adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it deems 
    necessary; except that neither the Committee nor any subcommittee 
    thereof may sit while the House is meeting unless special leave to 
    sit shall have been obtained from the House.
        The Committee shall report to the House as soon as practicable 
    during the present Congress the results of its investigation and 
    study, together with recommendations regarding the feasibility and 
    desirability of raising the minimum age for Capitol pages to 
    eighteen years, of requiring secondary school graduation as a 
    prerequisite for appointment as a Capitol page, and of providing 
    for the establishment and construction of a Capitol page school and 
    residence, and such other recommendations as it deems advisable. 
    Any such report which is made when the House is not in session 
    shall be filed with the Clerk of the House.

    Shortly thereafter,(6) the resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 23188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Select Committee on the Welfare and Education of Congressional 
Pages filed a report (H. Rept. No. 1945) on Oct. 3, 1964 (H. Jour. 898, 
88th Cong. 2d Sess.). Continuing concern for the welfare and education 
of congressional pages became a factor during consideration of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. The report of the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress on the measure which 
eventually became that act included a recommendation that the limits on 
the age of pages be raised. The report of the Committee on Rules on 
H.R. 17654 (H. Rept. No. 91-1215, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.) proposed that a 
person not serve as a page until he has completed the 12th grade of 
school. The House ultimately accepted limits on the age of pages of 16 
to 18 years; but the Senate voted to retain age limits for Senate pages 
of 14 to 17 years.
    In response to a perceived need for better supervision, housing, 
and educational facilities for the pages, the Congress also included in 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, a provision authorizing 
construction of a building to contain dormitory and classroom 
facilities for the pages, to be designated the John W. McCormack 
Residential Page School. The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1971 
(Pub. L. No. 91-655) appropriated funds to enable the Architect of the 
Capitol to make preliminary plans for the structure. Then on July 12, 
1973 (119 Cong. Rec. 23473, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.) the Senate passed S. 
2067, the primary purpose of which was to provide for replacement of 
the existing page corps with an older group of pages who would not 
require the supervision felt to be

[[Page 2604]]

necessary for younger pages, and also to eliminate the need for 
construction of the residential page classroom and dormitory building, 
and therefore to repeal authorization for such building. In the House, 
the bill was referred to the Committee on Rules on July 16, 1973; no 
further action was taken.


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                 A. CREATING AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEES
 
Sec. 7. Joint Committees

    Joint committees may be created by statute (7) or by 
concurrent resolution.(8) Joint resolutions have been used 
to create joint committees for whatever period (or indefinitely) 
specified in that law,(9) but concurrent resolutions, which 
do not require the President's signature, have been used for this 
purpose with greater frequency although their duration cannot then 
extend beyond the Congress during which created.(10) Simple 
resolutions have been used in the past to appoint Members of the House 
to a committee to work in conjunction with a similar Senate committee, 
but this was infrequent.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See, for example, 42 USC Sec. 2251 (Joint Committee on Atomic 
        Energy).
            According to Jefferson's Manual, the use of joint 
        committees originated in the English Parliament. See House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 325 (1979). Indeed, a joint committee was 
        appointed to arrange for the inauguration of President 
        Washington. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1986.
 8. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1998, 1999; 4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 4409, 4410, 4412-4416; 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 380.
 9. See, for example, 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 371.
10. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4409, in which a joint resolution was 
        amended so that it became concurrent in form, and the signature 
        of President Andrew Johnson was not required.
11. 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3; 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1953; 4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 4411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members are selected for service on joint committees primarily 
through appointment by the Speaker. There have been instances, however, 
in which the members of a joint committee were elected by the 
House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In 1821 the House ordered that the members from the House on the 
        joint committee on the admission of Missouri to statehood be 
        elected by ballot. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recent joint committees have featured an equal number of members 
from both Houses, with the chairmanship alternating between the House 
and Senate. As distinguished from conference committees, voting is per 
capita--that is, with each member having one vote.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Historically, however, there were usually more House Members than 
        Senators on joint committees, although the voting was per 
        capita; a Senator often served as the joint committee chairman. 
        3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1946; 4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 4425-4431.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2605]]

    Joint committees are advisory in nature. They seldom have 
legislative jurisdiction, and do not ordinarily have the power to 
report legislative measures for consideration with the exception of the 
former Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. They generally function in 
areas beyond the jurisdiction of any particular committee of either 
House. They are considered advantageous in that they can avoid the 
repetition of testimony before both Houses, harmonize the congressional 
approach to a subject, concentrate a limited supply of competent 
technical staff personnel and minimize risks where security and secrecy 
is essential.
    Until the 95th Congress, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was 
composed of nine Senators and nine Representatives. The Speaker 
appointed the House members, no more than five of whom could be from 
one political party.(14) The chairmanship alternated with 
each Congress between the House and the Senate.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 42 USC Sec. 2251.
15. 42 USC Sec. 2253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the performance of its duties, the committee held hearings, both 
public and executive, issued subpenas, hired experts, and classified 
information it received.(16) It studied problems relating to 
the development, use, and control of atomic energy. Government agencies 
were directed to furnish the committee with information with respect to 
activities or responsibilities in the field of atomic energy. Bills and 
other measures in either the House or the Senate respecting the 
development, use, or control of atomic energy were referred to the 
committee, which, unlike most joint committees, had the power to report 
legislation and make recommendations within its 
jurisdiction.(17) However, on Jan. 4, 1977, the rules of the 
House were amended so as to abolish the legislative jurisdiction of 
this committee, and to transfer such jurisdiction to other committees. 
Its members were not reappointed.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 42 USC Sec. Sec. 2254-2256.
17. 42 USC Sec. 2252.
18. The legislative jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Atomic 
        Energy was divided among several standing committees, in the 
        House, on the basis of subject matter. See House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 983a (1979). See also H. Res. 5, 95th Cong. 1st 
        Sess. (1977), amending Rule X clause 5(e), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 700 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Established by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970,(19) the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 2 USC Sec. Sec. 411-417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2606]]

Joint Committee on Congressional Operations was composed of five 
Members from the House, appointed by the Speaker, and five Senators, 
appointed by the President of the Senate. Two of the committee members 
from each House were from the minority party. During even-numbered 
Congresses, the House Members selected the committee chairman, while 
the Senators selected the vice chairman, with the process being 
reversed during odd-numbered Congresses.(1)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Parliamentarian's Note: The members of the Joint Committee on 
        Congressional Operations were not reappointed to office in the 
        95th Congress. The Select Committee on Congressional Operations 
        was created in the House in its place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Committee on Congressional Operations had three principal 
responsibilities: identifying court proceedings affecting Congress and 
calling such proceedings to the attention of Congress; making a 
continuing study of the organization and operation of the Congress and 
recommending improvements therein; and supervising the Office of 
Placement and Management, which was created to provide congressional 
offices with trained personnel on request.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 2 USC Sec. Sec. 412, 416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Committee on Defense Production was established pursuant 
to the provisions of the Defense Production Act of 1950.(13) 
This committee consists of five Senators from the Senate Committee on 
Banking and Currency and five House Members, all of whom also serve on 
the House committee with jurisdiction over banking and currency. The 
chairmen of the respective Senate and House standing committees select 
the members, of whom at least two must be from the minority party in 
each House.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 50 USC App. Sec. Sec. 2061 et seq. The committee itself was 
        established pursuant to 50 USC App. Sec. 2161.
 4. 50 USC App. Sec. 2162(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the provisions of the Defense Production Act of 1950, the 
joint committee was charged with the responsibility of making 
continuing studies and reviewing the progress achieved under the 
various programs established by the act. These programs included such 
matters as the requisition of property needed for national defense, 
expansion of productive capacity and supply, wage and price 
stabilization, settlement of labor disputes, control of consumer and 
real estate credit, and priorities and allocations in contracts and 
materials designed to aid the national defense.(5) More 
recently, the joint committee has focused on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 50 USC App. Sec. Sec. 2061 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2607]]

reviewing the condition of federal emergency preparedness and 
mobilization policies, programs and organizations, and examining the 
development of federal materials policy in terms of availability for 
defense purposes.(6) The joint committee monitors the 
integrity of defense contracts and the procurement process. It also 
develops legislative recommendations in connection with antitrust 
immunity for voluntary agreements in support of national energy or 
defense programs.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Annual Report of the Joint Committee on Defense Production. H. 
        Rept. No. 95-352, p. 1, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. (1976).
 7. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon request, the joint committee provides aid to the committees of 
Congress having legislative jurisdiction over the subject matter and 
programs authorized under the Defense Production Act. The joint 
committee reports to the Senate and House, from time to time, 
concerning the results of its studies and any recommendations developed 
from such studies.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 50 USC App. Sec. 2162(2)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the performance of its responsibilities, the joint committee is 
authorized to hold hearings, issue subpenas duces tecum, administer 
oaths to witnesses, and procure the printing of testimony and 
reports.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 50 USC App. Sec. 2162(2) (c), (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the legislation which established 
the joint committee was extended through Sept. 30, 1979, no 
appropriation for salaries and expenses of the joint committee was made 
for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1978. The sum of $225,000 
requested for the operation of the joint committee during 1978 was 
eliminated from the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1978 (Pub. L. 
No. 95-94). See the debate on funding for the committee beginning at 
123 Cong. Rec. 21399, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1977. No 
appointments were made to the joint committee in the 95th and 96th 
Congresses.
    The Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation is composed of 
five members from the House and five from the Senate. Of the five House 
members, all are from the Committee on Ways and Means and two represent 
the minority party. The five Senate members are from the Committee on 
Finance and two of them are from the minority party.(10) By 
the provisions of the statute, the joint committee elects a chairman 
and vice chairman from among its members.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 26 USC Sec. 8002.
11. 26 USC Sec. 8003.
            Parliamentarian's Note: In practice, the chairmanship of 
        the joint committee alternates between the House and Senate 
        members, with a House Member becoming chairman in odd-numbered 
        sessions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2608]]

    The joint committee has several investigative functions. It studies 
the operation and effect of internal revenue taxes and the 
administration of such taxes by the Internal Revenue Service and other 
executive departments. Another related function of the joint committee 
is to explore measures and methods for the simplification of these 
taxes, and to publish the results of such investigations from time to 
time.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 26 USC Sec. 8022.
            Pursuant to its authority to make investigations, the joint 
        committee is authorized to secure information from the Internal 
        Revenue Service and the executive branch, which is required to 
        furnish such information to the joint committee. 26 USC 
        Sec. 8023.
            The joint committee is empowered to issue subpenas, hold 
        hearings, and procure printing as it deems advisable. 26 USC 
        Sec. 8021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The joint committee is directed to report annually to Congress on 
refunds and credits on income, war profits, excess profits, estate, or 
gift taxes in excess of $100,000, including the names of all persons 
and corporations to whom such amounts have been credited or 
paid.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 26 USC Sec. 6405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Committee on the Library is the permanent mechanism 
through which the two Houses of Congress coordinate their supervision 
of the Library of Congress. This committee is composed of the chairmen 
and four other members from the principal House and Senate committees 
with jurisdiction over measures concerning the management of the 
Library: the Committee on House Administration in the House, and the 
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration(14) (in 
addition to the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, the 
other House members are elected to the joint committee each Congress by 
resolution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 2 USC Sec. 132b. For the relevant jurisdiction of the Committee on 
        House Administration, see Sec. 39, infra.
            Parliamentarian's Note: By agreement, the chairmanship of 
        the joint committee alternates each year between the two 
        Houses. The chairman of the House committee chairs the joint 
        committee during the first session of a Congress; the chairman 
        of the Senate committee holds that position during the second 
        session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 established a new method 
for determining the joint committee's membership and abolished the 
separate standing committees on the Library that existed in each 
House.(15) Before the

[[Page 2609]]

1946 act, the ``Joint Committee of Congress upon the Library'' 
consisted of five Senators and five Representatives; (16) 
the five House members of the joint committee also comprised, and 
exercised the functions of, a standing committee of the House, while 
the five Senators on the joint committee, together with five additional 
Senators, enjoyed the same status in the Senate. As standing 
committees, they were authorized to receive measures and to report such 
measures to their respective Houses.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 2 USC Sec. 132b.
16. 32 Stat. 735 (1902).
17. For precedents relating to the jurisdiction of the joint committee, 
        see 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4337-4346 and 7 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 2081-2091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the process of consolidating the then 48 House standing 
committees into 19, and the then 32 Senate standing committees into 15, 
the 1946 Reorganization Act abolished as separate entities the House 
and Senate standing committees on the Library. In the House, the 
Library committee was combined with 11 other committees to form the 
Committee on House Administration.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, committee print, 
        pp. 2-4, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 22, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important function of the joint committee is to direct the 
laying out of sums appropriated by Congress for the increase of the 
general library.(19) In addition, within the framework of 
the law empowering the Librarian of Congress to ``make rules and 
regulations for the government of the Library,'' (20) the 
Librarian frequently consults with the chairman and vice chairman of 
the joint committee about Library matters. He keeps them informed of 
significant developments affecting, or likely to affect, the Library, 
and seeks their advice and recommendations on major policy matters 
which arise at the Library.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 2 USC Sec. 132a.
20. 2 USC Sec. 139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For almost a century, the Joint Committee on the Library has acted 
as the agent of Congress for supervising the acceptance and placement 
of works of art in the Capitol, usually through the Architect of the 
Capitol. The joint committee is authorized to accept, on behalf of 
Congress, any work of the fine arts offered for that 
building.(1) The Capitol rooms may not be used for private 
studios or works of art without the written permission of the joint 
committee.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 40 USC Sec. 188.
 2. 40 USC Sec. 190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The chairman of the joint committee is a member of the Library

[[Page 2610]]

of Congress Trust Fund Board. Statutes require the approval of the 
joint committee before that board may accept gifts, bequests, or 
devises of property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the 
Library.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 2 USC Sec. Sec. 154, 156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The joint committee is also charged with direction of the Botanical 
Garden and its personnel.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 40 USC Sec. 216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman and two members of the Committee on House 
Administration and the Chairman and two members of the Senate Committee 
on Rules and Administration constitute the membership of the Joint 
Committee on Printing,(5) and, in the House, are elected to 
the joint committee each Congress by resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 44 USC Sec. 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the joint committee is generally authorized to remedy 
neglect, delay, duplication, or waste in the public printing and 
distribution of government publications,(6) its primary 
activity is controlling the arrangement and style of the Congressional 
Record and arranging for the semimonthly publication of an index 
thereto.(7) In fulfilling this function, the joint committee 
provides for the printing in the daily Record of the legislative 
program for the day, together with a list of congressional committee 
meetings and hearings.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 44 USC Sec. 103.
 7. 44 USC Sec. 901. For discussion of the purpose and format of the 
        Congressional Record, see Ch. 5, Sec. Sec. 15-20, supra.
 8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 983h (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Economic Committee was established by the Employment Act 
of 1946.(9) The committee is comprised of 10 Senators 
appointed by the President of the Senate and 10 House Members appointed 
by the Speaker. In each case, the majority party is to be represented 
by six members and the minority party by four members. (10) 
By the committee rules, the chairmanship and vice chairmanship of the 
committee alternate from Congress to Congress between the House and 
Senate.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 15 USC Sec. 1021 et seq.
10. 15 USC Sec. 1024(a).
11. Rule VI, Rules of the Joint Economic Committee, as amended, 
        approved Dec. 6, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Economic Committee provides facts and analyses to keep 
Congress abreast of developing economic trends. It advises Congress as 
to the appropriate mix of public and private policies most likely to 
achieve the Nation's economic objectives as set forth in the Employment 
Act of 1946. It

[[Page 2611]]

does not draft or report legislation.
    The committee makes its services available principally through 
publications, including reports and collections of professional 
materials. It also publishes each month up-to-date data in Economic 
Indicators, (12) which is prepared for the committee by the 
Council of Economic Advisers.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 15 USC Sec. 1025.
13. The Council of Economic Advisors is composed of three members 
        appointed by the President by and with the consent of the 
        Senate. The council employs specialists to analyze and evaluate 
        various federal programs. It recommends to the President 
        national economic policies intended to foster and promote free 
        competitive enterprise and to avoid fluctuations in the 
        American economy. The council gathers information on national 
        economic trends and furnishes studies, reports, and 
        recommendations on matters of federal economic policy and 
        legislation as requested by the President. 15 USC Sec. 1023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A primary function of the Joint Economic Committee is the report 
filed by Mar. 1 of every year (l4) to serve as a guide to 
the several committees of Congress dealing with legislation relating to 
the President's Economic Report. The committee report contains the 
findings and recommendations of the committee with respect to each of 
the main recommendations made by the 
President.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 15 USC Sec. 1024(b)(3). The date for filing the committee report 
        has frequently been extended by law or by unanimous consent in 
        the House. See Sec. Sec. 61.10, 61.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Concurrent Resolution to Create Joint Committee

Sec. 7.1 A privileged concurrent resolution to establish a Joint 
    Committee on the Organization of the Congress was reported and 
    called up by the House Committee on Rules. The concurrent 
    resolution was agreed to by the House.

    On Mar. 3, 1965, (15) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, of 
the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged 
(16) resolution (H. Con. Res. 4) which was referred to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 3995, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. The rules provide that certain committees may report at any time on 
        certain subjects; see Rule XI clause 22, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 726 (1973). Matters giving rise to this privilege when 
        reported from the Committee on Rules are ``rules, joint rules, 
        and order of business.'' However, there are some limitations on 
        the power of the Committee on Rules to call up a report for 
        consideration; see Rule XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 729 (1973). See also Sec. Sec. 52-57, infra, and Ch. 21, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2612]]

the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That there is hereby established a Joint Committee on 
    the Organization of the Congress (hereinafter referred to as the 
    committee) to be composed of six Members of the Senate (not more 
    than three of whom shall be members of the majority party) to be 
    appointed by the President of the Senate, and six Members of the 
    House of Representatives (not more than three of whom shall be 
    members of the majority party) to be appointed by the Speaker of 
    the House of Representatives. The committee shall select a chairman 
    and a vice chairman from among its members. No recommendation shall 
    be made by the committee except upon a majority vote of the members 
    representing each House, taken separately.
        Sec. 2. The committee shall make a full and complete study of 
    the organization and operation of the Congress of the United States 
    and shall recommend improvements in such organization and operation 
    with a view toward strengthening the Congress, simplifying its 
    operations, improving its relationship with other branches of the 
    United States Government, and enabling it better to meet its 
    responsibilities under the Constitution. This study shall include, 
    but shall not be limited to, the organization and operation of each 
    House of the Congress; the relationship between the two Houses; the 
    relationships between the Congress and other branches of the 
    Government; the employment and remuneration of officers and 
    employees of the respective Houses and officers and employees of 
    the committees and Members of Congress; and the structure of, and 
    the relationships between, the various standing, special, and 
    select committees of the Congress: Provided, That nothing in this 
    concurrent resolution shall be construed to authorize the committee 
    to make any recommendations with respect to the rules, 
    parliamentary procedure, practices, and/or precedents of either 
    House, or the consideration of any matter on the floor of either 
    House: Provided further, That the language employed herein shall 
    not prohibit the committee from studying and recommending the 
    consolidations and reorganization of committees.

        Sec. 3. (a) The Committee, or any duly authorized subcommittee 
    thereof, is authorized to sit and act, at such places and times 
    during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Eighty-
    ninth Congress, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance 
    of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and 
    documents, to administer such oaths, to take such testimony, to 
    procure such printing and binding, and to make such expenditures, 
    as it deems advisable.
        (b) The committee is empowered to appoint and fix the 
    compensation of such experts, consultants, technicians, and 
    clerical and stenographic assistants as it deems necessary and 
    advisable.
        (c) The expenses of the committee, which shall not exceed 
    $150,000 through January 31, 1966, shall be paid from the 
    contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers signed by the chairman.
        (d) The committee shall report from time to time to the Senate 
    and the

[[Page 2613]]

    House of Representatives the results of its study, together with 
    its recommendations, the first report being made not later than one 
    hundred and twenty days after the effective date of this concurrent 
    resolution. If the Senate, the House of Representatives, or both, 
    are in recess or have adjourned, the report shall be made to the 
    Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives, or both, as the case may be. All reports and 
    findings of the committee shall, when received, be referred to the 
    Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate and the 
    appropriate committees of the House. . . .

    On Mar. 11,(17) by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
Mr. Madden called up House Concurrent Resolution 4, and asked for its 
immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 4768, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk read the resolution and debate thereon followed. Much of 
the discussion centered on the proviso barring the joint committee from 
authorization ``to make any recommendations with respect to the rules, 
parliamentary procedure, practices, and/or precedents of either House. 
. . .'' as well as on the fact that privileged consideration of the 
concurrent resolution in the House under the ``hour rule'' prohibited 
any amendments to the resolution. The House agreed to the concurrent 
resolution,(18) however, by voice vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at D. 4780.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Madden who then sought unanimous consent 
to take from the Speaker's desk a concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
2) to establish a Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress. 
This resolution was identical (19) to the one (H. Con. Res. 
4) just agreed to. Unanimous consent was granted and the Senate 
concurrent resolution was concurred in. House Concurrent Resolution 4 
was then laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The language of H. Con. Res. 4 and S. Con. Res. 2 was also 
        substantially similar to that employed in the 79th Congress in 
        setting up the joint committee which resulted in the 
        Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. See H. Con. Res. 18, 91 
        Cong. Rec. 346, 347, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 18, 1945; and 
        91 Cong. Rec. 1272, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 19, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress laid the groundwork for the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970, which was considered and enacted in the 91st Congress (H.R. 
17654) by the Committee on Rules.

Sec. 7.2 The Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems was 
    created by concurrent resolution.

[[Page 2614]]

    House Concurrent Resolution 172 was reported from the Committee on 
Rules and later called up as follows on June 21, 1957: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 103 Cong. Rec. 10022, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 172) to establish a joint 
    congressional committee to investigate matters pertaining to the 
    growth and expansion of the District of Columbia and its 
    metropolitan area and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That there is hereby established a joint 
        congressional committee to be composed of the members of the 
        Committee on the District of Columbia of the Senate and the 
        members of the Committee on the District of Colunbia of the 
        House of Representatives. The joint committee shall select a 
        chairman and a vice chairman from among its members. A majority 
        of the joint committee shall constitute a quorum except that a 
        lesser number, to be fixed by the joint committee, shall 
        constitute a quorum for the purpose of administering oaths and 
        taking sworn testimony.
            Sec. 2. The joint committee, or any duly authorized 
        subcommittee thereof, shall examine, investigate, and make a 
        complete study of any and all matters pertaining to (a) the 
        problems created by the growth and expansion of the District of 
        Columbia and its metropolitan area, (b) how and with what 
        degree of success such problems are handled and resolved by the 
        various agencies and instrumentalities of the Government which 
        are charged with the duty of resolving such problems, and (c) 
        how the resolution of such problems is affecting the affairs of 
        the District of Columbia. The joint committee shall report its 
        findings, together with its recommendations for such 
        legislation as it deems advisable, to the Senate and the House 
        of Representatives at the earliest practicable date, but not 
        later than January 31, 1958. Upon the submission of such 
        report, the joint committee shall cease to exist and all 
        authority conferred by this resolution shall terminate.
            Sec. 3. The joint committee, or any duly authorized 
        subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such 
        places and times within the United States, to hold such 
        hearings, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of 
        such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and 
        documents, to administer such oaths, to take such testimony as 
        it deems advisable.
            Sec. 4. The joint committee shall have power to employ and 
        fix the compensation of such experts, consultants, and other 
        employees as it deems necessary in the performance of its 
        duties.

    After passage on that day, and amendment and adoption by the Senate 
on Aug. 26, 1957, the following proceedings took place in the House on 
Aug. 28, 1957: (21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at p. 16288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
    take from the Speaker's desk the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
    Res. 172) to establish a joint Congressional committee to 
    investigate matters pertaining to the growth and expansion of the 
    District of Columbia and its metropolitan area, with Senate 
    amendments thereto, concur in

[[Page 2615]]

    Senate amendments Nos. 1\1/2\, 2, and 3, and concur in Senate 
    amendment No. 1 with an amendment.
        The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendments as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 1\1/2\ Page 2, line 14, strike out 
        ``January 31, 1958,'' and insert ``January 31, 1959.''

        Page 2, line 17, after ``terminate'' insert ``but the joint 
    committee shall make a progress report on its activities by January 
    31, 1958.''
        Page 3, after line 3, insert:
        ``Sec. 5. The expenses of the joint committee, through January 
    31, 1958, which shall not exceed $50,000, shall be paid from the 
    contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the 
    chairman of the joint committee.''
        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: Is there objection to the 
    request of the gentleman from Virginia?
        There was no objection.
        Senate amendments Nos. 1\1/2\, 2, and .3 were concurred in.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report Senate amendment No. 1.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 1, line 2, strike out all after ``concurring),'' down 
        to and including ``Representatives.'' in line 6, and insert 
        ``That there is hereby established a joint Congressional 
        committee to be composed of three members of the Committee on 
        the District of Columbia of the Senate, to be appointed by the 
        chairman of such committee, and three members of the Committee 
        on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives, to 
        be appointed by the chairman of such committee.''

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the 
    Senate amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Virginia: Strike out all 
        after the word ``Senate,'' and insert ``to be appointed by the 
        chairman of such committee, and three members of the Committee 
        on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives, to 
        be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.''

        The amendment to the Senate amendment was agreed to.
        The Senate amendment as amended was concurred 
    in.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. The Senate agreed to the House amendment to the Senate amendment on 
        Aug. 28, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, the Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan 
Problems was extended by concurrent resolutions in the first and second 
sessions of the 86th Congress.(23) Hearings were also 
authorized to be held by Senate Concurrent Resolution 101, 86th 
Congress second session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. See Sec. 7.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation of Joint Committee by Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 7.3 A concurrent resolution continuing the Joint Committee on the 
    Organization of the Congress, established by concurrent resolution 
    in the 89th Congress, and providing additional funds for its 
    operation, was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to by the 
    House.

[[Page 2616]]

    On Jan. 31, 1967,(1) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, a 
member of the Committee on Rules, sought unanimous consent to take from 
the Speaker's desk Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 and to concur 
therein. The resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 2081, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the Joint Committee on the Organization of the 
    Congress, established by Senate Concurrent Resolution 2, Eighty-
    ninth Congress, agreed to March 11, 1965, is hereby continued 
    through June 30, 1967.
        Sec. 2. The joint committee is hereby authorized to make 
    expenditures from February 1, 1967, through June 30, 1967, not to 
    exceed $60,000, to be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate 
    upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the joint committee.

    Following brief debate, the resolution was concurred 
in,(2) and a similar concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 51) 
was laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 2082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Joint Resolution to Create Joint Committee

Sec. 7.4 The House passed a joint resolution providing for the creation 
    of a Joint Committee to Investigate Crime after amending the joint 
    resolution to limit the existence of the joint committee to that 
    Congress.

    On July 12, 1968,(3) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, called up a joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 1) creating a Joint Committee to Investigate Crime, and 
asked for its immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 21012, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk then read the proposal with the recommended committee 
amendments as follows:

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) there is 
    hereby created a Joint Committee To Investigate Crime, to be 
    composed of seven Members of the House of Representatives to be 
    appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and seven 
    Members of the Senate to be appointed by the President pro tempore 
    of the Senate. In each instance not more than four members shall be 
    members of the same political party.
        (b) Vacancies in the membership of the joint committee shall 
    affect power of the remaining members to execute the functions of 
    the joint committee, and shall be filled in the same manner as in 
    the case of the original selection.
        (c) The joint committee shall select a chairman and a vice 
    chairman from among its members at the beginning of each Congress.
        Sec. 2. (a) The joint committee shall make continuing 
    investigations and

[[Page 2617]]

    studies of all aspects of crime in the United States, including (1) 
    its elements, causes, and extent; (2) the preparation, collection, 
    and dissemination of statistics thereon, and the availability of 
    reciprocity of information among law enforcement agencies, Federal, 
    State, and local, including exchange of information with foreign 
    nations; (3) the adequacy of law enforcement and the administration 
    of justice, including constitutional issues pertaining thereto; (4) 
    the effect of crime and disturbances in the metropolitan urban 
    areas; (5) the effect, directly or indirectly, of crime on the 
    commerce of the Nation; (6) the treatment and rehabilitation of 
    persons convicted of crimes; (7) measures for the reduction, 
    control, or prevention of crime; (8) measures for the improvement 
    of (a) detection of crime; (b) law enforcement, including increased 
    cooperation among the agencies thereof; (c) the administration of 
    justice; and (9) measures and programs for increased respect for 
    the law.
        (b) The joint committee shall report to the Senate and the 
    House of Representatives, from time to time, the results of its 
    investigations and studies, together with such recommendations as 
    it may deem desirable. Any department, official, or agency engaged 
    in functions relative to investigations or studies undertaken by 
    the joint committee shall, at the request of the joint committee, 
    consult with the joint committee from time to time with respect to 
    such functions or activities.
        Sec. 3. (a) In carrying out its duties, the joint committee or 
    any duly authorized subcommittee thereof is authorized to hold such 
    hearings and investigations, to sit and act at such places and 
    times within the United States, including any Commonwealth or 
    possession thereof, whether the House or the Senate is in session, 
    has recessed, or has adjourned, to require, by subpena or 
    otherwise, the attendance of such witnesses and the production of 
    such books, papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, to 
    take such testimony, to procure such printing and binding, and to 
    make such expenditures as it deems necessary. The joint committee 
    may make such rules respecting its organization and procedures as 
    it deems necessary. No recommendation may be reported from the 
    joint committee unless a majority of the committee is present. 
    Subpenas may be issued over the signature of the chairman of the 
    joint committee or by any member designated by him or by the joint 
    committee, and may be served by such person or persons as may be 
    designated by such chairman or member. The chairman of the joint 
    committee or any member thereof may administer oaths to witnesses.
        (b) The joint committee may appoint and fix the compensation of 
    such clerks, experts, consultants, technicians, and clerical and 
    stenographic assistants as it deems necessary and advisable; and, 
    with the prior consent of the heads of departments or agencies 
    concerned and the Committee on House Administration of the House of 
    Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of 
    the Senate, to utilize the reimbursable services, information, 
    facilities, and personnel of any of the departments or agencies of 
    the Federal Government, as it deems advisable. The joint committee 
    is authorized to reimburse the

[[Page 2618]]

    members of its staff for travel, subsistence, and the other 
    necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of the 
    duties vested in the joint committee other than expenses in 
    connection with meetings of the joint committee held in the 
    District of Columbia during such times as the Congress is in 
    session.
        Sec. 4. The expenses of the joint committee shall be paid one-
    half from the contingent fund of the House of Representatives and 
    one-half from the contingent fund of the Senate, upon vouchers 
    signed by the chairman or the vice chairman of the joint committee.
        With the following committee amendments:
        On page 2, line 5: After the word ``members'', strike the words 
    ``at the beginning of each Congress''.
        At the end of the joint resolution, add the following 
    paragraph:
        ``Sec. 5. The Joint Committee To Investigate Crime shall expire 
    at the end of the Ninetieth Congress.''
        The committee amendments were immediately agreed to, after 
    which debate ensued on the joint resolution as amended. Upon 
    concluding debate, the House passed (4) the proposal on 
    a yea and nay vote--yeas 319, nays 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 21031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.5 The House passed a joint resolution providing for the 
    establishment of a Joint Committee on the Environment.

    On July 20, 1971,(5) pursuant to the dictates of a 
special rule (H. Res. 424) (6) adopted shortly 
before,(7) the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 3) to 
create a Joint Committee on the Environment. After general debate and 
amendments under the five-minute rule, Chairman Don Fuqua, of Florida, 
reported the joint resolution back (8) to the House with 
sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 26205 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Id. at p. 26202. Since the joint resolution contained an 
        authorization for appropriations, it was not privileged. 
        Moreover, the special rule served the purpose of permitting 
        amendments under the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole 
        and allowing Members more time for discussion of the measure 
        than would otherwise have been available under the ``hour 
        rule'' in the House. See remarks of Mr. Richard Bolling (Mo.) 
        at p. 26202.
 7. Id. at p. 26205.
 8. Id. at p. 26218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Speaker pro tempore Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
put the question on the amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole, which were agreed to. The joint resolution was then passed, as 
amended, and read, as follows:

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That

[[Page 2619]]

    (a) there is established a joint congressional committee which 
    shall be known as the Joint Committee on the Environment (hereafter 
    in this joint resolution referred to as the ``committee'') 
    consisting of eleven Members of the Senate to be appointed by the 
    President of the Senate and eleven Members of the House of 
    Representatives to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives. Of the eleven Members of the Senate appointed 
    under this subsection, six Members shall be from the majority 
    party, and five Members shall be from the minority party. Of the 
    eleven Members of the House of Representatives appointed under this 
    subsection, six Members shall be from the majority party, and five 
    Members shall be from the minority party. In the appointment of 
    members of the committee under this subsection, the President of 
    the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall 
    give due consideration to providing representation on the committee 
    from the various committees of the Senate and the House of 
    Representatives having jurisdiction over matters relating to the 
    environment.
        (b) The committee shall select a chairman and a vice chairman 
    from among its members, at the beginning of each Congress. The vice 
    chairman shall act in the place and stead of the chairman in the 
    absence of the chairman. The chairmanship shall alternate between 
    the Senate and House of Representatives with each Congress, and the 
    chairman shall be selected by Members from that House entitled to 
    the chairmanship. The vice chairman shall be chosen from the House 
    other than that of the chairman by the Members of that House. The 
    committee may establish such subcommittees as it deems necessary 
    and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this joint resolution.
        (c) Vacancies in the membership of the committee shall not 
    affect the authority of the remaining members to execute the 
    functions of the committee. Vacancies shall be filled in the same 
    manner as original appointments are made.
        (d) A majority of the members of the committee shall constitute 
    a quorum thereof for the transaction of business, except that the 
    committee may fix a lesser number as a quorum for the purpose of 
    taking testimony.
        (e) The committee shall keep a complete record of all committee 
    actions, including a record of the votes on any question on which a 
    record vote is demanded. All committee records, data, charts, and 
    files shall be the property of the committee and shall be kept in 
    the offices of the committee or such other places as the committee 
    may direct.
        (f) No legislative measure shall be referred to the committee, 
    and it shall have no authority to report any such measure to the 
    Senate or to the House of Representatives.
        (g) The committee shall not undertake any investigation of any 
    subject matter which is being investigated by any other committee 
    of the Senate or the House of Representatives.
        Sec. 2. (a) It shall be the duty of the committee--
        (1) to conduct a continuing comprehensive study and review of 
    the character and extent of environmental changes that may occur in 
    the future

[[Page 2620]]

    and their effect on population, communities, and industries, 
    including but not limited to the effects of such changes on the 
    need for public and private planning and investment in housing, 
    water resources (including oceanography), pollution control, food 
    supplies, education, automation affecting interstate commerce, fish 
    and wildlife, forestry, mining, communications, transportation, 
    power supplies, welfare, and other services and facilities;
        (2) to study methods of using all practicable means and 
    measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner 
    calculated to foster, promote, create, and maintain conditions 
    under which man and nature can exist in harmony, and fulfill the 
    social, economic and other requirements of present and future 
    generations of Americans;
        (3) to develop policies that would encourage maximum private 
    investment in means of improving environmental quality; and
        (4) to review any recommendations made by the President 
    (including the environmental quality report required to be 
    submitted pursuant to section 201 of the National Environmental 
    Policy Act of 1969) relating to environmental policy.
        (b) The environmental quality report required to he submitted 
    pursuant to section 201 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
    1969 shall, when transmitted to Congress, be referred to the 
    committee, which shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, hold 
    hearings with respect to such report.
        (c) On or before the last day of December of each year, the 
    committee shall submit to the Senate and to the House of 
    Representatives for reference to the appropriate standing 
    committees an annual report on the studies, reviews, and other 
    projects undertaken by it, together with its recommendations. The 
    committee may make such interim reports to the appropriate standing 
    committees of the Congress prior to such annual report as it deems 
    advisable.
        (d) In carrying out its functions and duties the committee 
    shall avoid unnecessary duplication with any investigation 
    undertaken by any other joint committee, or by any standing 
    committee of the Senate or of the House of Representatives.
        Sec. 3. (a) For the purposes of this joint resolution, the 
    committee is authorized, as it deems advisable (1) to make such 
    expenditures; (2) to hold such hearings; (3) to sit and act at such 
    times and places during the sessions, recesses, and adjournment 
    periods of the Senate and of the House of Representatives; and (4) 
    to employ and fix the compensation of technical, clerical, and 
    other assistants and consultants. Persons employed under authority 
    of this subsection shall be employed without regard to political 
    affiliations and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the 
    duties for which employed.
        (b) The committee may (1) utilize the services, information, 
    and facilities of the General Accounting Office or any department 
    or agency in the executive branch of the Government, and (2) employ 
    on a reimbursable basis or otherwise the services of such personnel 
    of any such department or agency as it deems advisable. With the 
    consent of any other committee of the Congress, or any subcommittee 
    thereof, the committee may utilize the facilities and

[[Page 2621]]

    the services of the staff of such other committee or subcommittee 
    whenever the chairman of the committee determines that such action 
    is necessary and appropriate.
        Sec. 4. To enable the committee to exercise its powers, 
    functions, and duties under this joint resolution, there are 
    authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $300,000 for each 
    fiscal year to be disbursed by the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives on vouchers signed by the chairman or vice chairman 
    of the committee.(9)

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate did not take action on House 
Joint Resolution 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For a similar example in an earlier Congress, see 81 Cong. Rec. 
        243, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishing Special Senate Committee

Sec. 7.6 A Special Committee on the Organization of the Congress 
    (composed of the Senate members of the Joint Committee on 
    Organization) was established in the Senate to receive, consider, 
    and report on a bill encompassing the legislative recommendations 
    of the joint committee.

    On Aug. 22, 1966,(10) the Senate proceeded to consider a 
resolution (S. Res. 293) creating a ``Special Committee on the 
Organization of the Congress'' consisting of the six Senators who were 
already members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of the 
Congress and providing certain instructions with respect to their 
duties.
    The resolution, as reported by the Committee on Rules and 
Administration with certain recommended amendments, read as follows:

        Resolved! That a special committee to be composed of the six 
    Senators who are members of the Joint Committee on the Organization 
    of the Congress is hereby established, with authority to sit and 
    act during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the 
    Eighty-ninth Congress (and such committee shall cease to exist, 
    March 31, 1967), for the purpose of receiving and considering a 
    bill, when introduced, and germane amendments relating thereto, 
    having for its purpose the carrying out of the recommendations 
    contained in the report of the Joint Committee on the Organization 
    of the Congress, Report No. 1414, July 28, 1966. Such bill, when 
    introduced, and amendments shall be referred to the committee for 
    its consideration and such committee is hereby authorized to report 
    to the Senate with respect to any such matter referred to it, 
    together with such recommendations as it may deem advisable: 
    Provided, That no report shall be made until the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of each standing committee of the Senate 
    shall have been given the opportunity to ap

[[Page 2622]]

    pear before the special committee and present their views. Nothing 
    in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the committee to 
    report any bill or amendment containing any provision which has the 
    effect of changing the rules, parliamentary procedure, practices, 
    or precedents of either House, or which has the effect of changing 
    in any manner the consideration of any matter on the floor of 
    either House, unless such provision is to carry out a 
    recommendation contained in such report of July 28, 1966. Any 
    vacancy occurring in the membership of the committee shall be 
    filled by appointment by the President of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 112 Cong. Rec. 20758, 20759, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. See Sec. 7.1, 
        supra (Parliamentarian's Note).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution, with the recommended amendments, was promptly 
agreed to.

Joint Committee on Atomic Energy

Sec. 7.7 The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services had jurisdiction of bills to repeal the Atomic 
    Energy Act of 1946.

    On Mar. 18, 1947,(11) Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2543) described above and to have it rereferred to the Joint 
Committee on Atomic Energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 93 Cong. Rec. 2204, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.8 The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and not the Committee on 
    the Judiciary had jurisdiction of a communication transmitting a 
    proposed bill to provide rewards for information concerning illegal 
    introduction into the United States or illegal manufacture or 
    acquisition in the United States of special nuclear material and 
    weapons.

    On Aug. 5, 1954,(12) Mr. W. Sterling Cole, of New York, 
obtained unanimous consent that a letter (Executive Communication No. 
1783) from the Attorney General described above be referred from the 
Committee on the Judiciary to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 100 Cong. Rec. 13486, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joint Committee on Washing ton Metropolitan Problems

Sec. 7.9 The Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems was 
    authorized, by concurrent resolution, to hold hearings and report 
    to the Committees on the District of Columbia of the Senate and 
    House on two bills to

[[Page 2623]]

    aid in the development of an integrated system of transportation 
    for the National Capital region.

    On Apr. 21, 1960,(13) John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the following concurrent resolution 
(S. Con. Res. 101) discharged from further consideration by the 
Committee on Rules and brought up for immediate consideration by the 
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Jour. 293, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan 
    Problems, created by House Concurrent Resolution 172, agreed to 
    August 29, 1957, is hereby authorized to hold public hearings on 
    the bills S. 3193 and H.R. 11135,(14) and to furnish 
    transcripts of such hearings, and make such recommendations as it 
    sees fit, to the Committees on the District of Columbia of the 
    Senate and House of Representatives, respectively.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Both S. 3193 [see 106 Cong. Rec. 13598, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        21, 1960] and H.R. 11135 [see 106 Cong. Rec. 14130, 86th Cong. 
        2d Sess., June 23, 1960] were reported as bills ``to aid in the 
        development of a unified and integrated system of 
        transportation for the National Capital region; to create a 
        temporary National Capital Transportation Agency; to authorize 
        creation of a National Capital Transportation Corporation; to 
        authorize negotiation to create an interstate transportation 
        agency; and for other purposes.''
            Note: The Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan 
        Problems was extended by S. Con. Res. 2 (passed House Feb. 5, 
        1959); S. Con. Res. 59 (passed House Aug. 14, 1959); and S. 
        Con. Res. 82 (passed House Feb. 16, 1960).
15. See Sec. 7.2, supra, for creation of the Joint Committee on 
        Washington Metropolitan Problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the concurrent resolution was agreed 
to.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The permanent Record [106 Cong. Rec. 8546, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Apr. 21, 1960] and the House Journal [H. Jour. 293, 86th Cong. 
        2d Sess., Apr. 21, 1960] are at variance with respect to the 
        passage of S. Con. Res. 101. The permanent Record merely 
        discloses that the Committee on Rules was discharged from 
        consideration of the measure. The Journal, however, indicates 
        that the concurrent resolution was subsequently agreed to. 
        Further verification of this is evidenced by the House's 
        subsequent consideration of H.R. 11135 [106 Cong. Rec. 14569, 
        86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 27, 1960] when Mr. John R. Foley, of 
        Maryland, acknowledged the work performed by the Joint 
        Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2624]]


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
             B. COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN, MEMBERS, AND EMPLOYEES
 
Sec. 8. In General; Electing Chairmen


    The sections that follow discuss the manner in which the House 
elects chairmen of its committees.(17) Considerations 
involving the election of subcommittee chairmen are not reflected in 
the precedents, how ever. These are matters determined by the majority 
party of the particular Congress pursuant to that party's rules of 
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For a discussion of the role of party organizations in this 
        process, see Ch. 3, supra. For an in-depth treatment of how the 
        majority party of a given Congress chooses committee chairmen 
        nominees, see the rules of the Democratic Caucus and the 
        minutes of the Republican Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, under the 1977 rules of the Democratic 
Caucus,(18), once the Caucus has approved that party's 
nominees to the standing committees (or other committees with 
legislative jurisdiction), the chairman of each is obliged to call a 
meeting of all the Democratic members of the committee, giving at least 
three days notice and prior to any organizational meeting of the full 
committee. Then, Democratic members of the committee have the right, in 
order of full committee seniority, or seniority on the subcommittee 
concerned, as the Democratic Caucus on the committee [i.e., all the 
Democratic members of the committee] may determine, to bid for 
subcommittee chairmanships.(19) The committee caucus then 
votes by secret ballot and the request must be supported by at least a 
majority of those present. If the committee caucus rejects a 
subcommittee chairmanship bid, the next senior Democratic member may 
bid for the position. An exception to this procedure occurs with 
respect to the subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations--in 
which case it is required that the full Democratic Caucus shall also 
vote by secret ballot on each Member nominated to serve as chairman of 
an appropriations subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Democratic Caucus rules (June 2, 1977) section M III A.
19. Democratic Caucus rules (June 2, 1977) section M V A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Procedures affecting Republican subcommittee members have been less 
formalized.(20) With respect to selecting ranking Republican 
members on committees generally, or chairmen when the Republican party 
is in the majority, the Re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2625]]

publican Conference in 1970 adopted procedures recommended by the 
Conable task force (21) whereby the conference, by secret 
ballot, votes separately on nominations made by the Committee on 
Committees. Such nominations are made not necessarily on the basis of 
seniority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See Ch. 3, Sec. 9.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Resolution

Sec. 8.1 The chairman of a standing committee is elected by privileged 
    resolution recommended by the majority party caucus or Committee on 
    Committees and adopted by the House.

    On June 5, 1963,(22) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Wilbur D. Mills,(23) of 
Arkansas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 109 Cong. Rec. 10187, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
23. Mr. Mills was Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and 
        Chairman of the Democratic Committee on Committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 388) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana, be and he is 
        hereby elected chairman of the Standing Committee of the House 
        of Representatives on Un-American Activities. The resolution 
        was agreed to.

Privileged Status of Resolution Electing Chairman

Sec. 8.2 A resolution providing for the election of the chairman of a 
    standing committee of the House is called up as privileged by the 
    chairman of the majority party entity designated to recommend 
    committee assignments.

    On Nov. 18, 1970,(24) a vacancy having developed in the 
chairmanship of the Committee on Government Operations,(25) 
Mr. Wilbur D. Mills,(26) of Arkansas, offered the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 1263) and asked for its immediate 
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 116 Cong Rec. 37823, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
25. The vacancy was caused by the death of William L. Dawson (Ill.), 
        who had chaired the committee for 15 consecutive years.
26. Mr. Mills was Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means as well 
        as the Democratic Committee on Committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That Chet Holifield, of California, be, and he is 
    hereby, elected Chairman of the standing committee of the House of 
    Representatives on Government Operations.

    The resolution was agreed to without debate.

[[Page 2626]]

Death of Chairman

Sec. 8.3 When a vacancy is created on a standing committee by the death 
    of its chairman, the House by resolution elects a new chairman to 
    fill the vacancy.

    On Sept. 21, 1961,(27) a vacancy having developed in the 
chairmanship of the Committee on Science and 
Astronautics,(1) Speaker pro-tempore John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, and the 
following events transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. 107 Cong. Rec. 20549, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. The vacancy was caused by the death of Overton Brooks (La.), who 
        had served as chairman of the committee from 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 474) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That George P. Miller, of California, be, and he 
        is hereby, elected chairman of the standing Committee of the 
        House of Representatives on Science and Astronautics.
            The resolution was agreed to.

Election During Final Days of Congress

Sec. 8.4 The House adopted a privileged resolution electing a Member 
    Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services during the final three 
    days of the 91st Congress, to fill a vacancy.

    On Dec. 30, 1970,(2) a vacancy having developed in the 
chairmanship of the Committee on Armed Services,(3) Mr. 
Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, was recognized by Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, and the following events took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 44163, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The vacancy was caused by the death of L. Mendel Rivers (S.C.) on 
        Dec. 28, 1970. Mr. Rivers had served as chairman of the 
        committee since 1965.
            Mr. Philbin was a ``lame-duck'' Member of the 91st 
        Congress, having been defeated for renomination to the 92d 
        Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Committees, I 
    offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 1322), and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

            Resolved, That Philip J. Philbin, of Massachusetts, be, and 
        he is hereby, elected chairman of the standing committee of the 
        House of Representatives on Armed Services. The resolution was 
        agreed to.

Election Following Resignation

Sec. 8.5 The House agreed to a resolution electing a chairman of a 
    standing committee

[[Page 2627]]

    after the previous chairman resigned.

    On Sept. 24, 1940,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
laid before the House the following communication which was read by the 
Clerk:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 12560, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               September 18, 1940.
        Hon. Sam Rayburn,
        Speaker of the House of Representatives, U.S., Washington, D.C.

        My Dear Mr. Speaker: I hereby respectfully tender my 
    resignation as chairman of the Committee on the Public Lands [now 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs].

        It is my intention to remain on the committee as a member.

              Respectfully,
                                                  Rene L. Derouen.

    The Speaker inquired as to whether there was any objection, and 
none being heard, the resignation was accepted.
    Immediately thereafter, the Chair recognized Mr. Robert L. 
Doughton,(5) of North Carolina:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Mr. Doughton was Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I offer the following resolution, which I send to 
    the desk, and I move its immediate adoption.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 610

            Resolved, That J. W. Robinson, of Utah be, and he is 
        hereby, elected chairman of the standing committee of the House 
        of Representatives on Public Lands.
            The resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 8.6 The House elected chairmen to two standing committees after 
    accepting resignations from the previous chairmen.

    On Oct. 14, 1940,(6) resignations were accepted from Mr. 
Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, and Mr. John J. Cochran, of New 
York, as chairmen of their respective committees. By separate 
resolutions, Mr. Cochran was elected to chair the House standing 
Committee on Accounts [now, the Committee on House Administration] and 
Mr. James A. O'Leary, of New York, to chair the Committee on 
Expenditures in the Executive Departments [now, the Committee on 
Government Operations].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 13551, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Record discloses these changes to have been effected as 
follows:

        The Speaker laid before the House the following resignation:
                                                  Washington, D.C.
         Hon. Sam Rayburn,
        Speaker, House of Representatives.

            My Dear Mr. Speaker: I herewith submit my resignation as 
        chairman of the Committee on Accounts, effective at the close 
        of business October 31, 1940.

[[Page 2628]]

              Respectfully,
                                                Lindsay C. Warren.

        The Speaker: (7) Without objection, the resignation 
    will be accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker laid before the House the following resignation:
                                                  Washington, D.C.
        Hon. Sam Rayburn,
        Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

        My Dear Mr. Speaker: I herewith submit my resignation as 
    chairman of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive 
    Departments, effective at the close of business October 31.
        It is my intention to retain my membership on the committee.

              Sincerely yours,
                                                  John J. Cochran.

        The Speaker: Without objection, the resignation will be 
    accepted. There was no objection.

                           Election to Committees

        Mr. [Thomas H.] Cullen [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 626) and move its adoption.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 626

            Resolved, That John J. Cochran, of Missouri, be, and he is 
        hereby, elected chairman of the standing committee of the House 
        of Representatives on Accounts, effective as of November 1, 
        1940.

        The resolution was agreed to.
        Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I offer a further privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 627) and move its adoption.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 627

            Resolved, That James A. O'Leary, of New York, be, and he is 
        hereby, elected chairman of the standing committee of the House 
        of Representatives on Expenditures in the Executive 
        Departments, effective as of November 1, 1940.
            The resolution was agreed to.

Election Resolutions; Recognition to Offer

Sec. 8.7 A resolution electing a Chairman of the Committee on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries [a vacancy having been created by the death of 
    the former chairman] was offered by the Chairman of the Committee 
    on Ways and Means in his capacity as Chairman of the majority 
    party's Committee on Committees.

    On Jan. 10, 1966,(8) a vacancy having arisen in the 
chairmanship of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries,(9) Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 6, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. The vacancy developed upon the death of Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.), 
        on Nov. 7, 1965. Mr. Bonner had chaired the committee since 
        1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 630) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 2629]]

        The Clerk recall the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 630

            Resolved, That Edward A. Garmatz, of Maryland, be and he is 
        hereby, elected chairman of the standing Committee of the House 
        of Representatives on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

    Immediately thereafter, the resolution was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The appointment of committee chairmen is 
ultimately determined by the party organizations, i.e., the Democratic 
Caucus or the Republican Conference depending upon which party 
constitutes the majority party at the time. For treatment of this 
subject, see Chapter 3, supra.
    Beginning with the 94th Congress, the Steering and Policy 
Committee, chosen by the Democratic Caucus, rather than the Democratic 
membership of the Ways and Means Committee, has acted in the capacity 
of the Democratic Committee on Committees. The Chairman of the 
Democratic Caucus is now recognized to offer resolutions electing 
committee chairmen and members. (See, for example, H. Jour. 127, 95th 
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 19, 1977.)


                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
             B. COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN, MEMBERS, AND EMPLOYEES
 
Sec. 9. Electing Members to Standing Committees

    The sections that follow discuss the manner in which the House 
elects members to standing committees.(10) Considerations 
involving the election of members to subcommittees are not reflected in 
the precedents, as determinations are separately made by the majority 
and minority party members who constitute the membership of the 
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. For a discussion of the role of party organizations with regard to 
        this process, see Ch. 3, supra. For an in-depth treatment of 
        the role of party organizations with respect to committee 
        assignments, see the rules of the Democratic Caucus and the 
        rules of the Republican Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, under the 1977 rules of the Democratic 
Caucus,(11) once the Caucus has approved that party's 
nominees to the standing committees (or other committees with 
legislative jurisdiction), the chairman of each is obliged to call a 
meeting of all the Democratic members of the committee, giving at least 
three days notice and prior to any organizational meeting of the full 
committee.(12) The Democratic members of the committee-also 
known as the committee caucus--then fill the subcommittee positions in 
the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Democratic Caucus rules (June 2, 1977) section M III A.
12. Democratic Caucus rules (June 2, 1977) section M V B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) Step One--Members who served on the committee in the 
    preceding Con

[[Page 2630]]

    gress shall be entitled to retain not more than two subcommittee 
    assignments held on that committee in the preceding Congress. 
    Members chosen as subcommittee chairmen . . . shall be entitled to 
    retain only one other subcommittee assignment held on that 
    committee in the preceding Congress.
        (2) Step Two--Members who retain no subcommittee assignments in 
    Step One and new Members shall be entitled, in order of their 
    ranking on the full committee, to select one subcommittee position 
    each.
        (3) Step Three--Members who have selected only one subcommittee 
    assignment shall be entitled, in order of their ranking on the full 
    committee, to select a second subcommittee assignment, to the 
    extent that subcommittee size permits.
        (4) Step Four--Any remaining subcommittee vacancies shall be 
    filled by additional rounds of selection in order of Members' 
    ranking on the full committee.
        (5) If a committee Caucus determines . . . that Members may bid 
    for subcommittee chairmanships by subcommittee rather than full 
    committee seniority, the ranking Members on each subcommittee shall 
    be determined by the order in which Members elect to go on the 
    subcommittee.

    The Republican Conference does not have a definitive rule or 
procedure for selecting its proposed subcommittee 
members.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Rules of the Conference of the Republican members-elect of the 
        United States House of Representatives, 96th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Resolutions at the commencement of a 
Congress initially electing Members to standing committees have 
traditionally been called up as privileged at the direction of the 
party organization.(14) As the result of adoption of the 
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-
70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975), 
beginning in the 94th Congress the overall size of standing committees 
was no longer designated in the standing rules, but party caucuses were 
specifically vested with authority to nominate Members for election to 
standing committees at the commencement of each 
Congress.(15) Thus, beginning with the 94th Congress, the 
overall size of committees was in effect determined by the committee 
ratios negotiated by the party leaders at the direction of their 
respective party organizations and by the resulting numbers of Members 
elected to those committees by separate privileged resolutions called 
up by each party's designee. The party organizations retained the 
customary prerogative of calling up as privileged resolutions electing 
committee members subsequent to the election of members at the 
commencement of each

[[Page 2631]]

Congress, either in situations where specific vacancies had been 
created by resignations accepted by the House, where additional 
majority or minority members were being elected to committees pursuant 
to an implicit understanding between the two party organizations as to 
the existence of ``vacancies'' based upon the ratio on, and the absence 
of a designated overall size of, that standing committee, or where 
reranking of elected Members was necessary to conform with party caucus 
rules on simultaneous holding of party and committee positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2179, 2182.
15. Rule X clause 6(a) (1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 701(a) 
        (1979).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electing Many Members Simultaneously at Beginning of Congress

Sec. 9.1 The House by a single privileged resolution recommended by 
    party caucus or conference normally erects en bloc most members 
    from a particular party to various committees of the House.

    On Jan. 23, 1967,(16) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, who offered 
the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 165): (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 1086, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Only a few of the Members' named, are shown in this excerpt from 
        the resolution. In its entirety, the resolution provided for 
        the election of more than 240 Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the following-named Members be, and they are 
    hereby, elected members of the following standing committees of the 
    House of Representatives:
        Committee on Agriculture: W. R. Poage (chairman), Texas; E. C. 
    Gathings, Arkansas; John L. McMillan, South Carolina; Thomas G. 
    Abernethy, Mississippi; Watkins M. Abbitt, Virginia. . . .
        Committee on Banking and Currency: Wright Patman (chairman), 
    Texas; Abraham J. Multer, New York; William A. Barrett, 
    Pennsylvania; Leonor K. (Mrs. John B.) Sullivan, Missouri; Henry S. 
    Reuss, Wisconsin . . . .
        Committee on the District of Columbia: John L. McMillan 
    (chairman), South Carolina; Thomas G. Abernethy, Mississippi; 
    William L. Dawson, Illinois; Abraham J. Multer, New York. . . .
        Committee on Education and Labor: Carl D. Perkins (chairman), 
    Kentucky; Edith Green, Oregon; Frank Thompson, Jr., New Jersey; 
    Elmer J. Holland, Pennsylvania; John H. Dent, Pennsylvania. . . .
        Committee on Foreign Affairs: Thomas E. Morgan (chairman), 
    Pennsylvania; Clement J. Zablocki, Wisconsin; Omar Burleson, Texas; 
    Edna F. Kelly, New York. . . .
        Committee on Government Operations: William L. Dawson 
    (chairman),

[[Page 2632]]

    Illinois; Chet Holifield, California; Jack Brooks, Texas; L. H. 
    Fountain, North Carolina. . . .
        Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: Wayne N. Aspinall 
    (chairman), Colorado; James A. Haley, Florida; Ed Edmondson, 
    Oklahoma; Walter S. Baring, Nevada. . . .
        Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: Harley O. 
    Staggers (chairman), West Virginia; Samuel N. Friedel, Maryland; 
    Torbert H. Macdonald, Massachusetts; John Jarman, Oklahoma. . . .
        Committee on the Judiciary: Emanuel Celler (chairman), New 
    York; Michael A. Feighan, Ohio; Edwin E. Willis, Louisiana; Peter 
    W. Rodino, Jr., New Jersey. . . .
        Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries: Edward A. Garmatz 
    (chairman), Maryland; Leonor K. (Mrs. John B.) Sullivan, Missouri; 
    Frank M. Clark, Pennsylvania; Thomas L. Ashley, Ohio. . . .
        Committee on Post Office and Civil Service: Thaddeus J. Dulski 
    (chairman), New York; David N. Henderson, North Carolina; Arnold 
    Olsen, Montana; Morris K. Udall, Arizona. . . .
        Committee on Public Works: George H. Fallon (chairman), 
    Maryland; John A. Blatnik, Minnesota; Robert E. Jones, Alabama; 
    John C. Kluczynski, Illinois. . . .
        Committee on Science and Astronautics: George P. Miller 
    (chairman), California; Olin E. Teague, Texas; Joseph E. Karth, 
    Minnesota; Ken Hechler, West Virginia. . . .
        Committee on Un-American Activities: Edwin E. Willis 
    (chairman), Louisiana; William M. Tuck, Virginia; Joe R. Pool, 
    Texas; Richard H. Ichord, Missouri. . . .
        Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Olin E. Teague (chairman), 
    Texas; W. J. Bryan Dorn, South Carolina; James A. Haley, Florida; 
    Walter S. Baring, Nevada. . . .

    Shortly thereafter,(18) the resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 1087, 90th Cong. Ist Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committees on Appropriations, House 
Administration, Rules, and Ways and Means had been previously elected, 
it being necessary to the early organization of the House in the 90th 
Congress.

Electing Members to Newly Created Committees

Sec. 9.2 Members are elected to newly created standing committees of 
    the House by privileged resolution called up by the party caucus.

    On May 1, 1967,(19) shortly after the House convened, 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means (and 
the Democratic Committee on Committees), who offered a privilege 
resolution (H. Res. 457), which read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 11281, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the following-named Members be, and they are 
    hereby,

[[Page 2633]]

    elected members of the standing Committee of the House of 
    Representatives on Standard of Official Conduct: Melvin Price 
    (chairman), Illinois; Olin E. Teague, Texas; Joe L. Evins, 
    Tennessee; Watkins M. Abbitt, Virginia; Wayne N. Aspinall, 
    Colorado; Edna F. Kelly, New York.

    House Resolution 457 was agreed to without debate.

    Immediately thereafter, Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, the Minority 
Leader, offered a similarly privileged resolution (H. Res. 458) which 
stated:

        Resolved, That the following-named Members be, and they are 
    hereby, elected members of the standing Committee on Standards of 
    Official Conduct: Charles A. Halleck, Indiana; Leslie C. Arends, 
    Illinois; Jackson E. Betts, Ohio; Robert T. Stafford, Vermont; 
    James H. Quillen, Tennessee; Lawrence G. Williams, Pennsylvania.

    House Resolution 458, the minority party's counterpart to House 
Resolution 457, was also agreed to without debate.
    Parliamentarian's Note: On occasion, the Member offering a 
resolution electing a person or persons to a standing committee will 
acknowledge the fact that such proposals arise from party 
determinations. See, for example, 108 Cong. Rec. 263, 87th Cong. 2d 
Sess., Jan. 16, 1962, where Mr. Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, 
offered a similar resolution ``by direction of the Democratic Caucus.''
    See Sec. 9.4, infra, for the resolution (H. Res. 418) establishing 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Privileged Status of Electing Resolution

Sec. 9.3 A resolution providing for the election of a Member to a 
    standing committee of the House is presented as privileged.

    On July 8, 1969,(20) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, who, in his 
capacity as Chairman of the majority party's Committee on 
Committees,(21) made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 18608, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
21. See Ch. 3, Sec. 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 471) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.

    The resolution (H. Res. 471) as then read by the Clerk, as follows:

        Resolved, That John Melcher, of Montana, be, and he is hereby, 
    elected to the standing committee of the House of Representatives 
    on Agriculture.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. For another example see 112 Cong. Rec. 27486, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Oct. 18, 1966, where a resolution (H. Res. 1066) providing for 
        the election of Mr. Richard L. Ottinger [N.Y.], to the 
        Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce was similarly 
        presented as privileged.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2634]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: Immediately prior to the consideration of 
House Resolution 471 as privileged, the House had by unanimous consent 
considered and agreed to House Resolution 470 (1) which 
expanded the size of the Committee on Agriculture from 33 to 34 members 
for the remainder of the 91st Congress, in order that a vacancy could 
be created on that committee to which Mr. John Melcher, of Montana, 
could then be elected by privileged resolution reported from the 
Democratic Committee on Committees. This sequence of consideration of 
resolutions, first creating a vacancy on a standing committee and then 
electing a Member to fill that vacancy is illustrative of the practice 
traditionally followed by the House until the end of the 93d Congress. 
Under that practice, Rule X of the standing rules designated the 
overall size of each standing committee, and resolutions enlarging the 
size of standing committees were either considered by unanimous consent 
or by privileged report from the Committee on Rules. Then, with a 
vacancy having been so created, or by resignation of a committee member 
accepted by the House, the consideration of a resolution at the 
direction of the party caucus or committee on committees became 
privileged in order to fill the vacancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 18608, 91st Cong. 1st Sess, July 8, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Significance of Party Ratios

Sec. 9.4 In both the House and Senate, the party ratios on most 
    standing committees tend to reflect the relative membership of the 
    two parties in the House or Senate as a whole. Sometimes, however, 
    the membership of a committee is equally divided between the 
    majority and minority parties where bipartisan deliberations are 
    considered essential.

    On Apr. 13, 1967,(2) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, called up House 
Resolution 418 and asked for its immediate consideration. The 
resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 9425, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That there is hereby established a standing committee 
    of the House of Representatives to be known as the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct (hereafter referred to as

[[Page 2635]]

    the ``committee''). The committee shall be composed of twelve 
    Members of the House of Representatives. Six members of the 
    committee shall be members of the majority party and six shall be 
    members of the minority party.
        Sec. 2. The jurisdiction of the committee shall be to recommend 
    as soon as practicable to the House of Representatives such changes 
    in laws, rules, and regulations as the committee deems necessary to 
    establish and enforce standards of official conduct for Members, 
    officers, and employees of the House.
        Sec. 3. The committee may hold such hearings and take such 
    testimony as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this 
    resolution.

    In the course of the ensuing discussion, Mr. Colmer directly 
touched upon the division of the committee's membership between the 
parties. He explained the unusual arrangement, as follows:

        The resolution authorizes that standing committee to consist of 
    12 members, six from the majority side and six from the minority 
    side. Why was that done? It was done because the committee in its 
    wisdom recognized that this aisle here, separating the minority 
    from the majority, does not apply in the matter of honor and 
    integrity and ethics. The subject matter is not political. For the 
    same reason, it was made a standing committee rather than a select 
    committee on the theory that there is no reason to suspect or to 
    believe that the 91st Congress and its successors will be more 
    ethical or more honorable than the 90th Congress.

    The resolution was adopted (3) by a yea and nay vote of 
400 to 0.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 9448.
 4. See Sec. 9.5, infra, where the more typical situation of 
        maintaining appropriate party ratios within committees was 
        discussed in the Senate relative to a decision of a Senator to 
        change his party affiliation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: See Chapter 3, Sec. 9, supra, for 
discussion of determinations relating to party ratios on standing 
committees.

Sec. 9.5 The Senate Majority Leader announced that the change in party 
    affiliation by a Senator might necessitate a change in party ratios 
    on certain committees, depending on the committee assignment given 
    the Senator.

    On Sept. 21, 1964,(5) Presiding Officer Pierre E. G. 
Salinger, of California, of the Senate recognized Majority Leader 
Michael J. Mansfield, of Montana, who then discussed the implications 
of a recent shift in party affiliation by a Senator who sat on the 
Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Armed Services. The 
relationship between party affiliation and the composition of most 
committees (6) is readily ap
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 22369, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. See Sec. 9.4, supra, for an instance in which the membership of a 
        particular committee in the House was divided equally between 
        the majority and minority parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2636]]

parent in the exchange which ensued:

        Mr. Mansfield: Mr. President, in view of the fact that the 
    distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] has, on 
    his own volition, changed his allegiance from the Democratic to the 
    Republican Party, I feel that I should make a statement relative to 
    his committee assignments.
        The present Senate ratio is 66 Democrats to 34 Republicans--
    that is, with the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] going 
    over to the Republican side of the aisle.
        This means that the Democrats would be entitled to 66 percent 
    of the membership on the two committees. The present overall 
    membership on both committees is 17.
        Prior to Senator Thurmond's change of party, the Democrats had 
    12 seats on each and the Republicans had 5.
        When I refer to these two committees, I refer of course to the 
    Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Armed Services.
        If the party ratio of the present membership of the Senate as a 
    whole is applied to the 17-man membership of each committee, it 
    yields 11.2 Democrats and 5.8 Republicans. In the circumstances, 
    unless it is intended to change the old ratio in some other 
    committee or committees, it would appear that the Republicans would 
    be entitled to an additional seat on each of the two committees and 
    the Democrats would lose them. In short, the ratio would become 11 
    to 6 instead of 12 to 5. Following precedent, each party determines 
    its choice of members for each committee. In the present 
    circumstances, it would be, therefore, the decision of the 
    Republican caucus as to whether or not Senator Thurmond retains his 
    present membership on the two committees or some other Republican 
    is substituted for him and he is otherwise assigned. If he remains 
    on the Armed Services and Commerce by choice of the Republican 
    caucus, no Senate action is necessary. If the Republicans decide to 
    shift him, a pro forma resolution of the Senate would be necessary 
    to reflect the shift.
        Mr. [Everett McKinley] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. President, 
    will the majority leader yield?
        Mr. Mansfield: I yield.
        Mr. Dirksen: I am delighted that the majority leader has 
    clarified this question concerning the party ratio on the two 
    committees in question. We shall have a policy meeting tomorrow. 
    And it is entirely correct that this matter should be discussed. I 
    am delighted, indeed, that the majority leader has clarified the 
    situation at this time.
        Mr. Mansfield: I thank the minority leader.

Designation of Rank

Sec. 9.6 The House adopted a resolution electing a Member to a 
    committee of the House and designating his rank thereon.

    On June 29, 1961,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 11797, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2637]]

nized Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, who offered the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 367):

        Resolved, That J. Edward Roush, of Indiana, be, and he is 
    hereby elected, a member of the standing committee of the House of 
    Representatives on Science and Astronautics and to rank number 10th 
    thereon.

    Immediately thereafter, the resolution was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The election of Mr. Roush to the committee 
was delayed pending the resolution of a contested-election case 
involving his seat. He did not take the oath as a Member until June 14, 
1961.

Sec. 9.7 The House agreed to a resolution electing Members to a 
    committee and fixing their relative rank thereon.

    On Feb. 8, 1943,(8) the following resolution (H. Res. 
103) was considered and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 89 Cong. Rec. 692, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the following-named Members be, and they are 
    hereby elected members of the standing Committee of the House of 
    Representatives on the District of Columbia, to rank as follows:
        Third, Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., Maryland.
        Fifth, Sam M. Russell, Texas.
        Sixth, Oren Harris, Arkansas.
        Seventh, F. Edward Hebert, Louisiana.

Electing Members to Vacancies

Sec. 9.8 A resolution electing five Members to individual vacancies on 
    five standing committees was agreed to by the House.

    On July 25, 1963,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, who offered 
a privileged resolution (H. Res. 459) and sought its immediate 
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 109 Cong. Rec. 13336, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk then read the resolution, as follows:

        Resolved, That the following-named Members be, and they are 
    hereby, elected members of the following standing committees of the 
    House of Representatives:
        Committee on Banking and Currency: Compton I. White, Idaho.
        Committee on House Administration: Lucien N. Nedzi, Michigan.
        Committee on the Judiciary: Don Edwards, California.
        Committee on Post Office and Civil Service: Charles H. Wilson, 
    California.
        Committee on Un-American Activities: George F. Senner, Jr., 
    Arizona.

    Immediately thereafter, the resolution was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The vacancies resulted both from res

[[Page 2638]]

ignations accepted by the House and from failure to elect to some of 
the named committees in the first instance up to the total size 
designated in Rule X.

Electing Members of Abolished Committee to Newly Created Committee

Sec. 9.9 The House adopted a privileged resolution electing the sitting 
    majority and minority members of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities to the newly created Committee on Internal Security and 
    rereferring all bills and other papers pending before the Committee 
    on Un-American Activities to the new committee.

    On Feb. 18, 1969,(10) following the passage 
(11) of a resolution (H. Res. 89) abolishing the Committee 
on Un-American Activities and transferring its jurisdiction, records, 
and property to a new standing committee to be known as the Committee 
on Internal Security, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, Chairman of the Democratic 
Committee on Committees, who offered a privileged resolution (H. Res. 
251) (12) which read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 3747, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Id. at p. 3746.
12. Id. at p. 3747.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the following-named Members be, and they are 
    hereby, elected to the standing Committee of the House of 
    Representatives on Internal Security: Richard H. Ichord (chairman), 
    Missouri; Claude Pepper, Florida; Edwin W. Edwards, Louisiana; 
    Richardson Preyer, North Carolina; Louis Stokes, Ohio; John M. 
    Ashbrook, Ohio; Richard L. Roudebush, Indiana; Albert W. Watson, 
    South Carolina; William J. Scherle, Iowa.
        Resolved, That all bills, resolutions, executive 
    communications, petitions and memorials heretofore referred to the 
    Committee on Un-American Activities in the 91st Congress are hereby 
    referred to the Committee on Internal Security.

    The resolution was immediately agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Both majority and minority party members 
were elected by name (rather than by simply electing the ``sitting 
members of the Committee on Un-American Activities to the Committee on 
Internal Security'') so that their election could be more easily 
certified to a court in case of legal proceedings dealing with the 
committee. This procedure avoided the necessity of referring back to 
the previous resolutions electing them to the Committee on Un-American 
Activities.

[[Page 2639]]

Electing Standing Committee Members to Newly Renamed Committee

Sec. 9.10 The House agreed to a resolution providing that those members 
    elected to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive 
    Departments were thereby elected, though not individually named, to 
    the Committee on Government Operations, and all documents 
    previously referred to the Committee on Expenditures in the 
    Executive Departments were transferred to the Committee on 
    Government Operations.

    On July 4, 1952,(13) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, who offered the 
following privileged resolution (H. Res. 735) and asked for its 
immediate consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 98 Cong. Rec. 9376, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That those Members of the House elected to the 
    Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments are hereby 
    elected to the Committee on Government Operations, and all records 
    and papers of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive 
    Departments are hereby transferred to the Committee on Government 
    Operations.
        That all bills, resolutions, communications, papers, documents, 
    petitions, and memorials heretofore referred to the Committee on 
    Expenditures in the Executive Departments are hereby referred to 
    the Committee on Government Operations.

    Immediately thereafter, the resolution was agreed 
to.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. On the preceding day, the name change was effected in the rules; 
        see 98 Cong. Rec. 9217, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., July 3, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.11 The rules were amended to change the name of the Committee on 
    Public Lands to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The 
    members elected to the Committee on Public Lands were immediately 
    thereafter elected to the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs, and all papers and documents were to be transferred to the 
    newly named committee.

    On Feb. 2, 1951,(15) the Committee on Public Lands 
became the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The proceedings 
took place, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 883, 884, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Lyle [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 100 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 2640]]

            Resolved, That Clause (a) 14 of rule X of the Rules of the 
        House of Representatives is amended by striking out ``Committee 
        on Public Lands'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Committee on 
        Interior and Insular Affairs.''
            Clause (1) (n) of rule XI is amended by striking out 
        ``Committee on Public Lands'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.''
            Clause (2) (a) of rule XI is amended by striking out 
        ``Committee on Public Lands'' where it appears in the said 
        clause and inserting in lieu thereof ``Committee on Interior 
        and Insular Affairs.''
            Clause 1 of rule XII is amended by striking out ``Public 
        Lands'' where it appears in said clause and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``Interior and Insular Affairs.''. . .

        Mr. [John R.] Murdock [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I offer the 
    following resolution (H. Res. 111) to implement the resolution just 
    adopted, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That those Members of the House elected to the 
        Committee on Public Lands are hereby elected to the Committee 
        on Interior and Insular Affairs, and all records and papers of 
        the Committee on Public Lands are hereby transferred to the 
        Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
            That all bills, resolutions, communications, papers, 
        documents, petitions, and memorials heretofore referred to the 
        Committee on Public Lands are hereby referred to the Committee 
        on Interior and Insular Affairs.
            The resolution was agreed to.

Electing Incumbent Members for Specified Time for Organizational 
    Purposes

Sec. 9.12 The House adopted three privileged resolutions, offered from 
    the floor by the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, electing 
    [incumbent] members of the majority to certain committees until 
    Mar. 1, 1973, or until adoption prior to that date of resolutions 
    providing otherwise.

    On Jan. 6, 1973,(16) Olin E. Teague, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Democratic Caucus, offered seriatim three privileged resolutions 
(H. Res. 95, H. Res. 96, H. Res. 97) electing incumbent members of his 
party to three of the House's standing committees with a proviso 
limiting the extent of the members' service. The proviso, identically 
worded in all three resolutions, indicated that the election of the 
Members was valid only ``until March 1, 1973, unless a resolution 
providing otherwise is adopted by the House. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 380, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    House Resolutions 95, 96, and 97--electing Democratic members to 
the Committees on Appropriations, Rules, and House Administration, 
respectively--were all agreed to, immediately.

[[Page 2641]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: These resolutions reflected the policy of 
the Democratic Caucus that it approve of all recommendations submitted 
by its Committee on Committees (which had not then been organized, the 
Ways and Means majority no longer serving as the Democratic Committee 
on Committees in the 93d Congress), yet permitted the named committees 
to be able to transact organizational business at the beginning of the 
session.

Election of Delegate

Sec. 9.13 By privileged resolution, the House elected the Delegate from 
    the District of Columbia to the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia as required by the rules.

    On Apr. 21, 1971,(17) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, who offered the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 398):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 117 Cong. Rec. 11151, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That Walter E. Fauntroy, Delegate from the District 
    of Columbia, be, and he is hereby, elected to the standing 
    committee of the House of Representatives on the District of 
    Columbia.

    The resolution was agreed to, immediately.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The rules provide (18) that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 740 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Delegate from the District of Columbia shall be elected to 
    serve as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia and 
    each Delegate to the House shall be elected to serve on standing 
    committees of the House in the same manner as Members of the House 
    and shall possess in all committees on which he serves the same 
    powers and privileges as the other members.

    The Delegate from the District of Columbia is elected to serve as 
an additional member of the Committee on the District of Columbia. 
Prior to 1975, the rules (19) listed the numerical size of 
every standing committee. If the House chose to increase the size of a 
committee, the Members would adopt a resolution to that effect. In the 
traditional practice, however, the Delegate from the District of 
Columbia was not counted as being among the regular number of members 
on that committee. Accordingly, resolutions electing the Delegate did 
not call for an increase in the number of members on the committee. The 
same principle applied to the election of a Delegate or a Resident 
Commissioner to other committees pursuant to the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Rule X clauses 1(a)-(u), House Rules and Manual Sec. 670 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whether or not the election of a Delegate or Resident Commis

[[Page 2642]]

sioner affects the party ratios has been a determination made by the 
party organizations (i.e., the Democratic Caucus and the Republican 
Conference) from Congress to Congress.

Election of Majority Leader to Committee

Sec. 9.14 A Member [who was also the Majority Leader] was elected to 
    the Committee on Science and Astronautics.

    On May 15, 1961,(1) following the passage of a 
resolution (H. Res. 289) providing that the Committee on Science and 
Astronautics would be composed of 26 members during the 87th Congress, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, who offered the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 290) 
which read in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 7965, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the following-named Members be, and they are 
    hereby, elected members of the following standing committees of the 
    House of Representatives:
        Committee on Science and Astronautics: John W. McCormack, 
    Massachusetts. . . .

    Immediately thereafter, the resolution was agreed to.

Serving on Two or More Committees

Sec. 9.15 The Committee on Rules is considered by the Republican 
    Committee on Committees to be an ``exclusive'' committee; 
    therefore, Republican members of the Committee on Rules are not 
    generally permitted to hold assignments on the other standing 
    committees.

    On Feb. 7, 1966,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, laid before the House the following letter of 
resignation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 2383, 2384, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.

                                       House of Representatives,
                              Washington, D. C., February 7, 1966.
        Hon. John W. McCormack,
        Speaker of the House,
        House of Representatives,
        Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: I herewith tender my resignation as a member 
    of the Committee on Agriculture.
        Having thoroughly enjoyed my work on this committee, I wish to 
    advise the House that this resignation is being submitted in 
    accordance with a decision of our committee on committees that 
    members of the Committee on Rules should not have dual committee 
    assignments.

            Sincerely yours,
                                               Delbert L. Latta,
                                       Representative to Congress.

    Immediately thereafter, the Chair inquired as to whether

[[Page 2643]]

there was any objection, and none being heard, the resignation was 
accepted.

Membership as Retroactive

Sec. 9.16 The House may adopt a resolution electing a Member to a 
    committee retroactively and fixing his rank on such committee 
    accordingly.

    On Nov. 2, 1939,(3) in a special session of Congress, 
Mr. E. C. Gathings, of Arkansas, was elected to membership on the 
Committee on Claims [later to be incorporated into the Committee on the 
Judiciary] .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 85 Cong. Rec. 1283, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Coopper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I offer the 
    following privileged resolution, which I send to the desk and ask 
    to have read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 322

            Resolved, That E. C. Gathings, of Arkansas, be, and he is 
        hereby, elected a member of the standing committee of the House 
        of Representatives on Claims as of June 2, 1939, and shall take 
        rank accordingly.

        The Speaker:(4) The question is on agreeing to the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Gathings had been serving on the 
committee for several months due to a misconception, shared by all 
committee members, that he had already been validly named to that 
committee.



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
             B. COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN, MEMBERS, AND EMPLOYEES
 
Sec. 10. Appointments to Select Committees

Speaker Appoints Chairman and Members

Sec. 10.1 The Speaker appoints the chairmen and members of select 
    committees; such appointments are generally made by the Speaker 
    immediately after the adoption of the resolution creating the 
    committee.

    On July 10, 1969,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, who, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up a resolution (H. Res. 
472) and asked for its immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 19080, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution read as follows:

        Resolved, That (a) there is hereby created a select committee 
    to be known as the ``Committee on the House Restaurant,'' which 
    shall be composed of five Members of the House of Representatives 
    to be appointed by the

[[Page 2644]]

    Speaker, not more than three of whom shall be of the majority 
    party, and one of whom shall be designated as chairman. Any vacancy 
    occurring in the membership of the committee shall be filled in the 
    same manner in which the original appointment was made.
        (b) On and after July 15, 1969, until otherwise ordered by the 
    House, the Architect of the Capitol shall perform the duties vested 
    in him by section 208 of Public Law 812, 76th Congress (40 U.S.C. 
    174k) under the direction of the select committee herein created.

    Mr. Madden then proceeded to explain that:

        The function of this committee will be to establish rules and 
    regulations for the management and the operation and control of all 
    food facilities under control of the House of Representatives, and 
    elective on July 15, 1969. The Architect of the Capitol shall 
    manage the House food facilities under the direction of this select 
    Committee.

    The resolution was agreed to by voice vote.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 19081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the Speaker made the following 
announcement:

        Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 472, 91st 
    Congress, the Chair appoints as members of the Committee on the 
    House Restaurant the following Members of the House: Mr. Kluczynski 
    of Illinois, chairman; Mr. Steed of Oklahoma, Mr. Cabell of Texas, 
    Mr. Collier of Illinois, Mr. Thomson of Wisconsin.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For similar instances, see 114 Cong. Rec. 25064, 90th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 2, 1968 [appointments to Special Committee on 
        Campaign Expenditures]; 113 Cong. Rec. 17792, 90th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., June 28, 1967 [appointments to Select Committee on 
        Parking]; 112 Cong. Rec. 28112, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 20, 
        1966; [appointments to Select Committee on Standards and 
        Conduct]; and 109 Cong. Rec. 16754, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
        11, 1963 [appointments to a select committee to investigate 
        research programs].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to the rules of the 
House,(8) the Speaker ``shall appoint [Members to] all 
select and conference committees'' ordered by the House. This power 
extends to the appointment of Members to such committees when the House 
is in recess or during adjournment if such action has been authorized 
by the House.(9) Members appointed to select and conference 
committees have usually expressed their interest to the Speaker in 
advance. At some times the Member sponsoring the resolution creating a 
select committee has been appointed its chairman; (10) 
however, in modern practice, this is often disregarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule X clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 671A (1973). This 
        provision is contained in Rule X clause 6 (e) 701(d) in the 
        1979 House Rules and Manual.
 9. For examples of such authorization see Sec. Sec. 10.3, 10.4, infra.
10. Rule X clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 671A (1973).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2645]]

Appointments on Separate Days

Sec. 10.2 The majority and minority members of the Select Committee on 
    Small Business were appointed by the Speaker on separate days.

    On Feb. 7, 1961,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
informed the House that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 107 Cong. Rec. 1820, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to make the following announcement.
        Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 46, 87th 
    Congress, the Chair appoints as members of the Select Committee To 
    Conduct Studies and Investigations of the Problems of Small 
    Business the following Members of the House:
        Mr. Patman, Texas, chairman; Mr. Evins, Tennessee; Mr. Multer, 
    New York; Mr. Yates, Illinois; Mr. Steed, Oklahoma; Mr. Roosevelt, 
    California; Mr. Alford, Arkansas.

    Ten days later, on Feb. 17, 1961,(12) the Speaker 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 2271.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 46, 87th 
    Congress, the Chair appoints as additional members of the Select 
    Committee To Conduct Studies and Investigations of the Problems of 
    Small Business the following Members of the House:
        Mr. McCulloch, Ohio; Mr. Moore, West Virginia; Mr. Avery, 
    Kansas; Mr. Smith, California; Mr. Robison, New York; and Mr. 
    Derwinski, Illinois.

    Parliamentarian's Note: All of those appointed on Feb. 7, 1961, 
were members of the Speaker's party inasmuch as minority party members 
had not yet acted on the recommendations of their Committee on 
Committees. The majority party members were appointed in order to 
enable the committee to organize and to permit its chairman the 
opportunity to certify the employment of staff personnel.

Authorizing Appointments During Recess

Sec. 10.3 The Speaker may be authorized by unanimous consent to appoint 
    commissions and committees authorized by law or by the House during 
    a recess.

    On Aug. 7, 1948,(13) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Majority Leader Charles A. Halleck, of 
Indiana, who initiated the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 10248, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the 
    adjournment of the House until December 31, 1948, the Speaker be 
    authorized to appoint commissions, boards, and committees 
    authorized by law or by the House.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Indiana?

[[Page 2646]]

        There was no objection.

    The Speaker, acting pursuant to this authority, made the following 
appointment, which was announced on Dec. 31, 1948: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 10264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair announces that pursuant to the 
    provisions of House Resolution 18, Eightieth Congress, and the 
    order of the House of August 7, 1948, empowering him to appoint 
    commissions, boards, and committees authorized by law or by the 
    House, he did, on August 14, 1948, appoint as a member of the 
    Select Committee to Conduct a Study and Investigation of the 
    Problems of Small Business the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Hardy] 
    to fill the existing vacancy thereon caused by the resignation of 
    the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Kefauver].

Authorizing Appointments After Adjournment Sine Die

Sec. 10.4 The House may authorize the Speaker to appoint committees and 
    commissions authorized by law or by the House following the 
    adjournment of a session.

    On Aug. 21, 1937,(15) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, was 
recognized by Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, and the 
following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 9640, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
    notwithstanding the adjournment of the first session of the 
    Seventy-fifth Congress the Speaker be authorized to appoint 
    commissions and committees authorized by law or by the House.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        There was no objection.

Speaker Announces Appointments

Sec. 10.5 The Speaker announced his appointments to the special 
    committee to report to the House on the right of Adam C. Powell to 
    be sworn in as a Representative from New York.

    On Jan. 19, 1967,(16) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 1037, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 1, 90th 
    Congress, providing for a special committee to report to the House 
    upon the question of the right of Adam Clayton Powell to be sworn 
    in as a Representative from the State of New York in the 90th 
    Congress, as well as to his final right to a seat therein, the 
    Chair appoints the following members: Mr. Celler, of New York, 
    chairman; Mr. Corman, of California; Mr. Pepper, of Florida; Mr. 
    Conyers, of Michigan; Mr. Jacobs, of Indiana; Mr. Moore, of West 
    Virginia; Mr. Teague, of California; Mr.

[[Page 2647]]

    MacGregor, of Minnesota; and Mr. Thomson, of Wisconsin.

Announcing Appointments Made During Recess

Sec. 10.6 Following a recess, the Speaker announces to the House the 
    fact that he has, pursuant to law, made an appointment during the 
    recess to fill a vacancy on a select committee.

    On Feb. 2, 1960,(17) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid 
before the House an announcement which the Clerk read, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 1822, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the provisions of section 5, Public Law 115, 78th 
    Congress, and House Resolution 165, 86th Congress, the Chair 
    appoints as a member of the Committee on the Disposition of 
    Executive Papers the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Kyl, to fill the 
    existing vacancy thereon.

Sec. 10.7 The Record generally discloses the Speaker's appointments to 
    a select committee or commission during an adjournment to a day 
    certain.

    Under date of July 26, 1948,(18) the Record discloses 
the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 9362, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Appointments Made After Adjournment

             investigation of federal communications commission

        The Speaker, pursuant to the authority conferred upon him by 
    House Resolution 691, Eightieth Congress, and the order of the 
    House of June 19, 1948, empowering him to appoint commissions, 
    boards, and committees authorized by law or by the House, did on 
    June 29, 1948, appoint as members of the select committee to 
    conduct a study and investigation of the organization, personnel 
    and activities of the Federal Communications Commission the 
    following Members of the House: Hon. Forest A. Harness, Indiana, 
    chairman; Hon. Leonard W. Hall, New York; Hon. Charles H. Elston, 
    Ohio; Hon. J. Percy Priest, Tennessee; Hon. Oren Harris, Arkansas.

           washington and lee university bicentennial commission

        The Speaker, pursuant to the authority conferred upon him by 
    Public Law 636, Eightieth Congress, and the order of the House of 
    June 19, 1948, empowering him to appoint commissions, boards, and 
    committees authorized by law or by the House, did on July 9, 1948, 
    appoint as members of the United States-Washington and Lee 
    University Bicentennial Commission the following members on the 
    part of the House to serve with himself: Hon. Clarence J. Brown, 
    Ohio; Hon. James W. Wadsworth, New York; Hon. John W. Flannagan, 
    Jr., Virginia; Hon. Fadjo Cravens, Arkansas.

Announcing Appointments Prior to Effective Date

Sec. 10.8 The Speaker has announced the appointments of

[[Page 2648]]

    Members to a commission, established by law, prior to the effective 
    date of the appointments.

    On Dec. 13, 1971,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 46530, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the provisions of section 1202, Public Law 91-452, 
    the Chair appoints the following Members on the part of the House 
    to be members of the National Commission on Individual Rights, 
    effective January 1, 1972: Mr. Celler, Mr. Mikva, Mr. McCulloch, 
    and Mr. Sandman.

Appointment of Speaker and Leaders

Sec. 10.9 The Speaker appoints himself and the Majority and Minority 
    Leaders as members of the Joint Committee on Inauguration.

    On June 4, 1968,(2) immediately after the House had 
concurred in a Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 73), 
establishing a joint committee to make arrangements for the upcoming 
inauguration, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, made the 
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 15870, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution 73, 
    90th Congress, the Chair appoints as Members of the Joint Committee 
    to make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of the 
    President-elect and the Vice-President-elect of the United States 
    on the 20th day of January 1969 the following Members on the part 
    of the House: Mr. McCormack, Mr. Albert, and Mr. Gerald R. Ford.


                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
             B. COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN, MEMBERS, AND EMPLOYEES

Sec. 11. Seniority Considerations (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See also Ch. 7, Sec. 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order of Members' Names on Resolution as Showing Seniority

Sec. 11.1 Committee seniority is shown by the order in which the 
    Members' names are listed in the resolution electing them to a 
    committee; and where an error was made in the order of names in a 
    resolution, the House, by unanimous consent, vacated the 
    proceedings, reconsidered the matter, and agreed to a corrective 
    amendment putting the names in proper order.

    On Feb. 3, 1969,(4) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, who sought
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 2433, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2649]]

unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings whereby the House had 
agreed to a resolution (H. Res. 176) on Jan. 29, 1969; and he requested 
the immediate reconsideration of the resolution with an amendment which 
he sent to the desk.

    House Resolution 176 provided that upon its adoption, the Members 
listed therein would be elected members of those standing committees 
which preceded their names. Among the committees and list of names was 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, as to which the resolution read as 
follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 2434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Charles M. Teague, California; 
    E. Ross Adair, Indiana; William H. Ayres, Ohio; John P. Saylor, 
    Pennsylvania; Seymour Halpern, New York; John J. Duncan, Tennessee; 
    John Paul Hammerschmidt, Arkansas; William L. Scott, Virginia; 
    Margaret M. Heckler, Massachusetts; John M. Zwach, Minnesota; 
    Robert V. Denney, Nebraska.

    There was no objection to the unanimous-consent 
request.(6) Accordingly, the Clerk read Mr. Ford's proposed 
amendment,(7) a few moments later, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 2433.
 7. Id. at p. 2434
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Gerald R. Ford: On page 7, lines 5 and 
    6, strike out ``E. Ross Adair, Indiana; William H. Ayres, Ohio;'' 
    and insert: ``William H. Ayres, Ohio; E. Ross Adair, Indiana;''

    The Congressman was then afforded an opportunity to explain the 
proposal which he did:

        Mr. Speaker, my amendment, which has just been read by the 
    Clerk, will correct the seniority standing of the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Ayres) on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

    Immediately thereafter, the Ford amendment was agreed to, and House 
Resolution 176, as amended, was agreed to.

Demotions in Seniority as Affecting Other Members

Sec. 11.2 Where, as a matter of party policy, the Democratic Caucus 
    instructed the Committee on Committees to assign the ``last 
    position'' on a committee to a particular Member (for party 
    disciplinary reasons), and the House agreed to a resolution with a 
    new listing of electees, other Members, subsequently elected to the 
    same committee, rank junior to him in committee seniority.

    On Jan. 18, 1965,(8) the House adopted a resolution (H. 
Res. 120) electing Members to 18 standing

[[Page 2650]]

committees. The last name (and thus, by custom, the committee member of 
least seniority) on the list of electees for the Committees on the 
District of Columbia and Interstate and Foreign Commerce was Mr. John 
Bell Williams, of Mississippi. Mr. Williams' reduction in rank on these 
committees was mandated by the Democratic Caucus which, for party 
disciplinary reasons,(9) had directed the Democrats' 
Committee on Committees to assign Mr. Williams to the ``last position'' 
on each of the two committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 809, 810, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. Mr. Williams had endorsed the Republican Presidential candidate of 
        1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(10) a resolution (H. Res. 1066) 
providing for the election of Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, to 
the Committee on interstate and Foreign Commerce was under 
consideration. The measure had been offered by Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, in his capacity as Chairman of the Democrats' Committee on 
Committees.(11) This situation prompted Mr. Williams to 
initiate the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 112 Cong. Rec. 2748G, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. See Ch. 3, supra, for information on party organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I want to ask this question. Since the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Ottinger] is a freshman Member, will he go above or below me 
    in our standing on the committee?
        Mr. Mills: I am delighted to advise my friend, the gentleman 
    from Mississippi, that the gentleman from New York will go at the 
    bottom of the committee.
        Mr. Williams: Well, now, may I say to the gentleman that this 
    is the second time the committee has discriminated against freshman 
    Members to fill two vacancies below my position on the committee.
        As the senior member of the committee, Mr. Speaker, I feel that 
    I should be either at the bottom of the committee or in the chair.

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then put the question 
on the resolution, it was adopted, and Mr. Ottinger was ranked junior 
to Mr. Williams in committee seniority.

Amending Resolution to Adjust Seniority Rankings

Sec. 11.3 By unanimous consent, the House vacated the proceedings 
    whereby it had, on a preceding day, agreed to a resolution electing 
    minority members of the Committee on Rules; the resolution was then 
    amended to adjust the seniority of the two ranking members on that 
    committee.

    On Jan. 26, 1973,(12) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 2313, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2651]]

nized Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, after which the 
following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings 
    whereby the House agreed to House Resolution 99 on January 6, 1973, 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 99

            Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are 
        hereby elected members of the standing committee of the House 
        of Representatives on Rules:
            John B. Anderson, Illinois; Dave Martin, Nebraska; James H. 
        Quillen, Tennessee; Delbert L. Latta, Ohio.

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gerald R. Ford: On line 4, strike 
        out ``John B. Anderson, Illinois; Dave Martin, Nebraska;'' and 
        insert ``Dave Martin, Nebraska; John B. Anderson, Illinois;''

    Mr. Ford's amendment was promptly agreed to; and the resolution, as 
amended, was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Upon being elected chairman of the 
Republican Conference, a Member was required, under the rules of that 
conference, to relinquish his position as ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Rules. Thus, while Mr. Anderson had had longer 
consecutive service on the Committee on Rules than had Mr. Martin, the 
former Member's election to the chairmanship of the Republican 
Conference had obligated him to relinquish his ranking position on the 
committee.



                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
             B. COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN, MEMBERS, AND EMPLOYEES
 
Sec. 12. Setting and Increasing Committee Membership

    Until Jan. 3, 1975,(13) the rules of the House specified 
the number (14) of Members serving on each standing 
committee. Notwithstanding the presence of these figures in the rules, 
the House routinely changed the numerical composition of particular 
committees by resolution considered by unanimous consent during the 
course of a given Congress. At the beginning of a Congress, this was 
most frequently done to reconcile the new party ratio in the House and 
the reelection of committee members from the preceding 
Congress.(15) Thus, com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Note to Rule X clause 6(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 701(a) 
        (1979).
14. See, for example, Rule X clause I, House Rules and Manual Sec. 670 
        (1973).
15. See Note to Rule X clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 671A 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2652]]

mittee numerical membership resolutions considered at the beginning of 
a Congress frequently listed several committees (16) while 
it was not unusual for such resolutions to pertain solely to the 
membership of a specific committee (17) at a later point of 
the Congress. The timing of the resolution was of no import since 
changes in committee membership numbers could be effected at any 
time.(18) Beginning with the 94th Congress, it was no longer 
necessary to address committee numerical compositions by resolution 
since the rules do not specify committee size (except for the Budget 
Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See, for example, Sec. 12.1, infra.
17. See Sec. 12.3, infra.
18. See, for example, Sec. 12.6, infra. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Setting Membership by Resolution

Sec. 12.1 While the number of members serving on particular committees 
    may be changed at any time, the House, under the former practice, 
    routinely set committee sizes by one or more resolutions at the 
    beginning of a Congress where those sizes varied from those 
    specified in the standing rules.

    On Jan. 24, 1973,(19) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. John J. McFall, of California, who requested unanimous 
consent for the immediate consideration of the following resolution (H. 
Res. 158):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 2106, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the Ninety-third Congress the Committee 
    on Agriculture shall be composed of thirty-six members;

        The Committee on Appropriations shall be composed of fifty-five 
    members;
        The Committee on Armed Services shall be composed of forty-
    three members;
        The Committee on Banking and Currency shall be composed of 
    thirty-nine members;
        The Committee on Education and Labor shall be composed of 
    thirty-eight members;
        The Committee on Foreign Affairs shall be composed of forty 
    members;
        The Committee on Government Operations shall be composed of 
    forty-one members;
        The Committee on House Administration shall be composed of 
    twenty-six members;
        The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs shall be composed 
    of forty-one members;
        The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce shall be 
    composed of forty-three members;
        The Committee on the Judiciary shall be composed of thirty-
    eight members;

[[Page 2653]]

        The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries shall be 
    composed of thirty-nine members;
        The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service shall be 
    composed of twenty-six members;
        The Committee on Public Works shall be composed of thirty-nine 
    members;
        The Committee on Science and Astronautics shall be composed of 
    thirty members; and
        The Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall be composed of twenty-
    six members.

    There being no objection, the measure was considered and agreed 
to.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For similar examples in earlier Congresses, see 117 Cong. Rec. 
        1708, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 4, 1971 (H. Res. 192); 115 
        Cong. Rec. 2083, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 29, 1969 (H. Res. 
        174); and 113 Cong. Rec. 445, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 16, 
        1967 (H. Res. 128).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increasing Membership by Resolution

Sec. 12.2 The House has increased the membership of its standing 
    committees for a particular Congress by a resolution considered by 
    unanimous consent.

    On Jan. 16, 1967,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, who then 
offered a resolution (H. Res. 128) and asked unanimous consent for its 
immediate consideration. House Resolution 128 prescribed the numerical 
composition for the 90th Congress of 14 of the House's standing 
committees. As such, the resolution increased the numerical size of 
five of those committees from their previous makeup in the 89th 
Congress.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 445, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. See H. Res. 107 at 111 Cong. Rec. 636, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
        13. 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution [with corresponding increases in committee 
membership over that of the 89th Congress being shown in brackets] read 
as follows:

        Resolved, That during the Ninetieth Congress the Committee on 
    Agriculture shall be composed of thirty-five members;
        The Committee on Appropriations shall be composed of fifty-one 
    [previously fifty] members;
        The Committee on Armed Services shall be composed of forty 
    [previously thirty-seven] members;
        The Committee on Banking and Currency shall be composed of 
    thirty-three members;
        The Committee on Education and Labor shall be composed of 
    thirty-three [previously thirty-one] members;
        The Committee on Foreign Affairs shall be composed of thirty-
    six members;
        The Committee on Government Operations shall be composed of 
    thirty-five [previously thirty-one] members;

[[Page 2654]]

        The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs shall be composed 
    of thirty-three members;
        The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce shall be 
    composed of thirty-three members;
        The Committee on the Judiciary shall be composed of thirty-five 
    members;
        The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries shall be 
    composed of thirty-three [previously thirty-one] members;
        The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service shall be 
    composed of twenty-six members;
        The Committee on Public Works shall be composed of thirty-four 
    members;
        The Committee on Science and Astronautics shall be composed of 
    thirty-one members.

    The resolution was agreed to.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For similar instances, see also H. Res. 158, 119. Cong. Rec. 2601, 
        93d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 24, 1973; H. Res. 107, 111 Cong. Rec. 
        636, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 13, 1965; and H. Res. 120, 105 
        Cong. Rec. 841, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 19, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.3 The House may increase the size of committee at any time 
    during a session by resolution considered by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 12, 1972,(4) Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, offered 
the following resolution (H. Res. 922) and asked for its immediate 
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 118 Cong. Rec. 12287, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the remainder of the Ninety-second 
    Congress, the Committee on Foreign Affairs shall be composed of 
    thirty-nine members.

    The resolution was agreed to.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For similar examples, where a committee's size was increased in 
        mid-session, see 115 Cong. Rec. 33747, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Nov. 12, 1969 [H. Res. 673, increasing size of Committee on 
        Banking and Currency]; 100 Cong. Rec. 734, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Jan. 25, 1954 [H. Res. 418, increasing the size of Committees 
        on Banking and Currency, Foreign Affairs, and Veterans' 
        Affairs]; and 92 Cong. Rec. 1789, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 28, 
        1946 [H. Res. 537, increasing size of the Committee on 
        Appropriations].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the adoption of House Resolution 
922, the Committee on Foreign Affairs consisted of 38 members during 
the 92d Congress. That size had been approved by the House on Feb. 4, 
1971,(6) by way of a resolution (H. Res. 192) establishing 
committee sizes for 15 standing committees.(7) House 
Resolution 922 was offered to en
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 117 Cong. Rec. 1708, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Note, however, that the rules of the 92d Congress second session, 
        set the size of the Committee on Foreign Affairs as consisting 
        of 25 members [Rule X clause 1(g), H. Jour. 1598, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess. (1972)]. The practice of including committee sizes in the 
        rules was eliminated as of Jan. 3, 1975 [see the introductory 
        remarks at the beginning of this section].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2655]]

able Mr. Ogden R. Reid, of New York, who had switched his party 
affiliation, to become a majority member of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs. On Apr. 13, 1972,(8) the House agreed to a 
resolution (H. Res. 924) electing Mr. Reid to the newly created seat on 
that committee.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 12573, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. See Sec. 12.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling Up Resolutions Increasing Committee Membership

Sec. 12.4 A resolution increasing the number of members on one of the 
    standing committees of the House is not a privileged resolution 
    [unless reported by the Committee on Rules], and must be called up 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 22, 1969,(10) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, who 
offered the following resolution (H. Res. 764) and asked for its 
immediate consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 40922, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the remainder of the Ninety-first 
    Congress, the Committee on Education and Labor shall be composed of 
    thirty-seven members.

    The Speaker then inquired as to whether there was any objection to 
Mr. Albert's request. Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, 
responding in the affirmative, consideration of the resolution was 
dropped for lack of unanimous consent.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Had the resolution been reported from the Committee on Rules, it 
        would have been privileged, and unanimous consent for its 
        immediate consideration would not have been required. See Ch. 
        21, infra, and Sec. Sec. 52-57, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.5 By unanimous consent, the House considered and agreed to a 
    resolution increasing the size of certain standing committees 
    during the 93d Congress [the resolution had been erroneously 
    designated as ``privileged'' in the daily Record].

    On Jan. 24, 1973,(12) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. John J. McFall, of California, who sought unanimous 
consent (13) for the immediate con
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 2106, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The daily Record incorrectly indicated that Mr. McFall called up 
        the resolution as privileged. The Journal [H. Jour. 134, 93d 
        Cong. 1st Sess.] and the permanent Record, however, correctly 
        indicate that the resolution was called up by unanimous 
        consent. The resolution could have attained privileged status 
        only if it had been reported by the Committee on Rules [see Ch. 
        21, infra, and Sec. Sec. 52-57, infra].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2656]]

sideration of the following resolution (H. Res. 158):

        Resolved, That during the Ninety-third Congress the Committee 
    on Agriculture shall he composed of thirty-six members;
        The Committee on Appropriations shall be composed of fifty-five 
    members;
        The Committee on Armed Services shall be composed of forty-
    three members;
        The Committee on Banking and Currency shall be composed of 
    thirty-nine members;
        The Committee on Education and Labor shall be composed of 
    thirty-eight members;
        The Committee on Foreign Affairs shall be composed of forty 
    members;
        The Committee on Government Operations shall be composed of 
    forty-one members;
        The Committee on House Administration shall he composed of 
    twenty-six members;
        The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs shall be composed 
    of forty-one members;
        The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce shall be 
    composed of forty-three members;
        The Committee on the Judiciary shall be composed of thirty-
    eight members;
        The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries shall be 
    composed of thirty-nine members;
        The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service shall be 
    composed of twenty-six members;
        The Committee on Public Works shall be composed of thirty-nine 
    members:

        The Committee on Science and Astronautics shall be composed of 
    thirty members; and
        The Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall be composed of twenty-
    six members.

    There being no objection to Mr. McFall's request, the resolution 
was considered and agreed to.

Effect of Changes in Party Affiliation; Increases in Committee Size

Sec. 12.6 By unanimous consent, the House considered and agreed to a 
    resolution increasing the size of a committee for the remainder of 
    the 92d Congress, and on the next day elected a Member who had 
    switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, as a 
    majority member of that committee.

    On Apr. 12, 1972,(14) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, who offered a privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 922), as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 12287, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the remainder of the Ninety-second 
    Congress, the Committee on Foreign Affairs shall be composed of 
    thirty-nine members.

[[Page 2657]]

    Immediately thereafter, the resolution was agreed to.
    The next day, on Apr. 13, 1972,(15) Mr. Albert C. 
Ullman, of Oregon, offered a privileged resolution (H. Res. 924), as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 12573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That Ogden R. Reid, of New York, be, and he is 
    hereby, elected to the standing committee of the House of 
    Representatives on Foreign Affairs.

    This resolution was also agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the adoption of House Resolution 
922, the Committee on Foreign Affairs had been composed of 38 members 
during the 92d Congress.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See H. Res. 192 at 117 Cong. Rec. 1708, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 
        4, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increase in Minority Membership of Special Committee

Sec. 12.7 The House approved a resolution increasing the number of 
    minority members of the Special Committee on Wildlife Conservation, 
    the members to be appointed by the Speaker.

    On Feb. 9, 1939,(17) the House agreed to consider the 
following resolution (H. Res. 90), by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 1333, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the number of Members of the House of 
    Representatives from the minority political party to be appointed 
    by the Speaker on the Special Committee on Wildlife Conservation 
    created under House Resolution 237 of the Seventy-third Congress 
    and continued under House Resolution 44 of the Seventy-fourth 
    Congress, House Resolution 11 of the Seventy-fifth Congress, and 
    House Resolution 65 of the Seventy-sixth Congress, is hereby 
    increased to five Members of the House of Representatives from the 
    minority political party.

    The resolution was agreed to immediately thereafter.

Increasing Membership of Committee Established by Statute

Sec. 12.8 Membership on the Joint Economic Committee, established by 
    statute, was increased by passage of a bill from 16 to 20 members--
    the total number including 10 from the Senate and 10 from the 
    House.

    On Jan. 23, 1967,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Wright Patman, of Texas, Chairman of the 
Committee on Banking and Currency, who thereupon obtained

[[Page 2658]]

unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of a bill (S. 376) 
fixing the representation of the majority and minority membership of 
the Joint Economic Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 1099, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5(a) 
    of the Employment Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1024(a)) is amended to 
    read as follows:
        ``(a) There is established a Joint Economic Committee, to be 
    composed of ten Members of the Senate, to be appointed by the 
    President of the Senate, and ten Members of the House of 
    Representatives, to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives. In each case, the majority party shall be 
    represented by six Members and the minority party shall be 
    represented by four Members.''

    The bill was passed.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. S. 376 had passed the Senate on Jan. 18, 1967 [113 Cong. Rec. 839, 
        90th Cong. 1st Sess.], and became law [Pub. L. No. 90-2] on 
        Jan. 25, 1967 [113 Cong. Rec. 1614, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
        26, 1967].
            For information on joint committees, generally, see Sec. 7, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
             B. COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN, MEMBERS, AND EMPLOYEES
 
Sec. 13. Appointment, Employment, and Compensation of Employees

    Employment of staff by committees is covered by the House rules 
(20) or by committee funding resolutions with respect to 
investigative personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule XI clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 733 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Provisions affecting committee staffing have undergone significant 
changes between 1973 and 1979. The passage of House Resolution 
988,(21) for example, effected changes [as of Jan. 3, 1975], 
with respect to the maximum number of professional staff members [from 
six to 18],(22) the maximum number of professional staff 
members available to the minority [from two to six],(23) the 
maximum number of clerical staff [from six to 12],(24) and, 
similarly, the maximum number of clerical staff available to the 
minority [from one to four].(25) Other changes include the 
relevant United States Code provisions setting permissible rates of 
staff pay,(26) the elimination of the requirement that 
professionals be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 120 Cong. Rec. 34470, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974.
22. Rule XI clause 6(a)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 733(a) (1979).
23. Rule XI clause 6(a)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 733(c) (1979).
24. Rule XI clause 6(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 734(a) (1979).
25. Rule XI clause 6(b)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 734(b) (1979) .
26. Rule XI clause 6(e), House Rules and Manual Sec. 735 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2659]]

appointed without regard to political affiliation coupled with the 
prohibition against consideration of race, creed, sex, or age with 
respect to such appointments,(27) and the elimination of the 
requirement of semiannual reports to the Clerk for the printing in the 
Record of the names, salaries, and professions of committee 
employees.(28)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Rule XI clause 6(a)2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 733(c) (1979).
28. House Rules and Manual Sec. 739 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each standing committee, subject to two provisions, may appoint, by 
majority vote of the committee up to 18 professional staff 
members.(1) Each such staff member is assigned to the 
chairman and the ranking minority party member of the committee, as the 
committee deems advisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule XI clause 6(a)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 733(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the two aforementioned provisions, which pertains to 
minority staffing rights, provides:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XI clause 6(a)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 733(c) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Subject to paragraph (f) of this clause, whenever a majority of 
    the minority party members of a standing committee (except the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct) so request, not more 
    than six persons may be selected, by majority vote of the minority 
    party members, for appointment by the committee as professional 
    staff members from among the number authorized by subparagraph (1) 
    of this paragraph. The committee shall appoint any persons so 
    selected whose character and qualifications are acceptable to a 
    majority of the committee. If the committee determines that the 
    character and qualifications of any person so selected are 
    unacceptable to the committee, a majority of the minority party 
    members may select other persons for appointment by the committee 
    to the professional staff until such appointment is made. Each 
    professional staff member appointed under this subparagraph shall 
    be assigned to such committee business as the minority party 
    members of the committee consider advisable.

    Paragraph (f), which will be examined shortly, is the other 
relevant provision affecting the appointment of professional staff 
members (as well as clericals) and deals with the problem of the 
minority's authorization to appoint staff where the committee is 
already fully staffed.
    A provision significantly affecting the appointment of committee 
staff, paragraph (d) of clause 5 of Rule XI, was adopted on Jan. 14, 
1975 (H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.). The 
paragraph, relating to appointment of subcommittee staff, replaced the 
requirement of House Resolution 988 (93d Cong. 2d Sess.), that the 
minority party of a standing committee was enti

[[Page 2660]]

tled, upon request of a majority of such minority, to one-third of the 
funds provided for the appointment of committee staff pursuant to each 
primary or additional expense resolution. The requirement of House 
Resolution 988 had become effective Jan. 3, 1975, and had superseded 
the provision originally added to the rules on Jan. 22, 1971 (H. Res. 
5, 117 Cong. Rec. 144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.), which required ``fair 
consideration'' to the minority party of such standing committees in 
the appointment of committee staff personnel. Under clause 5 (d) (5) of 
Rule XI, staff positions made available to subcommittee chairmen and 
ranking minority members pursuant to the clause must be provided from 
staff positions available under clause 6 unless provided in a primary 
or additional expense resolution. (Additional investigative staff, 
including attorneys, clerks, and consultants, of committees are 
authorized by the Committee on House Administration and agreed to by 
the House in annual committee expense resolutions.)
    As for the appointment and work assignments of committee 
professionals, the rules mandate that: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XI clauses 6(a)(3)-(5), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 733(d)(1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (3) The professional staff members of each standing committee--
        (A) shall be appointed on a permanent basis, without regard to 
    race, creed, sex, or age, and solely on the basis of fitness to 
    perform the duties of their respective positions;
        (B) shall not engage in any work other than committee business; 
    and
        (C) shall not be assigned any duties other than those 
    pertaining to committee business.
        (4) Services of the professional staff members of each standing 
    committee may be terminated by majority vote of the committee.
        (5) The foregoing provisions of this paragraph do not apply to 
    the Committee on Appropriations and to the Committee on the Budget.

    With respect to committees' clerical staffing (including minority 
party staffing), nature of work and method of termination, the rules 
(4) state:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Rule XI clauses 6(b) (1)-(b)(4), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 734(a) 734(b) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (b) (1) The clerical staff of each standing committee shall 
    consist of not more than twelve clerks, to be attached to the 
    office of the chairman, to the ranking minority party member, and 
    to the professional staff, as the committee considers advisable. 
    Subject to subparagraph (2) of this paragraph and paragraph (f) of 
    this clause, the clerical staff shall be appointed by majority vote 
    of the committee, without regard to race, creed, sex, or age. 
    Except as provided by subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, the 
    clerical staff shall han

[[Page 2661]]

    dle committee correspondence and stenographic work both for the 
    committee staff and for the chairman and the ranking minority party 
    member on matters related to committee work.
        (2) Subject to paragraph (f) of this clause, whenever a 
    majority of the minority party members of a standing committee 
    (except the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct) so request, 
    four persons may be selected, by majority vote of the minority 
    party members, for appointment by the committee to positions on the 
    clerical staff from among the number of clerks authorized by 
    subparagraph (1) of this paragraph. The committee shall appoint to 
    those positions any person so selected whose character and 
    qualifications are acceptable to a majority of the committee. If 
    the committee determines that the character and qualifications of 
    any person so selected are unacceptable to the committee, a 
    majority of the minority party members may select other persons for 
    appointment by the committee to the position involved on the 
    clerical staff until such appointment is made. Each clerk appointed 
    under this subparagraph shall handle committee correspondence and 
    stenographic work for the minority party members of the committee 
    and for any members of the professional staff appointed under 
    subparagraph (2) of paragraph (a) of this clause on matters related 
    to committee work.
        (3) Services of the clerical staff members of each standing 
    committee may be terminated by majority vote of the committee.
        (4) The foregoing provisions of this paragraph do not apply to 
    the Committee on Appropriations and to the Committee on the Budget.

    Paragraph 6(f),(5) as heretofore mentioned, addresses 
the problem of a request for the appointment of a minority professional 
or clerical staff member where no vacancy exists. The rule provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XI clause 6(f), House Rules and Manual Sec. 737 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (f) If a request for the appointment of a minority professional 
    staff member under paragraph (a), or a minority clerical staff 
    member under paragraph (b), is made when no vacancy exists to which 
    that appointment may be made, the committee nevertheless shall 
    appoint, under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), as applicable, the 
    person selected by the minority and acceptable to the committee. 
    The person so appointed shall serve as an additional member of the 
    professional staff or the clerical staff, as the case may be, of 
    the committee, and shall be paid from the contingent fund, until 
    such a vacancy (other than a vacancy in the position of head of the 
    professional staff, by whatever title designated) occurs, at which 
    time that person shall be deemed to have been appointed to that 
    vacancy. If such vacancy occurs on the professional staff when 
    seven or more persons have been so appointed who are eligible to 
    fill that vacancy, a majority of the minority party members shall 
    designate which of those persons shall fill that vacancy.

    Furthermore, paragraph (d) of clause 5 of Rule XI provides for 
appointment of subcommittee staff professionals in certain cases:

        From the funds provided for the appointment of committee staff 
    pursuant

[[Page 2662]]

    to primary and additional expense resolutions--
        (1) The chairman of each standing subcommittee of a standing 
    committee of the House is authorized to appoint one staff member 
    who shall serve at the pleasure of the subcommittee chairman.
        (2) The ranking minority party member of each standing 
    subcommittee on each standing committee of the House is authorized 
    to appoint one staff person who shall serve at the pleasure of the 
    ranking minority party member.

    Two other rules' provisions affect minority staff members. For one, 
they must be accorded equitable treatment with respect to the fixing of 
rate of pay, assignment of work facilities, and accessibility of 
committee records.(6) In addition, the provisions which 
allow a majority of the minority party to request certain minority 
staffing are expressly clarified to indicate that where the maximum 
number of minority professional and clerical staff allotted (i.e., six 
and four, respectively) has already been met, the minority is not 
entitled to any additional appointments.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XI clause 6(g), House Rules and Manual Sec. 737 (1979).
 7. Rule XI clause 6(h), House Rules and Manual Sec. 737 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Committees, of course, are not obliged to appoint staff on the 
basis of partisan considerations. Upon an affirmative vote of the 
majority of the members of each party, they may choose to employ 
nonpartisan staff in lieu of or in addition to committee staff 
designated exclusively for the majority or minority 
party.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XI clause 6(i), House Rules and Manual Sec. 738 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, clause 5(d) of Rule XI removed the entitlement of 
one-third investigative funds for minority staff contained in House 
Resolution 988 (93d Cong. 2d Sess.), and substituted the provisions 
entitling the ranking minority member of each subcommittee to appoint 
one minority employee to be assigned and paid out of the statutory 
entitlement under clause 6 unless funded separately in an investigative 
resolution reported by the Committee on House Administration. The 
following resolution (H. Res. 237, 121 Cong. Rec. 5979, 94th Cong. 1st 
Sess., Mar. 11, 1975), reported by the Committee on House 
Administration, is typical of those providing for the appointment of 
investigative personnel:

        Resolved, That, effective January 3, 1975, the expenses of the 
    investigations and studies to be conducted by the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries, acting as a whole or by 
    subcommittee, not to exceed $477,500, including expenditures for 
    the employment of investigators, attorneys, individual consultants, 
    or organizations

[[Page 2663]]

    thereof, and clerical, stenographic, and other assistants, shall be 
    paid out of the contingent fund of the House on vouchers authorized 
    by such committee, signed by the chairman of such committee, and 
    approved by the Committee on House Administration. However, not to 
    exceed $100,000 of the amount provided by this resolution may be 
    used to procure the temporary or intermittent services of 
    individual consultants or organizations thereof pursuant to section 
    202 (i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 
    72a(i)); but this monetary limitation on the procurement of such 
    services shall not prevent the use of such funds for any other 
    authorized purpose.
        Sec. 2. No part of the funds authorized by this resolution 
    shall be available for expenditure in connection with the study or 
    investigation of any subject which is being investigated for the 
    same purpose by any other committee of the House, and the chairman 
    of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries shall furnish the 
    Committee on House Administration information with respect to any 
    study or investigation intended to be financed from such funds.

        Sec. 3. Funds authorized by this resolution shall be expended 
    pursuant to regulations established by the Committee on House 
    Administration under existing law.

    Salary considerations regarding committee staffers are set by 
clause 6(c) of Rule XI (9) which states that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Rule XI clause 6(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 735 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Each employee on the professional staff, and each employee on 
    the clerical staff, of each standing committee, is entitled to pay 
    at a single per annum gross rate, to be fixed by the chairman, 
    which does not exceed the highest rate of basic pay, as in effect 
    from time to time, of level V of the Executive Schedule in section 
    5316 of Title 5, United States Code, except that two professional 
    staff members of each standing committee shall be entitled to pay 
    at a single per annum gross rate to be fixed by the chairman, which 
    does not exceed the highest rate of basic pay, as in effect from 
    time to time, of level IV of the Executive Schedule in section 5315 
    of Title 5, United States Code.

    It should be noted that no committee may appoint any experts or 
personnel detailed or assigned from any department or agency of the 
government, except with the written permission of the Committee on 
House Administration.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XI clause 6(e), House Rules and Manual Sec. 737 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the lack of applicability to the Committees on 
Appropriations and on the Budget of the provisions regarding the 
numbers and party makeup of their staff has heretofore been noted. With 
respect to these specific committees, the rules provide: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XI clause 6(d), House Rules and Manual Sec. 736 (1979). The 
        provision affecting the Committee on the Budget had been 
        omitted from the rule by H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34470, 93d 
        Cong. 2d Sess., but was reinserted by H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 
        20, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., on Jan. 14, 1975.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2664]]

        Subject to appropriations hereby authorized, the Committee on 
    Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget may appoint such 
    staff, in addition to the clerk thereof and assistants for the 
    minority, as it determines by majority vote to be necessary, such 
    personnel, other than minority assistants, to possess such 
    qualifications as the committee may 
    prescribe.

                          -------------------

Resolutions Authorizing Committee Approval of Continued Employment in 
    New Congress

Sec. 13.1 Authorization for committees to approve employment and 
    compensation of employees held over from a previous Congress was 
    provided for by resolution.

    On Jan. 3, 1961,(12) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Majority Leader John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, who 
offered a resolution by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 107 Cong. Rec. 27, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 16) and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

            Resolved, That standing committees of the House shall have 
        authority to approve the employment and compensation of 
        committee employees (other than special and select committee 
        employees) from the effective date of the beginning of each 
        Congress, or such subsequent date as their service commenced.

    The resolution was agreed to.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For a similar instance, see 105 Cong. Rec. 16, 86th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 7, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.2 Doubt having been expressed as to the House's legal authority 
    to compensate committee employees held over from the 82d Congress 
    prior to the election of the standing committees of the 83d 
    Congress, the House adopted a resolution authorizing its standing 
    committees to approve the employment and compensation of committee 
    employees.

    On Jan. 22, 1953,(14) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Majority Leader Charles A. Halleck, of 
Indiana, who offered the following resolution (H. Res. 107) and asked 
for its immediate consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 99 Cong. Rec. 498, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
            The Congressional Record and the House Journal (p. 126) 
        indicate that this resolution was called up as privileged, 
        although not reported by committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That standing committees of the House shall have 
    authority to

[[Page 2665]]

    approve the employment and compensation of committee employees from 
    January 3, 1953, or such subsequent date as their service 
    commenced.

    The resolution was then agreed to.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the Parliamentarian's Note at Sec. 13.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, sought 
to have the House consider a more detailed resolution (H. Res. 108) 
(16) regarding ``holdover'' committee employees, and had 
obtained consent from the House to speak for five minutes on the 
subject. House Resolution 107, however, was agreed to prior to the 
Chair's recognition of Mr. Hoffman; so he did not offer his 
resolution.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 99 Cong. Rec. 500, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
17. For an insight into the legal views of the Comptroller General's 
        Office regarding the ``holdover'' employee issue, see id. at p. 
        501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.3 The House has approved a resolution authorizing committees to 
    approve the employment and compensation of employees held over from 
    the previous Congress until committees were elected in the new 
    Congress.

    On Jan. 3, 1957,(18) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Majority Leader John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, who 
offered the following resolution (H. Res. 13):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 50, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
            The Congressional Record and the House Journal (p. 18) 
        indicate that this resolution was called up as privileged, 
        although not reported by committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That standing committees of the House shall have 
    authority to approve the employment and compensation of committee 
    employees from January 3, 1957, or such subsequent date as their 
    service commenced.

    Immediately thereafter, the resolution was agreed 
to.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. A similar resolution was approved in the preceding Congress, see 
        101 Cong. Rec. 13, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under modern practice, ``continuing 
resolutions'' for committee investigative staff are considered by 
unanimous consent unless reported from the Committee on House 
Administration (see detailed discussion at footnote 20 in the 
introduction to section 4, ``Committee Expenses; Use of Contingent 
Fund,'' supra).

Use of Contingent Fund to Compensate Investigative Personnel Pending 
    Separate Funding Resolutions for Each Committee

Sec. 13.4 The House agreed to a privileged resolution pro

[[Page 2666]]

    viding for payment out of the contingent fund of amounts necessary 
    to compensate investigative personnel of House committees pending 
    the adoption of resolutions authorizing the reconstitution of such 
    investigative committees in the 89th Congress.

    On Jan. 28, 1965,(20) by direction of the Committee on 
House Administration, Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, called up the 
following privileged resolution (H. Res. 146):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 1427, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund 
    of the House of Representatives such sums as may be necessary to 
    pay the compensation for services performed during the thirty-day 
    period beginning January 3, 1965, by each person (1) who, on 
    January 2, 1965, was employed by any standing committee or any 
    select committee of the Eighty-eighth Congress and whose salary was 
    paid under authority of a House resolution adopted during the 
    Eighty-eighth Congress, and (2) who is certified by the chairman of 
    the appropriate committee as performing such services for such 
    committee during such thirty-day period. Such compensation shall be 
    paid such person at a rate not to exceed the rate he was receiving 
    on January 2, 1965.

    The resolution was agreed to immediately.
    Parliamentarian's Note: While House Resolution 146 is more broadly 
worded than its purpose would require, the resolution was intended to 
cover only the committees' investigative staffs, since funds for the 
payment of the standing committees' professional and clerical personnel 
are carried in the annual legislative appropriation acts. Thus, there 
is no gap in the payment of these individuals' salaries once the rules 
are adopted and the committees established in a new Congress and their 
continued employment approved by those committees at their 
organizational meetings in accordance with Rule XI clause 6. The 
salaries of investigative personnel, on the other hand, are dependent 
upon the passage of resolutions authorizing the committees to make 
investigations and providing funds therefor.

Sec. 13.5 A resolution not formally reported by the Committee on House 
    Administration, providing for payment from the contingent fund of 
    salaries of investigative personnel of standing and select 
    committees for a three-month period (pending adoption of annual 
    committee funding resolutions) was called up by unanimous consent 
    and agreed to.

[[Page 2667]]

    On Jan. 15, 1973,(21) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman 
of the Committee on House Administration, offered the following 
resolution (H. Res. 130), and sought unanimous consent to have it 
considered immediately:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 119 Cong. Rec. 1057, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund 
    of the House of Representatives for the period beginning January 3, 
    1973, and ending at the close of March 31, 1973, such sums as may 
    be necessary for the continuance of the same necessary projects, 
    activities, operations, and services, by contract or otherwise 
    (including payment of staff salaries for services performed). and 
    for the accomplishment of the same necessary purposes, undertaken 
    by each standing or select committee of the House in the calendar 
    year 1972 on the same basis and at not to exceed the same rates 
    utilized in 1972. Payments of salary for services performed in the 
    period beginning January 3, 1973, and ending at the close of March 
    31, 1973, shall be made to each person--
        (1) (A) who, on January 2, 1973, was employed by a standing or 
    select committee in the Ninety-second Congress and whose salary was 
    paid under authority of a House resolution adopted in that Congress 
    or (B) who was appointed after January 2, 1973, to fill a vacancy, 
    existing on or occurring after that date, in a position created 
    under authority of such House resolution; and
        (2) who is certified by the chairman of such committee as 
    performing such services for such committee in such period.
    Such salary shall be paid to such person at a rate not to exceed 
    the rate he was receiving on January 2, 1973 (or, in the case of a 
    person appointed after January 2, 1973, to fill any such vacancy, 
    not to exceed the rate applicable on January 2, 1973, to the vacant 
    position), plus any increase in his rate of salary which may have 
    been granted for periods on and after January 3, 1973, pursuant to 
    section 5 of the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970.

        Sec. 2. Funds authorized by this resolution shall be expended 
    pursuant to regulations established by the Committee on House 
    Administration in accordance with law.

    Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, cast light on the purpose and effect of 
House Resolution 130 in the course of the following exchange: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at pp. 1057, 1058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: . . . I understand that this is an interim 
    resolution which would expire effective as of March 31.
        Mr. Hays: This is a resolution, if not identical, certainly 
    similar to other resolutions that we introduced at the beginning of 
    Congress to allow committee staffs to be paid until such time as 
    committee chairmen and the ranking members have had a chance to 
    appear before the Accounts Subcommittee on House Administration and 
    justify appropriation, which would then be brought to the floor of 
    the House.
        Mr. Gross: Do I understand that while vacancies on committee 
    staffs

[[Page 2668]]

    may be filled during the interim period, it is not the intention of 
    the Committee on House Administration in bringing this resolution 
    to the floor that committee staffs be augmented or increased 
    pending the submission of justifications for committee staffs?
        Mr. Hays: The gentleman is exactly right. They can fill 
    vacancies but not add to. I might go further and state that in the 
    case of select committees these will not apply until they have been 
    reconstituted by, first, the Committee on Rules and then brought 
    before the House to be reconstituted.
        It is my understanding some of them may be reconstituted very 
    shortly. In that case this will cover them on the same prorated 
    basis as they had in the previous Congress.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Hays was obliged to offer the 
resolution by unanimous consent inasmuch as the Committee on House 
Administration had not been elected and therefore had not formally met 
and ordered the resolution reported.

Resolutions Effecting Temporary Staff Salary Payments From Contingent 
    Fund During Second Session

Sec. 13.6 A resolution providing for the payment from the contingent 
    fund of salaries of committee personnel, pending adoption of the 
    regular committee funding resolutions, is reported and called up as 
    privileged by the Committee on House Administration.

    On Jan. 27, 1972,(2) by direction of the Committee on 
House Administration, Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of New Jersey, called up 
and obtained immediate consideration of the following privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 769):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 118 Cong. Rec. 1532, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund 
    of the House of Representatives such sums as may be necessary to 
    pay the compensation for services performed during the period 
    beginning January 3, 1972, and ending at the close of January 31, 
    1972, by each person (1) who, on January 2, 1972, was employed by a 
    standing committee or any select committee of the Ninety-second 
    Congress and whose salary was paid under authority of a House 
    resolution adopted during the Ninety-second Congress, or who was 
    appointed after January 2, 1972, to fill an existing vacancy or a 
    vacancy occurring subsequent to January 2, 1972, and (2) who is 
    certified by the chairman of the appropriate committee as 
    performing such services for such committee during such period.

    As Mr. Thompson explained, the purpose of the resolution was to 
allow all of the committees of the House to expend moneys at the level 
which the House authorized them to spend during the previous year for a 
period of one month.

[[Page 2669]]

Thus, committee chairmen would have time to prepare their budgets for 
the coming year while the Subcommittee on Accounts [of the Committee on 
House Administration] would have an opportunity to schedule hearings on 
the committee's budgetary needs for 1972.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For a similar example, see H. Res. 96 at 115 Cong. Rec. 1075, 91st 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 16, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rules provide (4) that 
certain committees ``shall have leave to report at any time'' on 
certain matters. The Committee on House Administration enjoys such a 
privilege regarding ``all matters of expenditure of the contingent fund 
of the House [among other subjects].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Jour. 1602, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (1972); see also Rule XI clause 
        4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.7 A resolution from the Committee on House Administration, 
    providing for payment from the contingent fund of salaries of 
    investigative personnel of standing and select committees for a 
    three-month period (pending adoption of annual committee funding 
    resolutions) is reported and called up as privileged.

    On Jan. 26, 1971,(5) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman of 
the Committee on House Administration, submitted a privileged report 
(6) on the following resolution (H. Res. 17), as to which he 
obtained immediate consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 480, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. In the 92d Congress, the three-day layover rule on committee 
        reports was not applicable to the Committee on House 
        Administration [Rule XI clause 27(d)(4), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 735 (1971)]. The one-day rule in clause 32 was not 
        applicable to a resolution of this type, it not being a primary 
        funding resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund 
    of the House of Representatives such sums as may be necessary to 
    pay the salary for services performed in the period beginning 
    January 3, 1971, and ending at the close of March 31, 1971, by each 
    person--
        (1)(A) who, on January 2, 1971, was employed by a standing or 
    select committee in the Ninety-first Congress and whose salary was 
    paid under authority of a House resolution adopted in that Congress 
    or (B) who was appointed after January 2, 1971, to fill a vacancy, 
    existing on or occurring after that date, in a position created 
    under authority of such House resolution; and
        (2) who is certified by the chairman of such committee as 
    performing such services for such committee in such period.
    Such salary shall be paid to such person at a rate not to exceed 
    the rate he

[[Page 2670]]

    was receiving on January 2, 1971 (or, in the case of a person 
    appointed after January 2, 1971, to fill any such vacancy, not to 
    exceed the rate applicable on January 2, 1971, to the vacant 
    position), plus any increase in his rate of salary which may have 
    been granted for periods on and after February 1, 1971, pursuant to 
    section 5 of the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 
    1970.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For an explanation of why H. Res. 17 and similar resolutions would 
        pertain solely to the salary needs of committees' investigative 
        personnel, see the Parliamentarian's Note to Sec. 13.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The privileged status of the resolution (H. 
Res. 17) in the instant case was derived directly from the rules. For 
more than 150 years,(8) House rules have granted privilege 
to certain reports of specified committees. In 1971, the Committee on 
House Administration had ``leave to report at any time on . . . all 
matters of expenditure of the contingent fund of the House,'' 
(9) among other subjects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 727 (1973).
 9. H. Jour. 1656, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. (1971); see also Rule XI clause 
        4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.8 A resolution providing for payment for two months from the 
    contingent fund of salaries of staff of a select committee of the 
    previous Congress pending possible reconstitution of that committee 
    is reported and called up as privileged by the Committee on House 
    Administration.

    On Feb. 7, 1973,(10) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman of 
the Committee on House Administration, called up, by direction of that 
committee, the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 195):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 3678, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund 
    of the House of Representatives such sums as may be necessary to 
    pay the salary, for services performed in the period beginning 
    January 3, 1973, and ending at the close of February 28, 1973, of 
    each person performing such services who is certified by that 
    Member who was Chairman of the Select Committee on Crime in the 
    Ninety-second Congress as being on the staff of that committee on 
    January 2, 1973. Such salary shall be paid to each such person at a 
    rate not to exceed the rate he was receiving on January 2, 1973, 
    plus any increase in his rate of salary which may have been granted 
    for periods on and after January 3, 1973, pursuant to section 5 of 
    the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970.
        Sec. 2. Funds authorized by this resolution shall be expended 
    pursuant to regulations established by the Committee on House 
    Administration in accordance with law.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See the Parliamentarian's Note to Sec. 13.6, supra, regarding the 
        privileged nature of such resolutions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2671]]

    In the course of the ensuing discussion, Minority Leader Gerald R. 
Ford, of Michigan, initiated an exchange with Mr. Hays which pinpointed 
the intent of the proposal:

        Do I understand the gentleman to say that this is a temporary 
    expedient as far as he is concerned, that this is a very unusual 
    situation where the committee actually went out of existence with 
    the termination of the last Congress, and this Congress has taken 
    no affirmative action to extend its life?
        Mr. Hays: That is correct. I am told that there is a good deal 
    of hardship since the staff was not told that its tenure was over. 
    This is an attempt to pay them after the 3d of January, and allow 
    them to terminate in an orderly fashion this month unless the House 
    in its wisdom decides to reconstitute that committee.

Authorizing Staff of Expired Committee to Compile Report

Sec. 13.9 The House by unanimous consent considered and adopted a 
    resolution authorizing designated staff members of the Select 
    Committee on Research and Development (which expired with the 88th 
    Congress) to compile in the 89th Congress a summary report of the 
    work of the committee, authorizing funds for the payment of the 
    personnel (out of the contingent fund of the House), and giving the 
    Committee on House Administration certain supervisory 
    responsibilities over the personnel so employed.

    On Jan. 7, 1965,(12) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, who 
thereupon sought unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of 
House Resolution 87. The resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 411, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
            The resolution was called up by unanimous consent, since 
        the Committee on House Administration had not been constituted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That, during the period beginning January 3, 1965, 
    and ending February 28, 1965, inclusive, there shall be paid out of 
    the contingent fund of the House of Representatives on vouchers 
    approved by the Committee on House Administration such sums as may 
    be necessary to pay the compensation and other expenses of 
    assimilating data, compiling a summary report which shall be 
    printed as part II of House Report Numbered 1941 of the Eighty-
    eighth Congress, and otherwise closing the work of the Select 
    Committee on Government Research established under authority of 
    House Resolution 504, as amended, of the Eighty-eighth Congress. 
    Such work shall be completed by the following persons under the 
    direction of the Committee on House Administration, and they shall 
    receive compensation at

[[Page 2672]]

    the basic rate set forth following their name: Robert L. Hopper, 
    staff director, $8,835; Stephen P. Strickland, chief clerk, $6,600; 
    Edward T. Fogo, staff assistant, $6,600; Harry L. Selden, editor, 
    $6,600; Russell Saville, staff assistant, $4,020; Rowena G. 
    Lovette, administrative assistant, $3,780; Catherine S. Cash, 
    secretary, $2,940.
        The Committee on House Administration is authorized to employ a 
    substitute for any such person not available to serve.

    Reserving the right to object, Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, 
pointed out that the Select Committee on Government Research had ``died 
with the 88th Congress at noon on January 4. . . .'' (13) He 
additionally stated that: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For the original resolution creating what was then known as the 
        Select Committee on Research and Development, see Sec. 5.2, 
        supra.
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 411, 412, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . What this resolution really does, if adopted, is to 
    permit the Committee on House Administration to spend some, $16,000 
    or $18,000 I believe to conclude the work of mailing out the final 
    reports of the select committee, itself, to the various 
    universities and colleges of the country, and to the research 
    organizations that are very much interested in it, during January 
    and February, only. Also, I understand that the select committee . 
    . . has turned back to the contingent funds of the House, under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration, some 
    $250,000, from which these particular funds would be taken to 
    maintain this small staff in order to wrap up, or to conclude, the 
    work of the select committee and to send out the final reports. Is 
    that correct?

    Mr. Bolling replying in the affirmative, discussion proceeded 
briefly, after which the Speaker inquired as to whether there was any 
objection to the unanimous-consent request. No objection was heard, and 
the resolution was agreed to.


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 14. Generally


    Certain of the rules of the House pertain directly to committee 
procedure. All committees and subcommittees are expressly subject to 
House rules as ``far as applicable''; and each committee must adopt 
written adopt written rules ``not inconsistent'' with the rules of the 
House which ``shall be binding'' on each subcommittee thereof. 
Expressly deemed to be part of is parent committee, each subcommittee 
is ``subject to the

[[Page 2673]]

authority and direction to that committee.''(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The exception to this rule is that a motion to express from day to 
        day is a motion of high privilege in committees and 
        subcommittees. See Rule XI clauses 1(a), 2(a), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. Sec. 703(a), 704 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The initial contact of a standing committee with a pubic measure or 
matter within its jurisdiction takes place formally when the Speaker, 
pursuant to his authority under the rules,(16) refers the 
particular measure or matter to the committee. Barring an error of 
reference (~17) resulting in a rereferral, the committee 
then acquires jurisdiction over the measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XXII clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979).
17. Rule XXII clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979). See 
        also Sec. Sec. 27, 28, infra, and Ch. 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Standing committees are obliged to adopt written rules establishing 
fixed meeting dates ``not less frequent than monthly'' for the 
transaction of business.(18) Such meetings are ``open to the 
public except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and 
with a majority present, determines by rollcall vote that all or part 
of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the 
public.'' (19) While the chairman of the committee may call 
as many additional meetings ``as he considers necessary,'' 
(1) where three members of a standing committee file a 
written request (2) for a special meeting, and the chairman 
fails to act within prescribed time limits,(3) a majority of 
the committee members may file a written notice in the committee 
offices that a special meeting will be held.(4) If the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XI clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 705 (1979).
19. It should be noted, however, that in addition to committee members, 
        such congressional staff and departmental representatives as 
        the committee chooses to authorize (and only such individuals) 
        may be present at any closed business or markup session. This 
        provision does not apply, though, to open committee hearings or 
        any meeting relating solely to internal budget or personnel 
        matters; see Rule XI clause 2(g)(1), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 708 (1979).
 1. Rule XI clause 2(c)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 705 (1979).
 2. The request, which is addressed to the chairman, must be filed in 
        the committee offices and must specify the measure or matter to 
        be considered. See Rule XI clause 2(c)(2), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 705 (1979).
 3. If the chairman desires to call the special meeting, he must 
        announce it within three calendar days of the filing of the 
        request, and he must schedule the special meeting within seven 
        calendar days of the filing.
 4. The notice must specify the date, the hour, and the measure or 
        matter to be considered. Only the matter specified in the 
        notice may be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2674]]

chairman is not present at any meeting of the committee, the meeting is 
chaired by the ranking member of the majority party who is 
present.(5) Since 1971, committees have been permitted to 
sit while the House was in session,(6) although only certain 
committees may sit without special leave while the House is reading a 
measure for amendment under the five-minute rule.(7~) In 
1977, the rule was amended to permit committees to sit during any 
period for which the legislative schedule has been announced by the 
leadership, unless 10 or more Members object.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XI clause 2(d), House Rules and Manual Sec. 705 (1979).
 6. See Sec. 16, infra.
 7. See Rule XI clause 2(i), House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Committee procedures regarding records, hearings, and reports are 
extensively detailed in the rules. A complete record is required of all 
committee action.(8) Each committee must make available for 
public inspection at reasonable times the result of every rollcall vote 
taken at any committee meeting; this information must include a 
description of the proposition and the names of all members voting for 
and against ``whether by proxy (9) or in person,'' as well 
as the names of those present but not voting.(10) Where a 
committee casts a record vote to report any public bill or resolution, 
the committee report must contain the total number of votes cast for 
and against the reporting out of the measure. Testimony from committee 
hearings, as well as the committee's records, data, charts, and files 
must be ``kept separate and distinct'' from the congressional office 
records of the chairman of the committee.(11) The testimony 
and data may be printed and bound by the committee, and are regarded as 
the property of the House--with reasonable access to be made available 
to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XI clause 2(e)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 706 (1979).
 9. Although the House, of course, does not allow the use of proxy 
        votes on the floor, the rules do permit their use in committees 
        subject to certain restrictions. See Rule XI clause 2(f), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 707 (1979).
10. Rule XI clause 2(e)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 706 (1979).
11. Rule XI clause 2(e)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 706 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Committee hearings are governed by many provisions of the House 
rules. Each committee (12) must make public announcement of 
the date, place, and subject

[[Page 2675]]

matter of any hearing it plans to conduct at least one week before the 
commencement of the hearing unless the committee finds good cause to 
begin the hearing sooner, in which event the announcement must be made 
at the earliest possible date.(13) The announcement is then 
published in the daily digest portion of the Congressional Record. At 
the commencement of an investigative hearing, the chairman must 
announce in an opening statement the subject of the 
investigation.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Except the Committee on Rules.
13. Rule XI clause 2(g)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 708 (1979).
14. Rule XI clause 2(k)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 712 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with committee meetings for the transaction of business, any 
determination to close a committee hearing to the public must be made 
in open session, with a majority present, and by roll call vote; 
(15) however, the reasons for such action are expressly 
limited to those circumstances (1) in which disclosure of matters to be 
considered would endanger the national security or violate a law or 
rule of the House, or (2) where evidence may ten`1 to defame, degrade, 
or incriminate any person. Each committee is obliged to require, ``so 
far as practicable,'' (16) that each prospective witness 
file a written statement of his proposed testimony in advance and limit 
his oral presentation to a summary thereof. In the committee's 
discretion, witnesses may also submit brief, sworn statements in 
writing for inclusion in the record.(17) They may be 
accompanied by their own counsel for the purpose of being advised of 
their constitutional rights.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XI clause 2(g)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 708 (1979).
16. Rule XI clause 2(g)(4), House Rules and Manual Sec. 708 (1979).
17. Rule XI clause 2(k)(8), House Rules and Manual Sec. 712 (1979).
18. Rule XI clause 2(k)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 712 (1979).
            The following paragraph, excerpted from the Committee on 
        Internal Security's ``Rules of Committee Procedure'' for the 
        91st Congress, may be helpful in understanding the limited role 
        of counsel as well as the absence of the adversarial process at 
        committee hearings.
            ``The rules of legislative bodies and their committees 
        differ from those of courts. The procedures of any body must be 
        geared to its purpose. Courts have one purpose, Congressional 
        Committees another. Courts conduct trials to determine guilt or 
        innocence, or to adjudicate rights. Court proceedings are 
        adversary in nature; committee proceedings are not. Committees 
        hold hearings to develop information that will assist in the 
        enactment of legislation. Courtroom procedures are not followed 
        in Congressional hearings or vice versa, because any attempt to 
        apply the rules of one to the other would tend to frustrate the 
        attainment of the different purposes for which they were 
        created. Court procedures governing the reception of evidence 
        and the examination of witnesses are not binding on the 
        Committees of the Congress.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2676]]

However, the chairman and the committee are empowered by the rules to 
take specified measures in the event of a breach either of order and 
decorum or professional ethics on the part of counsel.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Rule XI clause 2(k)(4), House Rules and Manual Sec. 712 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Witnesses are entitled to a copy of the committee rules, if any, as 
well as a copy of the clause governing committee 
hearings.(20) They may also obtain transcripts of their 
public testimony--committee authorization being required for 
transcripts of their executive session testimony.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule XI clause 2(k)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 712 (1979).
 1. Rule XI clause 2(k)(9), House Rules and Manual Sec. 712 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every committee may fix a particular number of its members to 
constitute a quorum for purposes of taking testimony and receiving 
evidence, but under no circumstances may this number be less than 
two.(2) Where, prior to the completion of a committee 
hearing, a majority of the minority party members address a request to 
the chairman to call witnesses of their own selection to testify about 
the subject under consideration, those members are entitled to ``at 
least one day of hearing thereon.'' Moreover, all committees must 
provide in their rules of procedure for the application of the five-
minute rule in the interrogation of witnesses ``until such time as each 
member of the committee who so desires has had an opportunity to 
question the witness.'' (3) If it is asserted that evidence 
or testimony at an investigatory hearing may tend to defame, degrade, 
or incriminate any person, such evidence or testimony shall be 
presented in executive session if, by a majority of those present (the 
requisite number required under the committee rules for the purpose of 
taking testimony being present) the committee determines that such 
evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any 
person. However, the committee shall proceed to receive such testimony 
in open session only if a majority of the members, a majority being 
present, determine that such evidence or testimony will not tend to 
defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XI clause 2(h)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 709 (1979).
 3. Rule XI clauses 2(j)(1) and 2(j)(2), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 711 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2677]]

In either case, the committee shall afford such person an opportunity 
to appear as a witness, and receive and dispose of requests from such 
person to subpena additional witnesses.(4) The committee 
chairman normally receives all requests to subpena additional 
witnesses,(5) and requests under this provision are disposed 
of by the committee. No evidence or testimony taken in executive 
session may be released or used in public sessions without the consent 
of the committee.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Rule XI clause 2(k)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 712 (1979).
 5. Rule XI clause 2(k)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 712 (1979).
 6. Rule XI clause 2(k)(7), House Rules and Manual Sec. 712 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a committee member intends to raise a point of order on the 
ground that the hearings on a measure were in violation of the 
committee hearing provisions of the rules,(7) such a point 
of order will not ultimately lie at the time the committee reports the 
measure unless the point of order was timely raised in the committee 
and improperly overruled or not, properly considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XI clause 2(g)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 708 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House has adopted a number of provisions in the rules 
pertaining to the conduct of media coverage of committee hearings open 
to the public. The intent of the rules is to provide ``for the 
education, enlightenment, and information of the general public on the 
basis of accurate and impartial news coverage.'' (8) It is 
also the rules' intent that radio and television tapes and television 
film not be used, or made available for use, as partisan political 
campaign material either to promote or to oppose the candidacy of any 
person for elective public office.(9) Moreover, the conduct 
of all individuals including committee members, staff, government 
officials and personnel, witnesses, members of the press, and the 
general public must be in ``strict conformity with and observance of 
the acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy, and decorum 
traditionally observed by the House.'' (10) The rules 
specify that individuals' behavior must not be such as to ``distort the 
objects and purposes of the hearings'' or to ``cast discredit or 
dishonor on the House, the committee, or any Member.'' Media coverage 
of committee hearings, the rules additionally point out, is

[[Page 2678]]

``a privilege made available by the House'' (11) and is 
permissible only if undertaken in ``strict conformity'' with the 
requirements laid down by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XI clause 3(a)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 720 (1979).
 9. Rule XI clause 3(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 720 (1979).
10. Rule XI clause 3(c) House Rules and Manual Sec. 721 (1979).
11. Rule XI clause 3(d), House Rules and Manual Sec. 721 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general requirements described above, the rules 
mandate highly specific directions to be followed by the media in 
covering a hearing. While any committee conducting a hearing open to 
the public may decide by majority vote to allow such media coverage as 
the committee chooses,(12) the committee must have adopted 
written rules pertaining thereto. Such rules must contain provisions 
prohibiting the following: (13) (1) any commercial 
sponsorship where the hearings are presented as live television or 
radio coverage; (2) the photographing, televising, or broadcasting of 
subpenaed witnesses against their will; (3) the use of more than four 
television cameras (each of which must occupy a fixed position); (4) 
the obstruction in any way by television cameras of the space between 
any witness and any member of the committee; (5) the placement of 
television cameras which unnecessarily obstruct coverage by other 
media; (6) the installation or removal of television or radio equipment 
while the committee is in session; (7) the use of floodlights, 
spotlights, strobelights, or flashguns in providing coverage; 
(14) (8) the presence of more than five still photographers 
from the press; (9) the intrusion, at any time, by photographers of the 
space between the witness table and the members of the committee; (10) 
the unnecessary obstruction by photographers of coverage by other 
media; (11) any coverage by television or radio personnel not then 
currently accredited to the Radio and Television Correspondents' 
Galleries; (12) any coverage by still photographers not then accredited 
to the Press Photographers' Gallery; and (13) any coverage by 
television, radio, or still photography personnel which fails to be 
orderly and unobtrusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XI clause 3(e), House Rules and Manual Sec. 722 (1979).
13. Rule XI clauses 3(f) (1)-(13), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 723-725 (1979).
14. Though the television media may raise the ambient lighting level to 
        ``the lowest level necessary'' to provide adequate coverage; 
        Rule XI clause 3(f)(7), House Rules and Manual Sec. 723 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the rule does not specifically 
address electronic taping of open meetings and hearings by persons not 
accredited to the Correspond

[[Page 2679]]

ents' Gallery, such taping is not permitted except by express 
permission of the committee.
    No measure or recommendation may be reported from any committee 
unless a majority of the committee were actually 
present.(15) Committee members may use proxy votes, however, 
providing that their committee has adopted a written rule permitting 
proxies which requires each such authorization to be in writing 
asserting that the Member is absent on official business or is 
otherwise unable to attend the meeting and designating the person who 
may cast the vote, and limiting the exercise of the proxy to a specific 
measure or matter and any amendments or motions pertaining 
thereto.(16) Any bill or resolution reported by a committee 
must be accompanied by a written report which shall be 
printed.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XI clause 2(l) (2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979). See also Sec. 23, infra.
16. Rule XI clause 2(f), House Rules and Manual Sec. 707 (1979).
17. Rule XVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 821 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each committee chairman is under an affirmative duty to report or 
cause to be reported promptly to the House any measure approved by his 
committee; this duty extends to taking ``the necessary steps to bring 
the matter to a vote.(18) However, the report of any 
committee (19) ``shall be filed within seven calendar days 
[emphasis added]'' (20) after the day on which the committee 
clerk has received a written request signed by a majority of committee 
members calling for the reporting of that measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XI clause 2(l) (1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(a) 
        (1979).
19. This provision does not apply to the Committee on Rules; Rule XI 
        clause 2(l)(1)(B), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(a) (1979). 
        Nor does this provision apply to the Committee on 
        Appropriations prior to compliance with Rule XI clause 
        2(l)(1)(C), requiring complete subcommittee markup and full 
        committee action on all regular appropriation bills for that 
        year and submission to the House of a summary report comparing 
        the committee's recommendations with the appropriate levels of 
        budget outlays and new budget authority as set forth in the 
        most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for 
        that year.
20. This time period is ``exclusive of days on which the House is not 
        in session;'' Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(B), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 713(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If any committee member, at the time a measure or matter is 
approved by the committee,(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979). 
        This provision does not apply to the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2680]]

gives notice of his intent to file any additional views, he has at 
least three calendar days (2) in which to file such views, 
in writing and signed, with the committee clerk. All of such views 
filed by one or more committee members must comprise an actual part of 
the committee report on the measure. Moreover, the report must be 
printed in a single volume which, in addition to containing all timely 
submitted additional views, must also ``bear upon its cover a recital 
that supplemental, minority, or additional views are included as part 
of the report.'' None of these requirements, however, precludes the 
immediate filing or printing of a committee report where no timely 
request is made to file additional views or where the committees filing 
of a supplemental report is required for the correction of any 
technical error in the previous report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. This time period excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except for those reports which are privileged under the rules 
(3) all committee reports together with the views of the 
minority must be delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to 
the proper calendar under the direction of the Speaker.(4) 
Should a bill be adversely reported it is laid on the table unless the 
committee reporting the bill at the time or any Member within three 
days thereafter requests its reference to the calendar.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
 4. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1979).
 5. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 744 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a measure would repeal or amend any statute or part thereof, 
the committee must include in its accompanying report: (a) the relevant 
portion of the statute which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a 
comparative print of that portion of the measure making the amendment 
and of that part of the statute proposed to be amended using 
typographical devices to indicate the omissions and insertions that are 
proposed.(6) Additionally the report accompanying each bill 
or joint resolution of a public char
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. If the committee reports a bill or joint resolution with amendments 
        or an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the entire 
        bill, the report must include a comparative print showing any 
        changes in existing law, proposed by the amendments or 
        substitute instead of as in the bill as introduced; see Rule 
        XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2681]]

acter reported by any committee (with specified exceptions) must 
contain: (7) (a) in the case of measures affecting the 
revenues, a committee estimate of the gain or loss in revenues for a 
one-year period; (b) in all other cases, a committee estimate of the 
prospective cost of carrying out a measure in the fiscal year it is 
reported and in each of the five fiscal years following that fiscal 
year; (8) and (c) a comparison of the committee estimate 
with any estimate made by any government agency and submitted to the 
committee.(9) If these estimate requirements are not within 
the report of the committee reporting such a measure, the measure's 
consideration ``shall not be in order.''(10) The Committee 
Reform Amendments imposed, effective Jan. 3, 1975, some additional 
requirements on the contents of reports (see Sec. 58, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 748b (1979). This 
        provision does not apply to the Committee on Appropriations, 
        the Committee on House Administration, the Committee on Rules, 
        and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
 8. If the program does not extend to five years, then the estimate 
        need only cover the authorized duration period.
 9. The rule defines a government agency as including ``any department, 
        agency, establishment, wholly owned Government corporation, or 
        instrumentality of the Federal Government or the government of 
        the District of Columbia.'' See Rule XIII clause 7(c), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 748b (1979).
10. Rule XIII clause 7(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 748b (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to House consideration of a measure or matter reported by a 
committee, there are certain other procedural steps which must be 
undertaken. With certain exceptions, no measure or matter reported by 
any committee may be considered in the House (11) until the 
third calendar day (12) after the particular committee 
report has been made available to House Members. In addition, if the 
committee held hearings on the matter, it must take ``every reasonable 
effort to have such hearings printed and available for distribution to 
the Members'' prior to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XI clause 2(l)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1979). 
        Under Rule XXI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 848 (1979) 
        no general appropriation bill may be considered in the House 
        until printed committee hearings and a committee report thereon 
        have been available for the Members of the House for at least 
        three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal 
        holidays).
12. Excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; Rule XI clause 
        2(1) (6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2682]]

House consideration of the matter.(13) If, within seven 
calendar days after a measure has, by resolution, been made in order 
for consideration by the House, no motion has been offered that the 
House consider that measure, the Speaker may, in his discretion, 
recognize any member of the committee which reported that measure to 
offer a motion that the House shall consider that measure, if that 
committee has duly authorized that member to offer that 
motion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Exceptions to this include any measure for the declaration of war 
        or the declaration of a national emergency and any executive 
        action which would become or remain effective unless 
        disapproved by one or both Houses of Congress; Rule XI clause 
        2(1)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1979).
14. Rule XI clause 2(l) House Ruless and Manual Sec. 717 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    House rules setting forth the order of business (15) 
provide for a ``morning hour for the consideration of bills called up 
by committees.'' (16) After unfinished business is disposed 
of and in the absence of any privileged interruptions,(17) 
the Speaker is directed by the rules (18) to ``call each 
standing committee in regular order, and then select committees.'' Each 
committee when named may call up for consideration any bill reported by 
it on a previous day and on the House Calendar. If the call of the 
committees is not completed before the House passes to other business, 
the Speaker resumes the next call where he left off, giving preference 
to the last bill under consideration. However, if any committee has 
occupied the morning hour for two days, it is not in order to call up 
any other bill until the other committees have been called in their 
turn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For more extensive coverage of this subject, see Ch. 21, infra.
16. Rule XXIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1979).
17. There are many privileged matters which may interrupt the order of 
        business. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 880 (1979).
18. Rule XXIV clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 889 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``morning hour'' provisions are but one method (and one 
infrequently utilized) through which committees call up for 
consideration the measures they have reported. There are several other 
procedures for bringing reported bills before the House which bypass 
the regular order of business. These include (1) consideration pursuant 
to a unanimous-consent request; (2) the offering of a motion by 
direction of the Committee on Appropriations that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee

[[Page 2683]]

of the Whole for the consideration of a general appropriation bill; 
(1) (3) the calling up of a conference report; 
(2) (4) the reporting of a special order by the Committee on 
Rules for the immediate consideration of a measure by the House; 
(3) (5) the consideration of privileged bills reported under 
the right to report at any time; (4) (6) the call of 
committees on [Calendar] Wednesdays for the consideration of bills on 
the House and Union Calendars; (5) (7) the consideration of 
measures on the Private Calendar on the first and third Tuesdays of 
each month; (6) (8) the offering of motions to discharge 
committees from public bills and resolutions on the second and fourth 
Mondays of each month; (7) (9) the consideration of measures 
reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia on the second and 
fourth Mondays of each month; (8) (10) the consideration of 
bills on the Consent Calendar on the first and third Mondays of each 
month; (~9~) (11) the making of a motion to suspend the 
rules and pass bills on the first and third Mondays of each month and 
on the Tuesdays immediately following those days; (10) and 
(12) the consideration of bills coming over from a previous day with 
the previous question ordered.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule XVI clause 9, House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979), and 
        Rule X clause 1 (b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 671(a) 
        (1979). Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 
        (1979) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.) removed the privileged 
        status of reports on bills raising revenue reported from the 
        Committee on Ways and Means. Rule XVI clause 9 does not bestow 
        privilege on revenue bills, but merely relates to their place 
        in the order of business when otherwise in order.
 2. See Rule XXVIII clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909 
        (1979).
 3. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
 4. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
 5. See Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1979).
 6. See Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1979).
 7. See Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979); 
        see also Ch. 18, infra.
 8. See Rule XXIV clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 899 (1979).
 9. See Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1979).
10. In the 95th Congress, the rule was amended to permit the Speaker to 
        recognize for such motions on every Monday and Tuesday (H. Res. 
        5, Jan. 4, 1977). See Rule XXVII clause 1, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 902 (1979).
11. See note to Rule XXIV clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 887 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The selection, duties, remuneration, and status of committees' 
professional staff members are

[[Page 2684]]

also subject to certain procedural requirements specified in the rules.
    With the exceptions of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Committee on the Budget, all standing committees are granted 
authorization for the payment of their expenses, other than those 
expenses to be paid from appropriations provided by statute, through 
the means of primary expense resolutions and, if necessary, additional 
expense resolutions during the year.(12) This information is 
discussed at length in the immediately preceding section. The primary 
expense resolution is intended to provide funds from the contingent 
fund of the House to pay committee expenses for the particular year. No 
primary expense resolution may be considered unless a printed report 
from the Committee on House Administration on the measure has been 
available to the Members for at least one calendar day prior to its 
consideration in the House. The report must state the total amount of 
funds sought for all anticipated activities and programs of the 
committee as well as a breakdown, to the extent practicable, of the 
foreseeable expenditures for the anticipated activities and programs of 
the committee.(~13) If the primary expense resolution has 
been adopted by the House, and thereafter the committee needs 
additional funds for expenses, such funding may be procured by one or 
more additional expense resolutions.(14~) An additional 
expense resolution may not be considered unless a report on the 
resolution has been available to Members for at least one calendar day 
prior to its consideration in the House. The report must state the 
total amount of additional funds sought by the committee, the purpose 
or purposes for which additional funding is necessary, and the reason 
or reasons for failure to procure the additional funds through the 
primary resolution.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 732(a) (1979). 
        Excluded from the provisions of the rule are certain 
        resolutions relating to the payment of a committee's expenses 
        prior to adoption of the committee's primary expense 
        resolution; and any resolution providing, in any Congress, for 
        payment of specified additional expenses for all standing 
        committees of the House, ``subject to and until enactment of 
        the provisions of the resolution as permanent law.'' Rule XI 
        clause 5(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732(c)(1979).
13. Rule XI clauses 5(a) (1) and (2), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 732(b) (1979).
14. Rule XI clause 5(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732(c) (1979).
15. Prior to the 94th Congress, both primary expense resolutions and 
        additional expense resolutions must have granted certain 
        considerations in the appointment of committee staff personnel 
        to the minority party members on a committee. See note to Rule 
        XI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 732(e) (1979).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2685]]

    The rules (16) provide that each standing committee 
(17) ``shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the 
application, administration, and execution of those laws, or parts of 
laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of that 
committee.'' (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule X clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 692(a) (1979).
17. With the exception of the Committees on Appropriations and the 
        Budget; Rule X clause 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 692(a) (1979).
18. See Rule X clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 692(a), 
        692(b) (1979). For the practice regarding general oversight 
        responsibilities prior to the 94th Congress, see the note to 
        Rule X clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of consideration of all bills and joint resolutions 
of a public character within its jurisdiction, each committee must 
``endeavor to insure'' that all continuing programs of the federal 
government (and of the government of the District of Columbia) within 
its jurisdiction, are designed, and all continuing activities of 
government agencies, within the committee's jurisdiction, are carried 
on ``so that, to the extent consistent with the nature, requirements, 
and objectives of those programs and activities, appropriations 
therefor will be made annually.'' (19) Moreover, each 
standing committee is obliged to review ``from time to time'' all 
continuing programs within its jurisdiction for which appropriations 
are not made annually in order to ascertain whether such programs could 
be modified so that appropriations therefor would be made annually 
(20~) The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 imposed, 
effective Jan. 3, 1975, new general and specific oversight activities 
on committees.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Rule X clause 4(f)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 699(a) (1979) .
20. Rule X clause 4(f)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 699(a) (1979).
 1. See Rule X clauses 2, 3, and 4, added by H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 692(a)-699(c) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House rules provide that each committee clerk must, within 
three days of the final adjournment of a Congress, deliver to the Clerk 
of the House ``all bills, joint resolutions, petitions, and other 
papers referred to the committee, together with all evidence'' taken by 
the committee pursuant to House authorization during the Congress and 
not reported to the House. Moreover, if for any reason any committee 
clerk fails to com

[[Page 2686]]

ply with this rule, the Clerk of the House is obliged, within three 
days thereafter, to ``take into his keeping all such papers and 
testimony.'' The rules further provide that at the close of each 
Congress, the Clerk of the House must obtain all noncurrent records of 
each committee (and of the House) and transfer them to the General 
Services Administration ``for preservation subject to the order of the 
House.'' (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XXXVI clauses 1 and 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 932 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Collateral Reference
Leading Cases on Congressional Investigatory Power, compiled by the 
    Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, Committee Print, 94th 
    Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 
    1976.                          -------------------

Five-minute Rule for Interrogation of Witnesses

Sec. 14.1 The 92d Congress added a new provision to the rules requiring 
    committees to apply the five-minute rule during interrogation of 
    witnesses until each member has had the opportunity to question 
    each witness.

    On Jan. 21, 1971,(3) the House entertained consideration 
of a resolution (H. Res. 5) which provided, in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 14, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
    first Congress, together with all applicable provisions of the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, and the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, be, and they are hereby 
    adopted as the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
    second Congress, with the following amendments as part thereof. . . 
    .

    Among the amendments referred to therein was the following:

        In clause 27(f)(4) of Rule XI,(4) insert the 
    following new sentence at the end thereof:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. This clause then read [Rule Xl clause 27(f)(4), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 735(f)(4) (1971)] as follows:
            ``(4) Whenever any hearing is conducted by any committee 
        upon any measure or matter, the minority party members on the 
        committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a 
        majority of those minority party members before the completion 
        of such hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to 
        testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least 
        one day of hearing thereon.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``All committees shall provide in their rules of procedure for 
    the application of the 5 minute rule in the interrogation of 
    witnesses until such time as each member of the committee who so 
    desires has had an opportunity to question the witness.''

    Further consideration of the proposal having been put over

[[Page 2687]]

until the next day, the resolution (H. Res. 5) was adopted on Jan. 22, 
1971,(5) and the rule was amended, accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increasing Witnesses' Compensation

Sec. 14.2 In the 91st Congress, the rules of the House were amended to 
    increase the fee of witnesses subpenaed by its committees from $9 
    to $20 per day, and their travel expenses from 7 cents per mile to 
    12 cents per mile.

    On Aug. 12, 1969,(6) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, called up a resolution (H. 
Res. 495), and asked for its immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 23354, 23355, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk then read the resolution, as follows:

        Resolved, That rule XXXV of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is amended to read as follows:

                                ``RULE XXXV.

                            ``PAY OF WITNESSES.

        ``The rule for paying witnesses subpenaed to appear before the 
    House or any of its committees shall be as follows: For each day a 
    witness shall attend, the sum of twenty dollars; and actual 
    expenses of travel in coming to or going from the place of 
    examination, not to exceed twelve cents per mile; but nothing shall 
    be paid for travel when the witness has been summoned at the place 
    of examination.''

    In the ensuing discussion, Mr. Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, 
pointed out that the then-prevailing rule (7) was ``woefully 
inadequate'' (8) inasmuch as subpenaed witnesses were only 
allotted $9 per day for each day of attendance and 7 cents per mile for 
the distance they were obliged to travel. He noted additionally that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XXXV had read [H. Jour. 1324 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968)] as 
        follows:
            ``The rule for paying witnesses subpenaed to appear before 
        the House or either of its committees shall be as follows: For 
        each day a witness shall attend, the sum of nine dollars; for 
        each mile he shall travel in coming to or going from the place 
        of examination, the sum of seven cents each way; but nothing 
        shall be paid for traveling when the witness has been summoned 
        at the place of trial.''
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 23355, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . A night's lodging in Washington in even modest 
    accommodations cannot conceivably be secured for anything in the 
    vicinity of $9; and this would leave the matter of meals, taxis, 
    and so forth, still unaccounted for. The rate of 7 cents per mile 
    is inadequate for the payment of air fare, except for travel from 
    the Far West.

[[Page 2688]]

    The resolution was agreed to shortly thereafter.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 23356.
            In the 94th Congress, the House amended Rule XXXV by 
        removing the $20 per diem and 12 cents per mile limits on pay 
        for subpenaed House and committee witnesses and setting the 
        amount at the same rate fixed by the Committee on House 
        Administration for Members' and employees' travel, to be paid 
        to all witnesses whether or not subpenaed. See Deschler's 
        Procedure, Ch. 17 Sec. 11.4 (95th Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 15. Adoption of Committee Rules

    Committees have historically adopted rules under which they 
function.
    The requirement that standing committees adopt written rules 
(10) was first incorporated into the rules on Jan. 22, 1971 
(H. Res. 5, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.), having been included in the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140). Effective Jan. 
3, 1975, committee rules were required to be adopted in an open 
meeting, to incorporate the provisions of the House rules on committee 
procedures, and to be published in the Congressional 
Record.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XI clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 (1979).
11. A federal court has interpreted that provision of the Legislative 
        Reorganization Act requiring the printing of the Senate (but 
        not House) committee rules in the Congressional Record to be 
        mandatory, and held that a Senate committee meeting of one 
        Senator was not a ``competent'' tribunal to support a perjury 
        conviction, where the committee rule allowing one Senator to 
        take testimony had not been printed in the Record. [U.S. v 
        Reinecke, 524 F2d 435 
        (1975).]                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rules Consistent With House Rules

Sec. 15.1 In the 92d Congress, the rules were amended to make mandatory 
    the requirement that committees adopt written rules not 
    inconsistent with the rules of the House.

    On Jan. 21, 1971,(12) Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, offered a resolution (H. Res. 5), and asked for its 
immediate consideration. The Clerk then read the resolution, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 14, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
    Ninety-first Congress, together with all applicable provisions of 
    the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, and the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, be, and they are hereby 
    adopted as the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
    second Congress, with the following amendments as part thereof, to 
    wit: . . .

[[Page 2689]]

        In Rule XI, strike out paragraph (a) of clause 27 
    (13) and insert in lieu thereof the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. In the previous Congress, Rule Xl clause 27(a) had [H. Jour. 1792, 
        91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970)] read:
            ``27. (a) The Rules of the House are the rules of its 
        committees so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess 
        from day to day is a motion of high privilege in committees. 
        Committees may adopt additional rules not inconsistent 
        therewith.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``(a) The Rules of the House are the rules of its committees 
    and subcommittees so far as applicable, except that a motion to 
    recess from day to day is a motion of high privilege in committees 
    and subcommittees. Committees shall adopt written rules not 
    inconsistent with the Rules of the House and those rules shall be 
    binding on each subcommittee of that committee. Each subcommittee 
    of a committee is a part of that committee and is subject to the 
    authority and direction of that committee.''

    When the resolution, as amended, was agreed to,(1~4) the 
provision requiring committees to adopt written rules not inconsistent 
with those of the House became effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insertion of Rules in the Record

Sec. 15.2 When the Committee on Rules adopts rules of procedure the 
    chairman of the committee inserts them in the Record.

    On Jan. 7, 1969,(15) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, Chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, who made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 290, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, in conformity with and carrying out the provisions 
    of Rule XI of the House,(16) the Committee on Rules, on 
    January 7, 1969, unanimously adopted the following rules of 
    procedure for the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XI did not at that time require Mr. Colmer to insert the rules 
        adopted by his committee in the Record. Certain practices were 
        prescribed as mandatory for all standing committees, however 
        [H. Jour. 1436, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969)] such as the fixing 
        of regular meeting days [clause 26] and the prohibition against 
        adopting rules inconsistent with those of the House [clause 
        27(a)] among others [clauses 26, 27(a)-(q)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Rules of Procedure for the Committee on Rules, Adopted January 
                                    7, 1969

                                rule 1. meetings

            The Committee on Rules shall meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday 
        of each week while the Congress is in session. Meetings shall 
        be called to order and presided over by the Chairman, or in the 
        absence of the Chairman, by the ranking Majority Member of the 
        Committee present, as Acting Chairman.

[[Page 2690]]

            Meetings and hearings of the Committee shall be open to the 
        public except when a majority of the Committee determine that 
        testimony received may bear upon matters affecting national 
        security. Executive sessions of the Committee shall be closed.
            For the purpose of hearing testimony, a majority of the 
        Committee shall constitute a quorum.
            A printed transcript of any hearing or public meeting of 
        the Committee may be had if the Chairman decides it is 
        necessary, or if a majority of the Members request it.
            A Tuesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with 
        where, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need 
        therefor, and additional meetings may be called by the Chairman 
        or by written request of a majority of the Committee duly filed 
        with the counsel of the Committee.

                                 rule 2. voting

            No measure or recommendation shall be reported or tabled by 
        the Committee unless a majority of the Committee is actually 
        present.
            A roll call vote of the Members of the Committee may be had 
        upon the request of any Member.

                               rule 3. reporting

            Whenever the Committee authorizes the favorable reporting 
        of a bill or resolution from the Committee the Chairman or 
        Acting Chairman shall report the same or designate some Member 
        of the Committee to report the same to the House, as provided 
        in the Rules of the House.

                           rule 4. committee staffing

            The professional and clerical staffs of the Committee shall 
        be under the general supervision and direction of the Chairman, 
        who shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities 
        of the members of the staffs and delegate such authority as the 
        Chairman deems appropriate, with the exception of the Minority 
        staff, who shall be selected by and under the general 
        supervision and direction of the Ranking Minority Member of the 
        Committee.

                             rule 5. miscellaneous

            The Committee shall prepare, maintain, and publish for the 
        Members of the Committee, so far as practicable, a calendar 
        listing all matters formally before it. Information on the 
        Calendar shall include the numbers of the bills or resolutions, 
        a brief description of a bill's contents, including the 
        legislative committee reporting it and the name of the 
        principal sponsoring Member. For purposes of this rule, matters 
        formally before the Committee include: bills or resolutions 
        over which the Committee has original jurisdiction, and bills 
        or resolutions from other committees concerning which the 
        chairman or designated member of such committee has requested a 
        hearing in writing and forwarded to the Committee on Rules a 
        copy of such bill or resolution as reported, together with the 
        final printed committee report.
            Upon adoption of the rules and procedures of the Committee 
        at the opening of each Congress, the Chairman may have these 
        rules and procedures printed in an early issue of The 
        Congressional Record.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See the introduction to Sec. 14, supra, for a detailed analysis of 
        the requirements imposed upon committees by Rule XI.
            For an earlier instance in which the Committee on Rules 
        made public its rules of procedure, see 113 Cong. Rec. 4774, 
        4775, 90th Cong.f 1st Sess., Feb. 28, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.3 The Committee on Internal Security having adopted

[[Page 2691]]

    its committee rules covering such subjects as the conduct of 
    investigative hearings, the protection of witnesses and their 
    testimony, and the participation of counsel in committee hearings, 
    the chairman of the committee inserted the rules in the Record.

    On Feb. 24, 1969,(18) Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, 
Chairman of the Committee on Internal Security, made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 4191, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . For the information of the House, I . . . note that the 
    new committee (1) has adopted rules of procedures which 
    I believe are the most comprehensive and the fairest rules ever 
    adopted by a committee of this Congress. I . . . append a copy of 
    the new Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Internal Security. I 
    think you will agree that the rules go as far as possible in 
    protecting the rights of persons appearing before the committee, 
    while still constituting a workable set of rules for the purposes 
    of a legislative body.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The Committee on Internal Security replaced the Committee on Un-
        American Activities, see Sec. 41, infra.
 2. Mr. Ichord had asked and was granted permission to extend his 
        remarks at this point in the Record and to include extraneous 
        matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules of which Mr. Ichord spoke, were printed in the Record as 
follows: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 4192, 4193, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Committee Rules of Procedure

                      i--initiation of investigations

        No investigation shall be undertaken by the Committee unless 
    authorized by a majority of the members thereof. Committee 
    investigations shall be limited to those legislative purposes 
    committed to it by the mandate of the House. The subjects of 
    inquiry of any investigation shall be set forth in the Committee 
    resolution authorizing such investigation.

      ii--committee and subcommittee meetings--quorum--appointment of 
                               subcommittees

        A--Committee or subcommittee meetings to make authorizations or 
    decisions with respect to investigations shall be called only upon 
    a minimum of 24 hours' written or verbal notice to the office of 
    each member while the Congress is in session, and 3 days' written 
    notice when not in session. Any objection to the sufficiency of 
    notice of any meeting shall be deemed waived, unless written 
    objection is filed with the Chairman of the Committee or 
    subcommittee.
        B--The Chairman of the Committee is authorized and empowered 
    from time to time to appoint subcommittees, and to reconstitute the 
    membership thereof, composed of three or more members of the 
    Committee, at least one of whom shall be of the minority political 
    party, and a majority of whom

[[Page 2692]]

    shall constitute a quorum, for the purpose of conducting any 
    investigation initiated by the Committee or performing any and all 
    acts which the Committee as a whole is authorized to perform for 
    the purpose of any such investigation. No subcommittee shall have 
    the authority to release executive testimony, or to report any 
    measure or recommendation to the House.

               iii--delegation of authority to subcommittees

        In addition to the general authority delegated to subcommittees 
    under the preceding section, each subcommittee is delegated 
    authority:
        A--Subject to the provisions of section X hereof, to determine 
    by majority vote thereof whether the hearings conducted by it shall 
    be open to the public or shall be in executive session; and
        B--To admit to the hearing room whatever public information 
    media it deems advisable or necessary, provided that the decision 
    of the subcommittee shall not be in conflict with the rulings of 
    the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                        iv--subpenaing of witnesses

        A--Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the Chairman 
    of the Committee or of any subcommittee, or by any member 
    designated by such chairman, when authorized by a majority of the 
    members of such Committee or subcommittee, and may be served by any 
    person designated by any such Chairman or member.
        B--Each subpoena shall contain a statement of the Committee 
    resolution authorizing the particular investigation with respect to 
    which the witness is summoned to testify or to produce papers, and 
    shal1 contain a statement notifying the witness that if he desires 
    a conference with a representative of the Committee prior to the 
    date of the hearing, he may call or write to counsel of the 
    Committee.
        C--Witnesses shall be subpenaed at a reasonably sufficient time 
    in advance of any hearing, said time to be determined by the 
    Committee or subcommittee, in order to give the witness an 
    opportunity to prepare for the hearing and to employ counsel, 
    should he so desire.

               v--publication of names of subpenaed witnesses

        No member of the Committee or staff shall make public the name 
    of any witness subpenaed before the Committee or subcommittee prior 
    to the date and time set for his appearance.

                         vi--distribution of rules

        All witnesses appearing before the Committee or subcommittee 
    shall be furnished a printed copy of the Rules of Procedure of the 
    Committee and clause 27 of Rule XI of the House of Representatives.

                   vii--witness fees and travel allowance

        Each witness who has been subpenaed, upon the completion of his 
    testimony before the Committee or subcommittee, may report to the 
    office of counsel of the Committee, Cannon House Office Building, 
    Washington, D.C., and there sign appropriate vouchers for travel 
    allowances and attendance fees. If hearings are held in

[[Page 2693]]

    cities other than Washington, D.C., the witness may contact the 
    counsel of the Committee, or his representative, prior to leaving 
    the hearing room.

                      viii--subjects of investigation

        The subjects of any investigation in connection with which 
    witnesses are summoned or shall otherwise appear, shall be publicly 
    announced in an opening statement before administration of oath or 
    affirmation or receipt of testimony at any hearing and a copy 
    thereof shall be made available to each witness. The information 
    sought to be elicited at the hearings shall be germane to the 
    subject as so stated.

                          ix--testimony under oath

        A--All witnesses at public or executive investigative hearings 
    who testify as to matters of fact shall give all testimony under 
    oath or affirmation which shall be administered by the Chairman or 
    a member of the Committee or subcommittee.
        B--No witness shall be compelled to testify under oath or 
    affirmation at any Committee or subcommittee hearing unless a 
    quorum of the Committee or subcommittee is present to receive such 
    testimony. 

                           x--executive hearings

        A--The Committee or subcommittee shall receive evidence or 
    testimony in executive session--
        (1) When the Committee or subcommittee determines that evidence 
    or testimony at an investigative hearing may tend to defame, 
    degrade, or incriminate any person in proceedings pursuant to House 
    Rule XI, 27(m);
        (2) When the Committee or subcommittee determines that the 
    interrogation of a witness in a public hearing might compromise 
    classified information, or might endanger the national security; or
        (3) When the Committee or subcommittee determines that the 
    interrogation of a witness in a public hearing might tend adversely 
    to affect the national interest.
        B--Testimony or evidence given in executive session and the 
    identity of witnesses called to testify in such session shall not 
    be disclosed by any member or employee of the Committee without the 
    Committee's approval.
        C--No person shall be allowed to be present during a hearing of 
    a Committee or subcommittee held in executive session, except 
    members and employees of the Committee, the witness and his 
    counsel, officials, stenographers, or interpreters of the 
    Committee, and any other person whose presence the Committee or 
    subcommittee deems indispensable for the conduct of the hearing.

            xi--release of testimony taken in executive session

        A--No testimony taken or material presented in an executive 
    session, or any summary or excerpt thereof, shall be made public or 
    presented at a public hearing, either in whole or in part, unless 
    authorized by a majority of the Committee.
        B--No evidence or testimony, or any summary or excerpt thereof, 
    given in executive session which the Committee determines may tend 
    to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person shall be released, or 
    presented at a public hearing, unless such person shall have been 
    afforded the opportunities pro

[[Page 2694]]

    vided by House Rule XI, 27(m), and any pertinent evidence or 
    testimony given by such person, or on his behalf, is made a part of 
    the transcript, summary, or excerpt to be released.
        C--Persons afforded opportunities under House Rule XI, 27(m), 
    shall be advised that testimony, or an extract or summary thereof, 
    received pursuant to such rule may subsequently be publicly 
    released or offered at a public hearing.

                       xii--transcripts of testimony

        A--A complete and accurate record shall be made of all 
    testimony and proceedings at Committee and subcommittee hearings.
        B--A witness examined under oath or affirmation in a hearing 
    shall, upon request, be given a reasonable opportunity before any 
    transcript is made public to inspect the transcript of his 
    testimony to determine whether it was correctly transcribed and 
    may, if he so desires, be accompanied by his counsel during such 
    inspection.
        C--A witness or his counsel may copy at the office of the 
    Committee, or obtain for his own use at his own expense, a 
    transcript of any testimony of the witness which has been given 
    publicly or made public, and with the approval of a majority of the 
    Committee may obtain for his own use and at his own expense a copy 
    of the transcript of any executive testimony of the witness which 
    has not been made public. The witness or his counsel shall be 
    permitted to examine the transcript of his testimony taken in 
    executive session.
        D--Any corrections in the transcript of the testimony of the 
    witness which the witness desires to make shall be submitted in 
    writing to the counsel of the Committee within five (5) days of the 
    taking of his testimony, and the request shall be acted upon by the 
    Committee or subcommittee receiving such testimony.

                  xiii--committee reports or publications

        A--No Committee report or document shall be made or released to 
    the public without the approval of a majority of the Committee, and 
    no statement of the contents of such report, or document, shall be 
    released by any member of the Committee or its staff prior to its 
    official issuance. Drafts of such reports or documents shall be 
    submitted to the office of each Committee member at least 3 days in 
    advance of the meeting at which it is to be considered for release.
        B--Whenever a minority of the Committee dissents from a report 
    or document approved by a majority thereof, the minority shall be 
    given a reasonable time in which to prepare a minority report, 
    which shall be filed at the same time as the majority report, and 
    published in the same volume or document.
        C--A report or document made public by the Committee concerning 
    any investigation in which sworn testimony was taken shall include 
    pertinent testimony received in rebuttal taken during such 
    investigation, unless the same has been previously made public, or 
    is made public concurrently with the report or publication.

        xiv--additional rights of persons affected by a hearing or 
                           committee publication

        Any person who believes that his character or reputation has 
    been ad

[[Page 2695]]

    versely affected by evidence or testimony adduced in a public 
    hearing, or in the released testimony of an executive hearing, or 
    in the published reports or documents of the Committee, within a 
    reasonable time shall:
        (1) Communicate with the counsel of the Committee; and/or
        (2) Request in writing an opportunity to appear, at his own 
    expense, in person before the Committee or any subcommittee thereof 
    to testify as a witness in public or executive session.
        The Committee or subcommittee shall make such determination 
    with respect to such communication or request, and shall take such 
    other action, as to reason and justice shall pertain, including an 
    allowance of witness fees and travel.

          xv--rights of witnesses while testifying (4)

        A person testifying under oath or affirmation before the 
    Committee or subcommittee shall have the following rights:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. All witnesses are invited at any time to confer with Committee 
        counsel prior to hearings. [Footnote from excerpt.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) To be accompanied by counsel of his own choosing. The 
    Committee seeks factual testimony within the personal knowledge of 
    the witness, and such testimony must be given by the witness 
    himself.
        (b) To make complete and concise answers to questions and, when 
    necessary, to make concise explanations of such answers. The 
    witness shall be limited to giving information relevant and germane 
    to the subject under investigation.
        (c) Rulings upon legal objections interposed by the witness or 
    his counsel to procedures or to the admissibility of testimony and 
    evidence shall be made by the presiding member of the Committee, or 
    subcommittee, and such rulings shall be the rulings of the 
    Committee or subcommittee, unless a disagreement thereon is 
    expressed by a majority of the said Committee or subcommittee.
        (d) Communications claimed to be privileged, as between husband 
    and wife, attorney and client, physician and patient, clergyman or 
    priest and penitent, and between a State or Federal law enforcement 
    officer and informant, shall be respected, and one spouse shall not 
    be questioned concerning the activities of the other, but the 
    Committee or subcommittee shall not be bound to make its rulings 
    with regard thereto or on the reception of evidence or the 
    examination of witnesses except as required by the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. The rules of legislative bodies and their committees differ from 
        those of courts. The procedures of any body must be geared to 
        its purpose. Courts have one purpose, congressional committees 
        another. Courts conduct trials to determine guilt or innocence, 
        or to adjudicate rights. Court proceedings are adversary in 
        nature; committee proceedings are not. Committees hold hearings 
        to develop information that will assist in the enactment of 
        legislation. Courtroom procedures are not followed in 
        congressional hearings or vice versa, because any attempt to 
        apply the rules of one to the other would tend to frustrate the 
        attainment of the different purposes for which they were 
        created. Court procedures governing the reception of evidence 
        and the examination of witnesses are not binding on the 
        committees of the Congress. [Footnote from excerpt.]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2696]]

        (e) Any witness desiring to make a prepared or written 
    statement for the record of the proceedings shall file a copy of 
    such statement with the counsel of the Committee not less than 48 
    hours in advance of the hearing at which the statement is to be 
    presented. All such statements or portions thereof so received 
    which are relevant and germane to the subject of investigation may, 
    at the conclusion of the testimony of the witness and with the 
    approval of a majority of the Committee or subcommittee members, be 
    inserted in the official transcript of the proceedings. In 
    addition, the witness may make a statement, which shall be brief 
    and relevant to the subject matter of his examination, at the 
    conclusion of his testimony. However, statements which take the 
    form of personal attacks by the witness upon the motives of the 
    Committee or subcommittee, the personal characters of any Members 
    of the Congress or of the Committee staff, and intemperate 
    statements or statements clearly in the nature of accusation, are 
    not deemed to be relevant or germane, shall not be made, and may be 
    stricken from the record of the proceedings.
        (f) If the witness so requests, he shall not be photographed 
    while he is testifying nor shall his testimony be broadcast or 
    recorded for broadcast by radio or television.

            xvi--participation and conduct of counsel in hearing

        A--The participation of counsel on behalf of his client during 
    the course of any hearing, and while the witness is testifying 
    shall be limited to advising his client as to his legal rights.
        B--Prior to the administration of the oath or affirmation to 
    his client, counsel shall be permitted to state his objections to 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee or subcommittee, or to procedures 
    claimed to violate his client's legal rights. Counsel shall state 
    such objections briefly and temperately, and shall comply with the 
    rulings and limitations thereon by the presiding member of the 
    Committee or subcommittee.
        C--At the conclusion of the interrogation of his client, 
    counsel shall be permitted to make such reasonable and pertinent 
    requests upon the Committee or subcommittee as he shall deem 
    necessary to protect his client's rights. These requests shall all 
    be ruled upon by the Committee or subcommittee conducting the 
    hearing.
        D--Counsel for witnesses shall conduct himself in a 
    professional, ethical, and proper manner. His failure to do so 
    shall, upon a finding to that effect by a majority of the Committee 
    or subcommittee before which the witness is appearing, subject such 
    counsel to disciplinary action which may include warning, censure, 
    removal of counsel from the hearing room, or a recommendation of 
    contempt proceedings. In case of such removal of counsel, the 
    witness shall have a reasonable time to obtain other counsel, said 
    time to be determined by the Committee or subcommittee. Should the 
    witness deliberately or capriciously fail or refuse to obtain the 
    services of other counsel within such reasonable time, the hearing 
    shall continue and the testimony of such witness shall be heard 
    without benefit of counsel.

[[Page 2697]]

                         xvii--contempt of congress

        No recommendation that a witness be cited for contempt of 
    Congress shall be forwarded to the House of Representatives unless 
    and until the Committee has, upon notice to all its members, met 
    and considered the alleged contempt and, by a majority of the 
    Committee, voted that such recommendation be made.

Members' Access to Classified Information

Sec. 15.4 A member of the Committee on Armed Services inserted in the 
    Record that committee's rules governing access of Members to 
    classified information in committee files.

    On Apr. 26, 1972,(6) in the course of discussing a 
resolution (H. Res. 918) of inquiry pertaining to the war in Vietnam, 
Mr. Charles S. Gubser, of California, made the following observations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 14431, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I would like to read into the Record a portion of the 
    House rules. Rule XI, section 27c,(7) says:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Rule XI clause 27c, House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(c) (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            All committee hearings, records, data, charts and files 
        shall be kept separate and distinct from the Congressional 
        office records of the Member serving as Chairman of the 
        Committee; and such records shall be the property of the House 
        and all Members of the House shall have access to such records.

        Rule XI, section (e) (8) provides that--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Mr. Gubser was referring here to Rule XI clause 27(o). See House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 735(o) (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            No evidence or testimony taken in executive session may be 
        released or used in public sessions without the consent of the 
        Committee.

        On June 28, 1971, the Committee on Armed Services by unanimous 
    consent authorized its Chairman to prepare a set of rules 
    applicable to all Members of the House who are desirous of reading 
    all or any portions of any classified information in the committee 
    files. These rules were subsequently drafted by the chairman and 
    sent to every single Member of the House.
        And at this point, Mr. Speaker, under leave to revise and 
    extend my remarks, I shall include the full text of the rules I 
    have referred to. . . .

                               Text Of Rules

        Rules of the House Armed Services Committee to be followed by 
    Members of Congress who wish to read all or any portion of certain 
    classified information in the Committee files:
        1. Such classified information will be kept in secure safes in 
    the Committee rooms. Members will be admitted to the room in which 
    the information is kept after inquiring in Room 2120.
        2. Only Members of Congress may have access to such 
    information.
        3. Such information may not be removed from the room and a 
    member of the Committee staff will be in the room at all times.
        4. The staff member will keep a record of all Members who see 
    such

[[Page 2698]]

    classified information or any portion thereof.
        5. The staff member will maintain an access list showing the 
    time of arrival and departure of all persons entering or leaving 
    the reading room.
        6. The reading room will be open from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. 
    each working day and from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon on Saturday.
        7. The staff member will make a complete document inventory at 
    the close of each business day.
        8. No notes, reproduction or recordings may be made of any 
    portion of such classified information.
        9. The contents of such classified information will not be 
    divulged to any unauthorized person in any way, form, shape or 
    manner.
        10. Members of Congress before reading such classified 
    information will be required to identify the document or 
    information they desire to read, identify themselves to the staff 
    member, sign the log and sign the Top Secret information sheet if 
    such is attached to such document.

Sec. 15.5 The 94th Congress adopted the rules in existence at the close 
    of the 93d Congress with certain amendments including an amendment 
    to Rule XI requiring committees to adopt their rules in open 
    session, but permitting a rollcall vote to close that meeting.

    On Jan. 14, 1975,(~9~) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, of 
Massachusetts, the Majority Leader, offered House Resolution 5 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution provided for the 
adoption of the rules of the House that were in existence at the close 
of the 93d Congress as the rules for the 94th Congress with certain 
amendments. One of the amendments was to Rule XI clause 2(a)(1) 
providing for adoption of written rules by standing committees of the 
House. The amendment read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 20-32, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (14) In Rule XI, clause 2(a)(1) is amended to read as follows:
        ``(1) shall be adopted in a meeting which is open to the public 
    unless the committee, in open session and with a quorum present, 
    determines by rollcall vote that all or part of the meeting on that 
    day is to be closed to the public.''

    The resolution was adopted (10) and, effective Jan. 14, 
1975, Rule XI clause 2(a)(1) was amended to permit a rollcall vote to 
close the committee meeting at which committee rules are adopted only 
on the day of the meeting.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 32.
11. See Rule XI clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 16. Sitting of Committees While the House Is in Session

    From 1935 through and including 1946, the House rules pro

[[Page 2699]]

vided that ``No committee, except the Committee on Rules, shall sit 
during the sitting of the House without special leave.'' 
(12) The clause was removed from the rules in 1947, but 
remained effective as a part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946, the applicable provisions of which were adopted as a part of the 
rules of the House.(13) In 1953, the provision was 
reinserted into the rules with the exception extended to include the 
Committees on Government Operations and Un-American 
Activities.(~14) Fifteen years later, the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct was included within the excepted 
group;(15) and in 1969, the Committee on Internal Security 
supplanted the Committee on Un-American Activities. In 1971, the rule 
was radically altered (16) so as to state that no House 
committee other than the four heretofore identified and the Committee 
on Appropriations could sit, without special leave ``while the House is 
reading a measure for amendment under the five minute rule'' [emphasis 
supplied]. By 1977,(1~7) however, only four committees (the 
Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, Rules, and Standards of 
Official Conduct) were granted this privilege under the rules. The 
Committee on Ways and Means traditionally obtains permission at the 
beginning of each Congress to sit during the five-minute 
rule.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XI clause 46, H. Jour. 1278, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. (1935).
13. See Note, House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1979).
14. See Rule XI clause 29, H. Jour. 781, 83d Cong. 1st Sess. (1953).
15. See Rule XI clause 31, H. Jour. 1319, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968).
16. See Rule XI clause 31, House Rules and Manual Sec. 739 (1973).
17. Rule XI clause 2(i), House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1979).
18. See, for example, 121 Cong. Rec. 1677, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
        29, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning with the 95th Congress, 10 objections were required to 
prevent the granting of a request of a committee to sit during the 
five-minute rule.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Rule XI clause 2(i), House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1979). 
        This rule has been interpreted to permit a committee to sit if 
        there are fewer than 10 objectors on days when the legislative 
        program has been announced by the leadership. A single 
        objection can still prevent a committee meeting during the five 
        minute rule on a date so far in the future that the legislative 
        program is 
        undetermined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally; While House Reads Measure for Amendment

Sec. 16.1 Under the former rule, with certain exceptions spec

[[Page 2700]]

    ified in the House rules, no standing committee could sit without 
    special leave during the sessions of the House.

    On Apr. 2, 1962,(20) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Emanuel Celler, of New York, Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, whereupon the following exchange took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 5508, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the 
    Judiciary be privileged to sit tomorrow, Tuesday, during the 
    sessions of the House.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from New York? . . .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker, did I correctly understand that the request is 
    for the Committee on the Judiciary to sit during the sessions of 
    the House?
        Mr. Celler: On tomorrow, during general debate.
        Mr. Halleck: That is the reason I have risen here. It has been 
    the rule as I have understood it that committees could sit only by 
    special permission during general debate. I subscribed to that 
    rule. I think that committee people should be here when bills are 
    actively under consideration.
        Mr. Celler: I amend the request.
        The Speaker: By implication it was there, but the gentleman 
    amended the request.
        Mr. Halleck: I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr. 
    Speaker.

    Immediately thereafter, the Chair reiterated its inquiry as to 
whether there was any objection to the unanimous-consent request. No 
objection having been voiced, the Committee on the Judiciary was 
permitted to sit during general debate on the following 
day.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. At the time, the rules [Rule XI clause 30, House Rules and Manual 
        (1962)] stated that ``No committee of the House, except the 
        Committees on Government Operations, Rules, and Un-American 
        Activities, shall sit, without special leave, while the House 
        is in session [H. Jour. 988, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. (1962)].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.2 Since 1971, the rules have provided with certain specified 
    exceptions, that no committee may sit without special leave while 
    the House is reading a measure for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule.

    On Jan. 22, 1971,(22) the House adopted its rules for 
the 92d Congress by agreement to a resolution (H. Res. 5), adopting the 
rules of the 91st Congress and incorporating the applicable provisions 
of both the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 117 Cong. Rec. 144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2701]]

and the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.

    In addition to the other changes it effected, the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970 provided for the amendment of House Rule XI 
clause 31. In 1970,(23) this provision had stated that ``No 
committee of the House, except the Committees on Government Operations, 
Rules, Standards of Official Conduct, and Internal Security, shall sit, 
without special leave, while the House is in session.'' (24) 
As amended. clause 31 read, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. H. Jour. 1793, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970).
24. In addition to the four specified committees, it should be noted, 
        the Committee on Appropriations enjoyed the privilege of 
        sitting while the House was in session by virtue of the 
        provisions of Rule XI clause 2. See Rule XI clause 2(b), H. 
        Jour. 1788, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970) or Rule XI clause 2(b), 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No committee of the House (except the Committee on 
    Appropriations, the Committee on Government Operations, the 
    Committee on Internal Security, the Committee on Rules, and the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct) may sit, without 
    special leave while the House is reading a measure for amendment 
    under the five-minute rule.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 84 Stat. 1140, Sec. 117(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the committee report,(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Rept. No. 91-1215, p. 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The effect of this revision is to permit the five House 
    committees listed above to continue to sit and act, without special 
    leave, while the House is in session and to permit all other House 
    committees also to sit and act, without special leave, in any 
    period in which the House is in session except that part of such 
    period devoted to the reading of a legislative measure for 
    amendment under the five-minute rule.

Sec. 16.3 The Speaker declined to entertain a unanimous-consent request 
    which would have permitted a subcommittee to sit during a 
    forthcoming session of the House in which a bill was to be read for 
    amendment.

    On July 1, 1947,(2) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Samuel K. McConnell, Jr., of 
Pennsylvania, and the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 8054, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a subcommittee of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor holding hearings on minimum wages 
    be allowed to sit tomorrow during the session of the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for that 
    purpose. Tomorrow the House will be reading the civil functions 
    appropriation bill for amendment, and committees cannot sit during 
    sessions of the House while

[[Page 2702]]

    bills are being read for amendment; only during general debate.
        Mr. McConnell: We have a full schedule that we want to get 
    through.
        The Speaker: That is the policy that has been adopted. The 
    minority leader has stated that he would object to any requests of 
    that character.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Compare Sec. Sec. 16.9, 16.10, infra, where in certain cases 
        committees were authorized to meet during House sessions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.4 The Speaker refused to entertain a unanimous-consent request 
    that a select committee be permitted to sit during sessions of the 
    House of a specified week after noting that such consent is not 
    granted while bills are being read for amendment in the House.

    On Dec. 4, 1944,(4) the following exchange took place 
between Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, and Mr. Karl E. Mundt, of South 
Dakota, who chaired a select committee to investigate conditions of the 
American Indian:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 90 Cong. Rec. 8758, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee 
    to Investigate the Indian Conditions of America be permitted to sit 
    today during the session of the House, and any other times it may 
    be required to do so during the week.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot entertain that request. The 
    policy has been adopted that that consent is not granted to 
    committees while bills are being read for amendment in the 
    House.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See the introductory remarks at the beginning of this section for a 
        brief account of the history of the rule provisions allowing 
        committees to sit while the House is in session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.5 In the 80th Congress, no standing committee [other than the 
    Committee on Rules] was permitted to sit while the House was in 
    session without special leave from the House, and such leave could 
    only be granted with respect to those sessions in which general 
    debate [as opposed to the reading of bills for amendment] would be 
    in progress.

    On June 11, 1947,(6) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Edith Nourse Rogers, of Massachusetts, 
Chairwoman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who requested 
unanimous consent that that committee be permitted to sit during 
sessions of the House involving general debate for the remainder of the 
week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 6848, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange took place:

        Mr. [George A.] Dondero [of Michigan]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr.

[[Page 2703]]

    Speaker, will there be general debate in the House the rest of the 
    week?
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot definitely state that. There will 
    be very little general debate tomorrow, the Chair thinks, and of 
    course there will be none on Friday when the bill from the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs is being read for amendment.
        Mr. Dondero: I understand it is a ruling of the Speaker that 
    committees will not be permitted to sit unless the House is engaged 
    in general debate upon legislation.
        The Speaker: The rules under which we have been conducting the 
    House this year do not permit committees to hold hearings while the 
    House is in session except when general debate is in 
    progress.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See the introductory remarks at the beginning of this section for a 
        brief account of the history of the rule provisions allowing 
        committees to sit while the House is in session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.6 The Speaker has declined to entertain unanimous-consent 
    requests that committees be allowed to sit during general debate 
    where the program contemplated for the day in question included 
    suspensions on several bills and roll call votes.

    On Feb. 2, 1960,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Walter E. Rogers, of Texas, who initiated the following 
exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 106 Cong. Rec. 1780, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on 
    Transportation of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    may be permitted to sit during general debate in the House this 
    afternoon.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot entertain that request because we 
    have seven suspensions and there will be two rollcalls. The Chair 
    has already announced this to the Members.

Effect of Unauthorized Meeting on Committee Action

Sec. 16.7 The Speaker declared a committee meeting void and directed a 
    bill stricken from the calendar where it was shown that the 
    committee reporting it had sat and ordered it reported during the 
    session of the House without permission.

    On Apr. 20, 1934,(9) Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, responded to a parliamentary inquiry posed by Mr. Henry B. 
Steagall, of Alabama, with reference to a bill (H.R. 7908) ordered to 
be reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 78 Cong. Rec. 7057, 7058, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steagall: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Steagall: What would the ruling of the Chair be on a point 
    raised that the report on a bill was ordered to

[[Page 2704]]

    be made in the committee while the House was in session, the 
    committee not having the permission of the House to sit during the 
    sessions of the House?
        The Speaker: The Chair understands the rule to be that a 
    committee can transact no business at all while the House is in 
    session unless that committee has the permission of the House to 
    sit during the sessions of the House. The Chair will read the rule.

            No committee of the House, except the Committee on Rules, 
        shall sit during the sittings of the House without special 
        leave.

        Mr. Steagall: I ask for information in connection with H.R. 
    7908, which was reported on the 12th of April.
        The Speaker: Does the Chair understand that it was reported out 
    by the committee while the House was in session?
        Mr. Steagall: That is correct.
        The Speaker: In reply to the parliamentary inquiry the Chair 
    will state that the action of the committee in so reporting the 
    bill is absolutely void, and the Chair will direct that the report 
    and the bill be stricken from the calendar. The purported report on 
    the bill (H.R. 7908) made to the House on April 12, 1934, being 
    invalid the Chair holds that the bill is still before the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency for such action as that committee thinks 
    fit and proper.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See the introductory remarks at the beginning of this section for a 
        brief account of the history of the rule provisions allowing 
        committees to sit while the House is in session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.8 A point of order having been raised against a pending bill on 
    the ground that the measure was reported at a committee meeting 
    held while the House was in session without such committee having 
    obtained permission to meet [and possessing no other authority to 
    do so] the point of order was sustained, and the Speaker stated 
    that the bill would remain in the committee until a valid report 
    was filed.

    On July 9, 1956,(11) John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, called 
up a bill (H.R. 4697), to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of 
the District of Columbia, 1954, as amended and requested unanimous 
consent that the bill be considered in the House as in Committee of the 
Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 12199, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, and the following exchange took place: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 12200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that when this bill was 
    reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia the House was 
    in session and the committee did not have permission from the House 
    to sit at that time.

[[Page 2705]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will ask the chairman of the committee, 
    Did the Committee on the District of Columbia have authority from 
    the House to sit that day during the session of the House?
        Mr. McMillan: No, Mr. Speaker, it did not. The statement made 
    by the gentleman from Maryland is correct.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman concede, then, that this bill 
    was reported when the House was in session and the committee did 
    not have the right to sit?
        Mr. McMillan: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair must sustain the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Albert P.] Morano [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, does that mean the decision of the 
    Chair prohibits the consideration of this bill at this time?
        The Speaker: That is correct. The committee must again take 
    action in conformance with the procedure heretofore outlined by the 
    Chair to properly report the bill to the House. As the bill now 
    stands it is still in the Committee on the District of Columbia 
    until a valid report is made.

Authorization to Sit During Sessions and Recesses

Sec. 16.9 By unanimous consent, the Committee on Ways and Means may be 
    authorized to sit during sessions of the House during a Congress.

    On Feb. 4, 1971,(~13~) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Majority Leader Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, and the following 
events took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 1719, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways 
    and Means be authorized to sit during sessions of the House in the 
    92d Congress.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Louisiana?
        There was no objection.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For similar instances, see 111 Cong. Rec. 1177, 89th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 26, 1965; 105 Cong. Rec. 939, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Jan. 20, 1959; and 95 Cong. Rec. 516, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Jan. 24, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.10 The Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittees 
    thereof are frequently authorized by the House to sit during 
    sessions and recesses.

    On Jan. 23, 1967,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized George H. Mahon, of Texas, Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, who called up House Resolution 164 and 
asked unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 1086, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 2706]]

        Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations and the 
    subcommittees thereof be authorized to sit during sessions and 
    recesses of the Ninetieth Congress.

    It was agreed to immediately thereafter.(3~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For similar instances, see 111 Cong. Rec. 988, 89th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 21, 1965; 109 Cong. Rec. 24, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Jan. 9, 1963; and 107 Cong. Rec. 1157, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Jan. 23, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 17. Role of the Chairman

Duty to Report Approved Measure

Sec. 17.1 Under the rules, the chairman of a committee has the duty and 
    the responsibility to see that a measure approved by his committee 
    is reported to the House and called up for consideration; and his 
    obligations in these regards are not reduced by his personal 
    opposition to the measure.

    On June 14, 1967,(4) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 559), to provide for the settlement of a labor dispute 
involving certain railroad carriers. After the Committee agreed to 
dispense  with the first reading of the joint resolution, Chairman 
Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, recognized Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 15822, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Staggers then made the following remarks:

        Mr. Chairman I am here today in a most unusual position. I was 
    requested by the President to introduce the bill we have before us 
    today, and because of my responsibilities as chairman of the 
    committee, I introduced the bill. If the House was to be given an 
    opportunity to work its will on this legislation, it was necessary 
    that hearings begin promptly and continue as expeditiously as 
    possible, and I think the record will bear me out, that the 
    hearings before our committee have been prompt, they have not been 
    delayed in any respect.
        In fact we interrupted consideration of a very important piece 
    of health legislation in order to take up this bill. We have heard 
    every witness who wanted to be heard on the legislation. I did this 
    because I felt it to be my responsibility to the House as chairman 
    of the committee.
        Following the conclusion of our hearings I promptly scheduled 
    executive sessions for consideration of the bill and we met as 
    promptly as possible both morning and afternoon and the committee 
    reported the bill to the House.
        Yesterday I went before the Rules Committee as chairman of the 
    com

[[Page 2707]]

    mittee to present the facts to the Rules Committee and attempt to 
    obtain a rule so that the bill would be considered by the House. I 
    have done these things because I felt it is my responsibility to do 
    so as chairman of the committee.
        Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I was opposed to this bill when I 
    introduced it, and having heard all the witnesses and all the 
    testimony, I am still opposed to it. For that reason I have asked 
    the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] to handle the bill in 
    Committee of the Whole, so that I would be free to express my 
    opposition to it.

    Mr. Staggers then outlined the nature of his opposition to the 
proposal (5) and briefly commented upon certain of the 
amendments which had been considered by the committee. Thereafter, he 
requested Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, the ranking majority 
member on the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, to take charge 
of managing the bill on the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 15822, 15823.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Rule XI clause 26(d) (6) 
stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H. Jour. 1487, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to 
    report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any measure 
    approved by his committee and to take or cause to be taken 
    necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote.

Impartiality

Sec. 17.2 The chairman of a special investigating committee tendered 
    his resignation from the committee after taking the floor to defend 
    himself against accusations that he had accepted fees for appearing 
    before the government agency which was under investigation.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In May 1943, Clifford Durr, a member of the 
Federal Communications Commission, filed certain papers with Speaker 
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, which alleged that Eugene E. (Cox, of Georgia, 
Chairman of the Select Committee to Investigate the Federal 
Communications Commission, was inspired by ``bias and personal 
interest'' in his conduct of the committee's inquiry. The Speaker 
referred these matters to the Committee on the Judiciary which 
concluded several months later that it had no power to intervene.
    On Sept. 30, 1943,(7) Speaker Rayburn recognized Mr. 
Cox, and the following exchange took place: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 89 Cong. Rec. 7936, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Id. at pp. 7936, 7937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Mr. Speaker, for more than a year, now, I have been the 
    object of bitter and scurrilous attacks. . . .

[[Page 2708]]

        In my judicial career when a case arose in which my own 
    personality was involved or my impartiality was questioned, it was 
    my practice to eliminate myself from the trial of the case. While 
    such a custom does not prevail in investigations by legislative 
    bodies, I have, nevertheless, reached the conclusion that in the 
    light of the circumstances and the nature of the controversy in 
    this instance, I may well follow that course. . . .
        . . . Mr. Speaker, the first duty of every Member of this House 
    is to consider the welfare and the effectiveness of the House 
    itself. Its interests are incomparably greater than the interests--
    even the right of justice--attaching to any individual Member. The 
    next duty of a Member of this body is the welfare of the various 
    instrumentalities it creates to carry out its will--whether those 
    instrumentalities be independent agencies or standing or select 
    committees. . . . Consequently, the action I take today is based 
    solely upon my conscientious and deep desire to live up to the most 
    sacred obligations of this body and to my oath as a Member of it.
        Mr. Speaker, moved by these considerations, and fortified by 
    the concurrence of friends in this House in whose friendship and 
    judgment I have the utmost confidence, I tender you my resignation 
    as chairman of the Select Committee to Investigate the Federal 
    Communications Commission. . . .
        The Speaker: The resignation of the gentleman from Georgia is 
    accepted. 

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had there been objection, the Speaker would 
have put the question of accepting the resignation to the House for a 
vote.
    Shortly thereafter, Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
observed:

        . . . It is apparent to all of us that unselfishness and a high 
    regard for the sensibilities of his colleagues in this House have 
    been the only motives which prompted the gentleman from Georgia to 
    follow the course that he has taken. The people of the district the 
    gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] so ably represents, I know are 
    proud of his services. His unselfish act of today will make them 
    feel prouder of him, and of his high and noble character, and of 
    his courage.

    Speaker pro tempore R. Ewing Thomason, of Texas, having taken the 
Chair, Mr. McCormack yielded to Mr. Rayburn, who stated:

        Mr. Speaker, I join with my distinguished colleague in 
    applauding the unselfishness of our colleague from Georgia [Mr. 
    Cox]. He has the courage in a situation difficult to him personally 
    to be big enough in mind and in heart to efface himself, and to 
    leave a position because he thinks that the thing that is near to 
    his heart may be jeopardized by his presence upon his special 
    committee. And I say to this House, after 20 years of intimate 
    association with the gentleman from Georgia, Gene Cox, during which 
    he has had my friendship and my love and confidence, that today 
    that love and that confidence in his honor and in his integrity is 
    unshaken.

Appeal From Chairman's Decision

Sec. 17.3 Any member of a standing committee may appeal a

[[Page 2709]]

    ruling of the chairman of that committee [the rules of the House 
    being the rules of the standing committees so far as applicable].

    On Feb. 15, 1949,(9) shortly after the House met, the 
Speaker recognized Mr. Earl Chudoff, of Pennsylvania, who initiated the 
following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 1212, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chudoff: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the 
    committees of this House operate under the same rules as the House.
        The Speaker: The rules of the House so provide.
        Mr. Chudoff: Mr. Speaker, I should dike to know further whether 
    this House has a right to appeal from a ruling of the Chair.
        The Speaker: Any Member has the right to appeal from the ruling 
    of the Chair.

        Mr. Chudoff: I should like to know whether, under that ruling, 
    members of the committee can appeal from the ruling of the chairman 
    of the committee.
        The Speaker: They can.
        Mr. Chudoff: So that the chairman of a committee who had his 
    ruling appealed from would have no right other than to allow that 
    appeal to go before the entire committee; is that right, Mr. 
    Speaker?
        The Speaker: The rules of the House provide that the rules of 
    the House are made the rules of its standing committees so far as 
    applicable. The Members of the House have a right to appeal from a 
    decision of the Chair. That would also apply in a committee.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rules of the House are the rules of its 
committees and subcommittees so far as applicable, except that a motion 
to recess from day to day is a motion of high privilege in committees 
and subcommittees.(11) Accordingly, where a particular 
ruling of the Speaker is not subject to appeal, the same result holds 
with respect to a similar ruling by a committee chairman. In the 
instant case, for example, immediately after the Speaker answered Mr. 
Chudoff's parliamentary inquiry, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
pointed out (l2) by way of his own parliamentary inquiry 
that certain decisions of the Chair may not be appealed at all-to wit, 
the Chair's determination that one-fifth of those present were in favor 
of a roll call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Rule XI clause 1(a)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 703(a) 
        (1979).
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 1213, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 15, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chairman's Capacity to Act Independently

Sec. 17.4 The chairman of a committee to which a bill has

[[Page 2710]]

    been referred is not required to have the authorization of his 
    committee to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill in the 
    House, but may, at the Speaker's discretion, offer such a motion on 
    his own responsibility just as any other Member.

    On Aug. 5, 1948,(13) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Charles A. Eaton, of New Jersey, Chairman of 
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the following exchange took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 9890, 9891, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
    (S.J. Res. 212) to authorize the President, following appropriation 
    of the necessary funds by the Congress, to bring into effect on the 
    part of the United States the loan agreement of the United States 
    of America and the United Nations signed at Lake Success, N.Y., 
    March 23, 1948.
        Mr. [Frederick C.] Smith of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by members of the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House that this motion has not 
    been formally and specifically authorized by the committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair may say, in order to clarify the 
    situation, that it is possible for the chairman of a committee to 
    offer the motion on his own responsibility and if he does the Chair 
    will recognize him.

Authority To Be Exercised in Chairman's Absence

Sec. 17.5 Instance where by unanimous consent the House agreed to a 
    resolution permitting the powers and duties conferred on the 
    chairman of a standing committee to be exercised during the absence 
    of the chairman by the next ranking majority member.

    On Mar. 18, 1954,(14~) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, and the 
following events took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 100 Cong. Rec. 3569, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate 
    consideration of House Resolution 478.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That powers and duties conferred upon the 
        chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries by 
        House Resolution 197 and House Resolution 198 of the 83d 
        Congress may be exercised during the absence of the chairman of 
        that committee by the next ranking majority member thereof 
        until otherwise ordered by the House.

    Immediately thereafter, the resolution was agreed to.

[[Page 2711]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: This resolution may have been necessary 
because the Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
Alvain F. Weichel, of Ohio, was unable to perform the duties of signing 
subpenas, vouchers, and appointing subcommittees due to illness.
    Rule X clause 6(b) [House Rules and Manual Sec. 701(b) (1979)] 
provides that in the temporary absence of the chairman, the ranking 
majority member shall act as chairman. This has been part of the rules 
since 1911. Rule X clause 6(b) has been distinguished from the 
authority contained in Rule XI clause 2(d) [House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 705 (1979)] for the ranking majority member to preside at 
committee meetings in the absence of the chairman. The clause 6(b) Rule 
X designation when submitted in writing by the Chairman has been deemed 
by the Committee on House Administration sufficient authority for the 
acting chairman to sign vouchers.

Calling Committee Meeting Without Action by Chairman

Sec. 17.6 Where the chairman of a committee refuses or fails to call a 
    special meeting that a majority of committee members desire, that 
    majority may compel the call of such a meeting under a procedure 
    specified by the rules.

    On May 27, 1946,(15) by previous order of the House, Mr. 
Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, was speaking about certain war-related 
labor legislation when he yielded to Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
for a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 92 Cong. Rec. 5863, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After explaining that it would not be possible to carry out a 
previously agreed upon schedule of the House unless the Committee on 
Rules was able to meet that very afternoon, Mr. Smith asked the 
following question:

        My parliamentary inquiry is whether when the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules absents himself from the floor of the House and 
    from the office of the committee and declines to call a meeting of 
    the committee to transact important business for the country it is 
    within the province of a majority of the members of the committee 
    to themselves call a meeting and report whatever legislation they 
    desire to the floor of the House.

    In response thereto, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated:

        The Chair will read clause 48 of rule XI: (l6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Rule XI clauses 2(b), 2(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 705 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A standing committee of the House shall meet to consider 
        any bill or res

[[Page 2712]]

        olution pending before it: (1) on all regular meeting days 
        selected by the committee; (2) upon the call of the chairman of 
        the committee; (3) if the chairman of the committee, after 3 
        days' consideration, refuses or fails, upon the request of at 
        least three members of the committee, to call a special meeting 
        of the committee within 7 calendar days from the date of said 
        request, then, upon the filing with the clerk of the committee 
        of the written and signed request of a majority of the 
        committee for a called special meeting of the committee, the 
        committee shall meet on the day and hour specified in said 
        written request. It shall be the duty of the clerk of the 
        committee to notify all members of the committee in the usual 
        way of such called special meeting.

        That is the answer of the Chair to the parliamentary inquiry of 
    the gentleman from Virginia.

    Mr. Smith then sought to ask an additional question and the 
following exchange took place: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 5863, 5864, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, may I submit a further inquiry?
        Under those circumstances, is it possible for the chairman of 
    the committee of his own volition to prevent the House from taking 
    action on legislation vital to the Nation until the time set forth 
    in the rule has elapsed?
        The Speaker: Under the rules of the House, the chairman of a 
    committee does not have to call a meeting of the committee. The 
    answer to the question as to how the committee can get together if 
    the chairman does not desire to call the committee together or 
    refuses to call them together is contained in the rule just read.

Removal of Chairman by House Action

Sec. 17.7 A resolution was introduced and referred by the Speaker to 
    the Committee on Rules, calling for the removal of the Chairman of 
    the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

    On Mar. 11, 1953,(18) a resolution (H. Res. 175), was 
introduced calling for the removal of Harold H. Velde, of Illinois, as 
Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, based on 
allegations that he exercised excessive zeal in the performance of his 
duties. This resolution provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 99 Cong. Rec. 1888, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the admittedly false, erroneous, and careless 
    accusations of the chairman of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities against Mrs. Agnes Meyer, a respected and patriotic 
    American, have reflected on the responsibility and integrity of the 
    House of Representatives and consequently upon each of the Members 
    thereof; and
        Whereas the chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
    has publicly stated his intention to investigate the churches of 
    our Nation which could lead to the control of the freedom of 
    thought and expression of the reverend clergy of our religious 
    institutions; and

[[Page 2713]]

        Whereas any interference with the freedom of religion and the 
    freedom of religious thought and expression or with the autonomy of 
    any of our churches, synagogues, or other religious institutions 
    would not only constitute a violation of one of the fundamental 
    precepts of the Constitution of the United States, but would 
    threaten to destroy the time honored guaranties of religious 
    freedom which attracted our forebears to America's shores; and
        Whereas the charges and statements heretofore referred to were 
    made without prior consultation with or the approval of any of the 
    other members of the Committee on Un-American Activities; and
        Whereas the other members of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities, regardless of political affiliation, have found it 
    necessary publicly to repudiate the unauthorized and reckless 
    statements and charges of the chairman of the said committee: 
    Therefore be it
        Resolved, That Representative Harold H. Velde be, and hereby 
    is, removed from the position of chairman of the Committee on Un-
    American Activities.

    The resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules, but never 
reported.


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 18. Members' Access to Committee Records and Files

Generally; Bringing Files to Well of House

Sec. 18.1 A House Member may examine committee records and files under 
    the rules, but the Speaker declined to entertain a unanimous-
    consent request that a committee clerk bring them into the well of 
    the House where the committee had not authorized such action.

    On June 3, 1960,(19) shortly after the House met, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. John J. Flynt, Jr., of 
Georgia, who initiated the following exchange: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 11820. 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Id. at pp. 11820, 11821.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair direct the 
    clerk of the Committee on House Administration to bring to the well 
    of the House, following the legislative business of the day, that 
    portion of the records and documents in the custody of that 
    committee, which refer to and contain the entries on the records of 
    the Royal Hawaiian Hotel in Honolulu, Hawaii, for the purpose of 
    permitting me to refer specifically to any such items contained 
    therein which are at complete variance with published reports in 
    the Wednesday issue of the Washington Post and Times Herald, and in 
    the issue of Life magazine dated June 6, 1960, which is next 
    Monday, but which appeared on the newsstands in the city of 
    Washington and other parts of the country on Wednesday, June 1.
        The Speaker: The Chair will say to the gentleman that it has 
    never been the policy of the House to order any

[[Page 2714]]

    documents in the custody of a committee of the House to be brought 
    into the House, unless the committee by its action has approved 
    such a request. The gentleman certainly may examine those items 
    between now and the time he makes his remarks on that subject. But 
    the Chair has never known of a case where a clerk of any committee 
    has been ordered to bring documents to the floor of the House 
    without the prior approval of the committee in whose hands they are 
    at that time.

    Following some additional discussion pertaining to the nature of 
the materials and his motive in seeking them, Mr. Flynt withdrew his 
request for the production of the records.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The rules (l) provide that ``All 
committee hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept 
separate and distinct from the congressional office records of the 
Member serving as chairman of the committee; and such records shall be 
the property of the House and all Members of the House shall have 
access to such records.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule XT clause 27(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(c) 
        (1973). This provision is contained in Rule XI clause 2(e)(2) 
        Sec. 706(c) in the 1979 House Rules and Manual. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testimony and Evidence Taken in Executive Sessions

Sec. 18.2 While all Members of the House have access to committee 
    records under the rules, testimony or evidence taken in executive 
    sessions of a committee are under the control of the committee and 
    the rules provide that such testimony cannot be released without 
    the consent of the committee.

    On June 26, 1961,(2) Mr. Bruce R. Alger, of Texas, 
inserted certain documentation in the Record regarding the deferral of 
necessary authorization by the Committee on Public Works with respect 
to the construction of a federal office building in Dallas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 11233, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, he proceeded to initiate the following 
exchange:

        Another exhibit I have is a transcript of the record of the 
    Public Works Committee. I have been forewarned this is not to be 
    used, that it would be violating the House rules, but I can 
    paraphrase it. When the gentleman who was chairing that committee 
    was asked about having some additional studies and subcommittee 
    reports, he said--
        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edmonson: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against 
    the

[[Page 2715]]

    paraphrasing of a transcript of an executive session of a committee 
    of the House unless it has been released by the committee. I was 
    informed last week on a similar question it was out of order to 
    make any reference to what takes place in executive sessions of the 
    committee without the consent of the committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Texas will proceed in order and not refer to 
    proceedings in executive session of a committee.
        Mr. Alger: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Alger: Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate to announce to the 
    Members they may see that transcript if they go to the Committee on 
    Public Works?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is within control of the 
    committee.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The Speaker pro tempore was referring here to the stipulation of 
        Rule XI clause 26(o) [H. Jour. 1197, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. 
        (1961)] which stated:
            ``No evidence or testimony taken in executive session may 
        be released or used in public sessions without the consent of 
        the committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alger: I am thinking of a certain section of House rules, 
    although I cannot recall the section at this time, that committee 
    executive meetings transcripts are available to any Member of the 
    Congress who wants to see it.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Mr. Alger was referring to the provisions of Rule XI clause 26(c) 
        [H. Jour. 1197, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. (1961)] which stated:
            ``All committee hearings, records, data, charts, and files 
        shall be kept separate and distinct from the congressional 
        office records of the Member serving as chairman of the 
        committee; and such records shall be the property of the House 
        and all Members of the House shall have access to such records. 
        Each committee is authorized to have printed and bound 
        testimony and other data presented at hearings held by the 
        committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is correct, but it is still 
    within the control of the committee.

Classified Information in Files of the Committee on Armed Services

Sec. 18.3 Any Member of the House desiring to read all or any portion 
    of the classified information in the files of the Committee on 
    Armed Services may do so in accordance with the procedure set out 
    by that committee.

    On Apr. 26, 1972,(6) the House entertained consideration 
of a privileged resolution (H. Res. 918), directing the President and 
the Secretary of Defense within 10 days after its adoption, to furnish 
the House of Representatives with ``full and complete information'' 
concerning the specifics of various
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 14348-434, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2716]]

military operations in Southeast Asia.

    In the course of that consideration, Mr. Charles S. Gubser, of 
California, a member of the Committee on Armed Services (to which the 
resolution had been referred), stated that the House already possessed 
the information requested (7) by House Resolution 918. The 
information, he intimated, was available within the files of the 
Committee on Armed Services. He noted, moreover, that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 14431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 28, 1971, the Committee on Armed Services by unanimous 
consent authorized its Chairman to prepare a set of rules applicable to 
all Members of the House who are desirous of reading all or any 
portions of any classified information in the committee files. These 
rules were subsequently drafted by the chairman and sent to every 
single Member of the House.
    Having obtained leave to revise and extend his remarks, Mr. Gubser 
inserted the full text of the aforementioned rules, as follows:

                               Text of Rules

        Rules of the House Armed Services Committee to be followed by 
    Members of Congress who wish to read all or any portion of certain 
    classified information in the Committee files:
        1. Such classified information will be kept in secure safes in 
    the Committee rooms. Members will be admitted to the room in which 
    the information is kept after inquiring in Room 2120.
        2. Only Members of Congress may have access to such 
    information.
        3. Such information may not be removed from the room and a 
    member of the Committee staff will be in the room at all times.
        4. The staff member will keep a record of all Members who see 
    such classified information or any portion thereof.
        5. The staff member will maintain an access list showing the 
    time of arrival and departure of all persons entering or leaving 
    the reading room.
        6. The reading room will be open from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. 
    each working day and from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon on Saturday.
        7. The staff member will make a complete document inventory at 
    the close of each business day.
        8. No notes, reproduction or recordings may be made of any 
    portion of such classified information.
        9. The contents of such classified information will not be 
    divulged to any unauthorized person in any way, form, shape or 
    manner.
        10. Members of Congress before reading such classified 
    information will be required to identify the document or 
    information they desire to read, identify themselves to the staff 
    member, sign the log and sign the Top Secret information sheet if 
    such is attached to such document.

Photocopying Documents

Sec. 18.4 The refusal of a subcommittee chairman to per

[[Page 2717]]

    mit a committee member to make photostatic copies of documents in 
    possession of the subcommittee was upheld by the Speaker.

    On Aug. 14, 1957,(8) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
was recognized by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, to state a question 
involving, to his belief, both personal privilege and the privilege of 
the House. He commenced his remarks, by noting:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 103 Cong. Rec. 14737, 14738, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on the 3d day of January 1957, by House Resolution 
    No. 5--Congressional Record, page 47--the House adopted, as the 
    rules of the House of Representatives for the 85th Congress, the 
    rules of the 84th Congress, together with all applicable provisions 
    of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended.
        Subsection 25(a) of rude XI (9) of the rules of the 
    House expressly provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. By 1973, the language of this provision was slightly modified and 
        contained within another clause; see Rule XI clause 27(a), 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(a) (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The rules of the House are the rules of its committees so 
        far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to 
        day is a motion of high privilege in committees. Committees may 
        adopt additional rules not inconsistent therewith.

        Subsection 25(c) of the same rule, XI,(10) provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. In 1973, the same language was contained within another clause; see 
        Rule XI clause 27(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(c) 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            All committee hearings, records, data, charts, and files 
        shall be kept separate and distinct from the Congressional 
        office records of the Member serving as chairman of the 
        committee; and such records shall be the property of the House 
        and all Members of the House shall have access to such records. 
        Each committee is authorized to have printed and bound 
        testimony and other data presented at hearings held by the 
        committee.

    Mr. Hoffman proceeded to explain that he was a member of the 
Committee on Government Operations as well as an ex-officio member of 
its Subcommittee on Public Works and Resources. Staff members of the 
full committee assigned to him, as ranking minority member, had been 
permitted to look at the files. However, he elaborated,

        . . . [W]hen they attempted to make copies through the use of a 
    Thermo-Fax copying machine, of pertinent parts of those files, they 
    were by the subcommittee staff denied the right and privilege of so 
    doing.

    Mr. Hoffman's statement proceeded at length, after which the 
following (11) exchange and resultant ruling took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 14739, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Access to or use of particular information or documents is 
        in some instances governed in strict detail under the rules. 
        Rule XLVIII, adopted July 14, 1977 (H. Res. 658, 95th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.), established the permanent Select Committee on 
        Intelligence and carefully delineated the conditions governing 
        access to information and documents within its purview.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2718]]

        The Speaker: . . . The matter the gentleman read from states 
    that all committee hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall 
    be kept separate and distinct from the Congressional office records 
    of the Member serving as chairman of the committee; and such 
    records shall be the property of the House and all Members of the 
    House shall have access to such records.

        I think that is what the gentleman was talking about.
        Mr. Hoffman: That is just what I was talking about, and I want 
    access. When access is given, with it goes the power to use it to 
    not only look but make notes, take copies, understand what is at 
    hand, what is to be determined. . . .
        The Speaker: The question of copying and the question of 
    photostating is another matter. That is not provided in this 
    section of the rule.
        Mr. Hoffman: So ``access'' means I can go and take a look but I 
    cannot use modern means of copying. How do you like that?
        How do you like that? Is that orderly, fair procedure?
        The Speaker: If a question like that came up in the House the 
    Chair would certainly rule that the gentleman could not bring a 
    machine in here and copy things around the desk.
        The Chair does not believe the gentleman has stated a question 
    that violates the rules of the House.


                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 19. Disposition of Committee Documents, Evidence, and Files

After Adjournment

Sec. 19.1 All documents referred to a committee, together with evidence 
    taken by the committee, must under House rules be delivered to the 
    Clerk of the House within three days after the final adjournment of 
    Congress.

    Shortly before the adjournment of the 78th Congress on Dec. 16, 
1944,(12) Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
expressed concern over the disposition of the information accumulated 
by the so-called Dies committee; this committee, barring congressional 
action, was due to expire on Jan. 3, 1945. Formally known as the 
Special Committee on Un-American Activities, it had been created in the 
previous decade to investigate subversive activities and was continued 
annually by House resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 9621, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, on January 3, unless 
    the

[[Page 2719]]

    House takes some other action, the so-called Dies committee will 
    expire. There is a growing concern all over the country that the 
    papers and information that the committee has gathered during its 
    years of investigation shall be adequately protected and that they 
    shall be available for public use. My inquiry is, What is the 
    procedure by which these papers will be disposed of if the life of 
    this committee is not renewed?
        The Speaker: The Chair will read rule XXXVII:

            Clerks of the several committees of the House shall, within 
        3 days after the final adjournment of a Congress, deliver to 
        the Clerk of the House all bills, joint resolutions, petitions, 
        and other papers referred to the committee, together with all 
        evidence taken by such committee under the order of the House; 
        and in the event of the failure or neglect of any clerk of a 
        committee to comply with this rule the Clerk of the House 
        shall, within 3 days thereafter, take into his keeping all such 
        papers and testimony.

        The Chair would hold that under the rule just read the 
    documents of the so-called Dies committee are in the control of 
    that committee and the House until 3 days after the 3d day of 
    January next.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: That would permit the House, if it 
    so desired, to make any arrangement that it might make when we 
    return here on January 3?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct, and the Chair will 
    assure the gentleman and the House that nothing but that will 
    happen between now and the 3d of January.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: I thank the Speaker.

Where Term of Special Committee Expires

Sec. 19.2 Unless otherwise provided by order of the House, when the 
    term of a special investigating committee expires, its records are 
    delivered to the Clerk of the House and not to a newly elected 
    standing committee created for the same purpose as the special 
    committee.

    On Jan. 3, 1945,(14~) the House having under 
consideration a resolution (H. Res. 5), providing that the rules of the 
78th Congress be adopted as the rules of the 79th Congress, Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, offered an amendment to the resolution 
providing for the creation of a permanent standing committee, to be 
known as the Committee on Un-American Activities. As Mr. Rankin 
explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 10, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the object of this amendment is to extend the life 
    of the Committee on Un-American Activities, usually referred to as 
    the Dies committee, and to make it one of the standing committees 
    of the House. . . .
        . . . I submit it is no time to destroy the records of that 
    committee, it is no time to relax our vigilance. We should carry on 
    in the regular way and keep

[[Page 2720]]

    this committee intact, and above all things, save those records.

    The term of the Dies committee, whose formal name was the Special 
Committee on Un-American Activities, did not extend into the 79th 
Congress. Much concern was voiced by several Members regarding the 
prospective treatment of that committee's records and files. After the 
previous question was ordered on the Rankin amendment,(15) 
Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, initiated the following exchange 
with the Chair in the course of a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 14, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . What is the status of the records of the Dies committee 
    at the present time and what will be their status if this amendment 
    should be adopted?
        The Speaker: (16) This amendment does not change the 
    status of the papers of the Dies committee at all, unless further 
    action of the House is taken. For the information of the House the 
    Chair will read two rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        First:

                          Rule XXXVII (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Though the language remains unchanged, this rule has been 
        renumbered; see Rule XXXVI clause 1, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 932 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     papers

            The clerks of the several committees of the House shall, 
        within 3 days after the final adjournment of a Congress, 
        deliver to the Clerk of the House all bills, joint resolutions, 
        petitions, and other papers referred to the committee, together 
        with all evidence taken by such committee under the order of 
        the House during the said Congress and not reported to the 
        House; and in the event of the failure or neglect of any clerk 
        of a committee to comply with this rule the Clerk of the House 
        shall, within 3 days thereafter, take into his keeping all such 
        papers and testimony.

        Also:

                          Rule XXXVIII (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Though the language remains unchanged, this rule has been 
        renumbered; see Rule XXXVII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 933 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              withdrawal of papers

            No memorial or other paper presented to the House shall be 
        withdrawn from its files without its leave, and if withdrawn 
        therefrom certified copies thereof shall be left in the office 
        of the Clerk; but when an act may pass for the settlement of a 
        claim, the Clerk is authorized to transmit to the officer in 
        charge with the settlement thereof the papers on file in his 
        office relating to such claim, or may loan temporarily to an 
        officer or bureau of the executive departments any papers on 
        file in his office relating to any matter pending before such 
        office or bureau, taking proper receipt therefor.

        Those are the rules of the House. The law provides in title II, 
    United States Code, section 147,(19) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Section 147 of title II of the United States Code was repealed on 
        Oct. 25, 1951. The present procedure, as governed by 44 USC 
        Sec. Sec. 2104, 2114, directs the Clerk to forward committee 
        records to the General Services Administration for 
        preservation, unless otherwise ordered by the House. See 
        Sec. 19.4. infra, for an instance in which the House authorized 
        making available for use certain records at the National 
        Archives.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2721]]

            The Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and 
        directed to deliver to the Librarian of Congress all bound 
        volumes of original papers, general petitions, printed matter, 
        books, and manuscripts. . . .

        The majority leader of the House, with the minority leader and 
    myself, held a conference about these papers and it was decided 
    that they would remain in the committee until today, and be 
    transferred as the rules and law provide unless the House should 
    take further action. So far as the preservation of the papers is 
    concerned, they are in the custody of the Clerk of the House. The 
    Clerk of the House is a sworn officer and he knows his duty.

Transfer of Records Between Select and Standing Committees

Sec. 19.3 The House adopted a resolution providing that the records and 
    files of a select committee be held intact and turned over to a 
    newly created standing committee with similar jurisdiction.

    On Jan. 4, 1945,(20) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
sought unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the 
following resolution (H. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 35, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the records and files of the former Committee on 
    Un-American Activities (1) be held intact in the rooms 
    formerly occupied by the said Committee on Un-American Activities 
    and turned over to the newly created Committee on Un-American 
    Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. This was the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, also 
        known by the name of its chairman as the Dies committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reserving the right to object, Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
was concerned with whether the proposed resolution might be violative 
of the duties imposed by statute (2) on the Clerk of the 
House. The following exchange ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Under the Printing and Binding Act (Act of Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, 
        28 Stat. 601) records and files of former committees were sent 
        by the Clerk to the Library of Congress. Under 44 USC 
        Sec. 2114, the Clerk would now transfer such material to the 
        General Services Administration in the absence of any other 
        directive from the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: . . . [W]hile I have absolutely no objection, I 
    want to ask the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] whether he 
    has carefully read the statutes, not the Rules of the House, to see 
    if this is in any way in conflict with the statute.
        Mr. Rankin: It is not in conflict with the statute.
        Mr. Cochran: Is the gentleman sure of that?

[[Page 2722]]

        Mr. Rankin: Well, I have not read all the statutes of the 
    United States, but I have read the statute and the rules concerning 
    this proposition. This is within the power of the Congress, and it 
    is the duty of the Congress. As far as that is concerned, it is a 
    privileged resolution.
        Mr. Cochran: The statute provides that the Clerk of the House 
    shall place in the Library of Congress certain files.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand; but that is in the absence of any 
    action by the House of Representatives. If this action is taken it 
    will amount to a mandate that will be carried out.
        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.

    There being no objection, the resolution was considered and agreed 
to, shortly thereafter.

Making Available Certain Records at the National Archives

Sec. 19.4 In the 83d Congress, the House agreed to a resolution 
    authorizing the Clerk of the House to permit the Administrator of 
    General Services to make available for use certain records of the 
    House in the National Archives.

    On June 16, 1953,(3) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa, offered the following privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 288), and asked for its immediate consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 99 Cong. Rec. 6641, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Clerk of the House is authorized to permit 
    the Administrator of General Services to make available for use--
        (1) any records of the House of Representatives, transferred to 
    the National Archives, which have been in existence for not less 
    than 50 years, except when he determines that the use of such 
    records would be detrimental to the public interest; and
        (2) any records of the House of Representatives, transferred to 
    the National Archives, which have previously been made public.
        Sec. 2. Such permission may continue so long as it is 
    consistent with the rights and privileges of the House of 
    Representatives.

    Immediately thereafter, the resolution was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: This resolution, though never enacted into 
permanent law, has served as guidance to the Clerk in subsequent 
Congresses to permit access to noncurrent papers in the Archives. 
Papers not 50 years old can only be retrieved by action of committees 
for committee use or by order of the House.

Transfer of Evidence to Department of Justice

Sec. 19.5 The House agreed to a resolution authorizing and directing 
    the Committee on

[[Page 2723]]

    Un-American Activities, upon the request of the Department of 
    Justice, to transfer to the latter's custody certain strips of film 
    and metal containers to be presented as evidence in a criminal 
    proceeding. The material had been obtained by the committee in the 
    course of an investigation.

    On May 10, 1949,(4) Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, called 
up and asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the 
following resolution (H. Res. 209):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 95 Cong. Rec. 5978, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on Un-American Activities is 
    authorized and directed, upon requisition of the Department of 
    Justice, to transfer to its custody for presentation as evidence in 
    the Government case, United States v. Alger Hiss, five strips of 
    35-millimeter film and three metal containers uncovered by said 
    committee during the Eightieth Congress, such film commonly known 
    as the ``pumpkin film.''

    Shortly thereafter, the resolution was agreed to.


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 20. Disclosure of Unreported Committee Proceedings

Disclosure in Debate

Sec. 20.1 It has been held not in order in debate to refer to the 
    proceedings of a committee [or of its subcommittee(s)] unless the 
    committee has formally reported its proceedings to the House.

    On June 24, 1958,(5) under previous order of the House, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of 
Missouri, for 60 minutes. Mr. Curtis discussed his reservations about 
certain hearings of the Subcommittee on Legislative Oversight of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The gravamen of his 
complaint was that the Subcommittee on Legislative Oversight, in public 
session, had raised the issues of (1) alleged preferential treatment to 
a named individual by two government agencies, and (2) alleged improper 
intervention by a named assistant to the President only to then take 
public testimony about the hospitality that was extended and accepted 
between the two individ

[[Page 2724]]

uals without first establishing any evidence to prove the truthfulness 
of the allegations. Mr. Curtis believed that the action of the 
subcommittee was in violation of House rules.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 104 Cong. Rec. 12119-21, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Mr. Curtis was concerned with what were then clauses 25(m) and (o) 
        of Rule XI which he had earlier quoted, in part [104 Cong. Rec. 
        12120, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.], as follows: ``If the committee 
        determines that evidence or testimony at an investigative 
        hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, 
        it shall--
            ``(m)(1) Receive such evidence or testimony in executive 
        session; . . .
            ``(o) No evidence or testimony taken in executive session 
        may be released or used in public sessions without the consent 
        of the committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the following exchange (7) indicates, Mr. Oren 
Harris, of Arkansas, Chairman of the parent committee, was of a 
contrary opinion and successfully challenged Mr. Curtis' right to 
discuss the as yet unreported subcommittee proceedings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 12121, 12122, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: . . . In these times of 
    scandalmongering . . . I believe it is very important that persons 
    in public life have a regard not only for the substance of things, 
    but for appearances. . . .
        However, the issue I took the floor to discuss was the actions 
    of this House subcommittee, which seems to me to be inexcusable. . 
    . .
        . . . Not only is this subcommittee . . . not doing the job 
    that needs to be done, it has brought the institution again . . . 
    into disrepute by disregarding the rules of the House and 
    permitting a committee of the House to be used as a forum in this 
    fashion.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I must object again and ask that those 
    words be deleted.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: I would like to ask the gentleman 
    before he does, just what language is he objecting to?
        Mr. Harris: To the charge that this committee is violating the 
    rules of the House.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Well, I certainly do charge that and I 
    think it is proper to charge such a thing if I have presented the 
    evidence. How else are we going to present the case to the House?
        The Speaker: There is a long line of decisions holding that 
    attention cannot be called on the floor of the House to proceedings 
    in committees without action by the committee. The Chair has just 
    been reading a decision by Mr. Speaker Gillett and the decision is 
    very positive on that point.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2491.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to 
    that, may I say I am unaware of such a rule and I would argue, if I 
    may, in all propriety, that that rule, if it does exist, should be 
    changed because how else will the House ever go into the 
    functioning and actions of its committees?
        The Speaker: That is not a question for the Chair to determine. 
    That is a

[[Page 2725]]

    question for the House to change the rule.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, is it a rule or is it a 
    ruling? If it is a ruling of the Chair, then it is appropriate for 
    the Chair to consider it.
        The Speaker: The precedents of the House are what the Chair 
    goes by in most instances. There are many precedents and this Chair 
    finds that the precedents of the House usually make mighty good 
    sense.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: But the Chair can change a precedent. 
    That is why I am trying to present this matter.
        The Speaker: If the Chair did not believe in the precedents of 
    the House, then the Chair might be ready to do that, but this Chair 
    is not disposed to overturn the precedents of the House which the 
    Chair thinks are very clear.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker will allow 
    me just one brief moment to point out the reason why I think this 
    is a precedent which should be overruled in the light of a specific 
    case that is before us, which I think very appropriately should be 
    discussed on the floor of the House, and it is certainly better to 
    discuss it on the floor of the House than in the newspapers.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask the Clerk to read a part of the 
    ruling by Mr. Speaker Gillett.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2491.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The Speaker ruled: ``The Chair has always supported that 
        the main purpose of the rule forbidding the disclosure of what 
        transpired in committees was to protect the membership of the 
        committee so that discussions in the committee, where members 
        were forming their opinions upon legislation, might be 
        absolutely free and unembarrassed. Whereas, in this House men 
        are making records, in a committee men ought to act with a 
        consciousness that their attitude would not be published, so 
        that they could consult and discuss with perfect freedom and 
        the committee would have the first as well as the final 
        judgment of all the members of the committee without fear of 
        seeming inconsistent. The Chair has always supposed that was 
        the real purpose, and it is extremely important that the 
        members of the committee should in its proceedings be mutually 
        confidential. But the Chair in inspecting the decision finds 
        that they go much further than that, and they hold not that 
        simply what was said in the committee was confidential but that 
        the records of the committee could not be quoted without the 
        previous authorization of the committee.''

        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I have been directing my 
    attention only to what has transpired in public hearings of this 
    committee. As a matter of fact, the gravamen of the charge that I 
    am making lies in the other House rule, the one that I cited on 
    this particular subject, and not what should have been considered 
    in executive session. This was disclosed and it is common knowledge 
    that this has been published throughout the country in the 
    newspapers.
        The Speaker: Those hearings have not been published by the 
    House.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: They are public hearings.
        The Speaker: They have not been reported to the House.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: They have been made available to the 
    public, Mr.

[[Page 2726]]

    Speaker, and the press has quoted them. Surely a Member of the 
    House should have an equal privilege of discussing these matters 
    which are so important to the House.
        The Speaker: Anywhere except on the floor of the House.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: I would think, with all due respect to 
    the Speaker, that the floor of the House is the fairest place to 
    discuss them, because then those who take exception have an 
    opportunity of answering, whereas if it is through a press release 
    they have no opportunity of answering. I will abide by the ruling, 
    of course.
        The Speaker: The Chair has made his ruling, and the Chair 
    thinks it is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While it has consistently been held that it 
is not in order in debate to refer to the proceedings of a committee 
except as have been formally reported to the House (5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. Sec. 5080-83, 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2269, 2485-93), 
those precedents do not all distinguish between committee meetings or 
hearings that were open to the public and those that were executive 
sessions. Clearly, transactions in executive sessions of committees 
cannot be revealed to the House in debate (8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 2493; Feb. 1, 1940, 86 Cong. Rec. 954, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.); and 
there are some decisions (as indicated by Sec. 20.1, infra) which 
purport to extend this principle to open meetings and hearings, 
although the Speaker has declined to enforce this principle on his own 
initiative absent a point of order on the floor (see Sec. 20.2, infra). 
On Apr. 18, 1924 (8 Cannon's precedents Sec. 2491) where the chairman 
of a committee attempted to quote from a committee's executive session 
minutes merely to show that the heavy legislative agenda of his 
committee should convince Members to vote against a pending motion to 
discharge his committee from further consideration of a bill, Speaker 
Gillette sustained a point of order against such a reference but 
indicated misgivings about the trend of the decisions. He indicated 
that it is ``important for the House to know what transpired in the 
committee in order that the House could Judge better whether or not 
action should be taken. . . . If it was a new question the Chair would 
be strongly inclined to hold that it is in order. But the decisions are 
very conclusive, from 1884, to the reflect that the records of the 
committee are not available to comment in the House, and therefore the 
Chair under the precedents feels constrained to sustain the point of 
order.''
    The rationale for these earlier decisions was to protect the 
integrity and independence of com

[[Page 2727]]

mittee proceedings to permit flexibility and the opportunity to 
compromise in committee deliberations. However, current rules governing 
committee procedure have a different emphasis. Clause 2(e)(1) of Rule 
XI as added by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 
1140) now requires each committee to make available for public 
inspection all rollcall votes taken in any committee session and a 
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition and 
Members' votes thereon. That rule, coupled with the presumption in the 
1970 Act that all committee meetings and hearings are to be open to the 
public and press unless they are closed by rollcall vote and the fact 
that open committee meeting and hearing transcripts are made, as a 
matter of course, available to Members, the press, and the public, even 
prior to the reporting of that matter to the House, mitigates against a 
strict adherence to some of the earlier decisions insofar as they apply 
to open meetings and hearings. See also Chapter 29, ``Consideration and 
Debate'' section 55, infra, for further precedents on this subject.
    Another consistent line of precedent prevents reference in debate 
to committee actions which impugn the motives of committee members, 
whether or not by name (Feb. 11, 1941, 87 Cong. Rec. 894, 77th Cong. 
1st Sess.).

Sec.  20.2 Prior to the adoption of the Legislative Reorganization Act 
    of 1970, it has been held that a Member may not use transcripts of 
    open committee meetings in debate where the matter has not been 
    reported to the House.

    On July 28, 1939,(10) shortly after the House met, 
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. Chester H. 
Gross, of Pennsylvania, who proceeded to obtain unanimous consent to 
address the House for one minute. Mr. Gross then made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 10352, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Labor of this 
    House, I want the House to know that when the chairman of the 
    committee, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Norton], yesterday 
    thanked John L. Lewis for his fine contribution to the committee 
    after he had made his vicious and uncalled for assault on that 
    courageous American, Jack Garner, she was not speaking the 
    sentiment of the committee. And I as one of the committee resent 
    the statement of Mr. Lewis.

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Matthew A. Dunn, of Pennsylvania, 
similarly obtained unani

[[Page 2728]]

mous consent to address the House whereupon the following sequence of 
events took place:

        Mr. Dunn: Mr. Speaker, before the Labor Committee went into 
    session yesterday a motion was made and carried that none of the 
    Members should have the right or the privilege to interrogate any 
    person who appeared before the committee. Three of the members of 
    the committee voted against that motion, and I was one of the 
    three. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gross] was one of those 
    who voted for that motion.
        Mr. [Joseph W. Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    cannot divulge what happened in the committee.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania will suspend. The 
    gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Martin] makes the point of order 
    that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is undertaking to disclose the 
    proceedings before a committee of the House on a matter which has 
    not been reported by the committee to the House. The rules and 
    precedents sustain the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, under the 
    rules, is not privileged to discuss matters which occurred before 
    the committee.
        Mr. Dunn: Very well, Mr. Speaker. May I proceed?
        The Speaker: The gentleman may proceed in order, but he cannot 
    disclose or interpret matters that occurred before the committee on 
    measures that have not been reported to the House.
        Mr. Dunn: Did not the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gross] 
    do the same thing?

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gross] did 
    divulge matters which occurred before the committee, but no point 
    of order was made, and, therefore, the Chair could not act on his 
    own motion.

Disclosure of Proceedings to Support Point of Order

Sec.  20.3 A Member may refer to the printed proceedings of a public 
    subcommittee meeting to justify his point of order that a 
    resolution providing for a select committee to inquire into 
    subcommittee actions was not privileged.

    On June 30, 1958,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, who stated that he rose 
to a question of the privilege of the House and immediately offered a 
resolution (H. Res. 610), which provided for the appointment of a 
special committee to investigate the possible violation of House rules 
(12) by the Sub
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 104 Cong. Rec. 12690, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. The gravamen of the complaint was that the subcommittee had failed 
        to comport with the dictates of what was then Rule XI clause 
        25(m) [see Rule XI clause 27(m), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 735(m) (1973)]. This rule provided, in part, that if a 
        committee determined that evidence or testimony at an 
        investigative hearing would tend to defame, degrade, or 
        incriminate any person, it should receive such evidence or 
        testimony in executive session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2729]]

committee on Legislative Oversight of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

        Whereas on February 5, 1957, the House passed House Resolution 
    99 empowering its Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to 
    make investigations and studies into matters within its 
    jurisdiction; and
        Whereas the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    created a subcommittee entitled Subcommittee on Legislative 
    Oversight to carry out this mandate; and
        Whereas House Rule XI 25(m) adopted March 23, 1955, reads as 
    follows:
        ``If the committee determines that evidence or testimony at an 
    investigative hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate 
    any person, it shall--
        ``(1) receive such evidence or testimony in executive session;
        ``(2) afford such person an opportunity voluntarily to appear 
    as a witness; and
        ``(3) receive and dispose of requests from such person to 
    subpoena additional witnesses''; and
        Whereas on June 10, 25, 26, and 27, 1958, the aforesaid 
    subcommittee having been created and embarked upon its work, held 
    public hearings wherein it received testimony which may have tended 
    to defame, degrade, and incriminate a person and which tendency to 
    defame, degrade, and incriminate might have been obvious to the 
    subcommittee.
        Whereas it is common knowledge that the newspapers, radio, 
    television, and other media of public communication would, and did, 
    widely disseminate the testimony adduced at these public hearings; 
    and
        Whereas many responsible citizens publicly have directed 
    criticism against the actions of the subcommittee alleging that 
    these actions violated the letter and the spirit of the rules of 
    the House XI 25(m). That some of these criticisms state that on the 
    face of the published record of the hearings of the subcommittee 
    the alleged violations are willful and intentional; and
        Whereas these alleged actions of the subcommittee and the 
    public criticism of it affects the rights of the House 
    collectively, its safety, dignity, and integrity of its 
    proceedings: Now, be it
        Resolved, That a special committee of three members be 
    appointed by the Speaker of the House to inquire into this matter 
    and determine, if indeed the premises of this resolution and the 
    public criticisms as set out herein are true in fact, particularly 
    whether this subcommittee did violate the rules of the House and 
    whether in any instance the violation if so found was willful, and 
    whether any other actions of the subcommittee which pertain to the 
    carrying out of the words and intent of

[[Page 2730]]

    House Rule XI 25(m) and the purposes of House Resolution 99 were in 
    violation of the rules and purposes of the House. That the special 
    committee report back these findings to the House within 10 days 
    along with any recommendations it may make for correction and other 
    actions, which might include recommendations of approval or censure 
    of the subcommittee, its members or employees, recommendations for 
    changing the rules of the House of Representatives, recommendations 
    for instructions to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce as to future procedure, recommendations for enlarging the 
    life and scope of investigation and subject matter of this special 
    committee.

    Immediately after the Clerk read the resolution, Mr. Oren Harris, 
of Arkansas, raised a point of order against the resolution on the 
ground that it was not a privileged resolution. In the course of so 
doing, he began to discuss the record of the subcommittee:

        A member of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Moss] made a motion in executive session at that time to the effect 
    that it did not come within the rule [requiring an executive 
    session] and that the testimony of the witness, as he had presented 
    it to us in a written statement, be taken in public session as 
    paragraph (g) of the rule provides. That motion was voted on. Nine 
    of the 11 members of the subcommittee were present, and there was 
    not a dissenting vote. The motion was agreed to, and thereupon the 
    subcommittee ended its executive session and proceeded to hear the 
    witness in public.

    At this juncture, the following (13) exchange and 
resultant ruling occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 12690, 12691, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Timothy P.] Sheehan [of Illinois]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: Well, there is one point of order pending.
        Mr. Sheehan: I am making a point of order on what he is talking 
    about now. According to the ruling the Speaker gave to the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis] last week a Member could not 
    speak in the House about anything that happened during a committee 
    session until such time as the committee report was tendered to the 
    House. And, as a result, he is out of order.
        The Speaker: Well, here is a question of privilege of the House 
    being raised by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis], and in 
    order for the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Harris] to justify his 
    point of order, he has got to discuss these matters. And, they are 
    in the printed record.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For a comparable situation involving the same issue but with 
        respect to subcommittee reports that had not yet been printed 
        see Sec. 20.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec.  21. Executive Sessions

Generally; Voting to Close a Meeting or Hearing

Sec.  21.1 The House adopted a resolution reported from the

[[Page 2731]]

    Committee on Rules (1) amending the rules to require that business 
    meetings of standing committees and subcommittees (except on 
    internal budget and personnel matters) shall be open to the public 
    except when the committee in open session determines by roll call 
    vote that all or part of the remainder of that meeting be closed, 
    and permitting committee staff and authorized congressional and 
    executive department staff to be present at closed meetings; and 
    (2) further amending the rules to impose similar requirements for 
    open hearings on all committees and subcommittees unless the 
    committee closes the remainder of that hearing because matters to 
    be considered would endanger national security or violate a law or 
    rule of the House.

    On Mar. 7, 1973,(15) the House adopted a resolution (H. 
Res. 272) providing for consideration, under an open rule, of House 
Resolution 259. Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 
259), to amend the rules of the House to strengthen the requirement 
that committee proceedings be held in open session.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 6700, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Id. at pp. 6706-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution, as originally considered, read as follows:

        Resolved, That clause 26 (f) of rule XI (17~) of the 
    Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read as 
    follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. In the previous Congress, Rule XI clause 26(f) had [H. Jour. 1602, 
        92d Cong. 2d Sess. (1972)] read: `` (f) Meetings for the 
        transaction of business of each standing committee shall be 
        open to the public except when the committee, by majority vote, 
        determines otherwise. This paragraph does not apply to open 
        committee hearings which are provided for by paragraphs (f)(2) 
        and (g)(3) of clause 27 of this Rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (f) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the 
    markup of legislation, of each standing committee or subcommittee 
    thereof shall be open to the public except when the committee or 
    subcommittee, in open session and with a quorum present, determines 
    by rollcall vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting 
    on that day shall be closed to the public: Provided, however, That 
    no person other than members of the committee and such 
    congressional staff as they may authorize shall be present at any 
    business or markup session which has been closed to the public. 
    This paragraph does not apply to open committee hearings which are 
    provided for by paragraphs (f)(2) and (g)(3) of clause 27 of this 
    rule; or to any meeting that

[[Page 2732]]

    relates solely to internal budget or personnel matters.''

        Sec. 2. Clause 27(f)(2) of rule XI (18) of the Rules 
    of the House of Representatives is amended to read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. In the previous Congress, Rule XI clause 27(f)(2) had [H. Jour. 
        1603, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (1972)] read: ``(2) Each hearing 
        conducted by each committee shall be open to the public except 
        when the committee, by majority vote, determines otherwise.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``(2) Each hearing conducted by each committee or subcommittee 
    thereof shall be open to the public except when the committee or 
    subcommittee, in open session and with a quorum present, determines 
    by rollcall vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing 
    on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of 
    testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered would 
    endanger the national security or would violate any law or rule of 
    the House of Representatives.''
        Sec. 3. The first sentence of clause 27(g) (3) of rule XI 
    (19) of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
    amended to read as follows: ``Hearings pursuant to subparagraph (1) 
    of this paragraph, or any part thereof,(1) shall be held 
    in open session, except when the committee, in open session and 
    with a quorum present, determines by rollcall vote that the 
    testimony to be taken at that hearing may be related to a matter of 
    national security.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. In the previous Congress, the first sentence of Rule XI clause 
        27(g)(3) had [H. Jour. 1603, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.(1972)] read: 
        ``(3) Hearings pursuant to subparagraph (1) of this paragraph 
        shall be held in open session, except when the committee 
        determines that the testimony to be taken at that hearing may 
        relate to a matter of national security.''
 1. The subparagraph referred to, Rule XI clause 27(g)(1) remained 
        unchanged from the previous Congress and read [H. Jour. 1603, 
        92d Cong. 2d Sess. (1972)] as follows: ``(g)(1) The Committee 
        on Appropriations shall, within thirty days after the 
        transmittal of the Budget to the Congress each year, hold 
        hearings on the Budget as a whole with particular reference 
        to--(A) the basic recommendations and budgetary policies of the 
        President in the presentation of the Budget; and (B) the 
        fiscal, financial, and economic assumptions used as bases in 
        arriving at total estimated expenditures and receipts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several issues arose in the ensuing debate. Some Members took 
exception to the proviso in proposed Rule XI clause 26(f) which 
precluded all persons ``other than members of the committee and such 
congressional staff as they may authorize'' from being present ``at any 
business or markup session which has been closed to the public.'' 
Others expressed reservations as to the ``workability'' of the 
requirement that a committee's decision to close a public meeting 
[26(f)] or a public hearing [26(f)(2)] be determined daily.
    Although the debate entailed other considerations, the afore

[[Page 2733]]

mentioned issues were the most extensively discussed, and each was 
contained in a proposed amendment. Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, 
proposed that clause 26(f) be amended to allow ``departmental 
representatives'' to be present at closed meetings with the committee's 
authorization,(2) and Mr. Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, 
proposed that the words, ``on that day'' be struck from both parts of 
the resolution where they appeared.(3) Both the Stratton 
(4) and Ichord (5) amendments were agreed to by 
the Committee of the Whole and by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 6714, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Id. at p. 6715.
 4. Id. at p. 6715.
 5. Id. at p. 6718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution, as amended, was agreed to in the House by a vote of 
371-27.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 6720.
            See Sec. 21.2, infra, for an instance in which a committee 
        ordered a bill reported in closed session without having voted 
        by roll call in open session to close that meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This rule (Rule XI clauses 2(g) (1) and (2) 
in the 1979 House Rules and Manual) was amended on Jan. 14, 1975, to 
limit to one day (in the case of a committee meeting) or to one day 
plus one subsequent day (in the case of a hearing) the period during 
which a committee may close its session. These clauses were again 
amended on Jan. 4, 1977, to require that a majority (rather than a 
quorum) be present when a committee or subcommittee votes to close a 
meeting or hearing and to provide that a noncommittee member cannot be 
excluded from a hearing except by a vote of the House. In the 96th 
Congress, paragraph 2 was amended further to permit a majority of those 
present under the rules of the committee for the purpose of taking 
testimony (not less than two members as provided in clause 2(h)(1) of 
Rule XI) to vote to close a hearing either to discuss whether the 
testimony would endanger national security or would violate clause 
2(k)(5) of Rule XI, or to proceed to close the hearing as provided by 
clause 2(k)(5).

Reporting of Bill From Improperly Convened Executive Session

Sec. 21.2 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce having 
    ordered a bill reported in closed session without having voted by 
    rollcall in open session to close the meeting (in violation of the 
    rules), the chairman of the committee disclosed that

[[Page 2734]]

    fact during consideration of the bill in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 22, 1973,(7) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 7200), to 
amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, the Railroad Retirement Tax 
Act, and the Interstate Commerce Act, among other purposes. The Clerk 
proceeded to read the title of the bill, and, by unanimous consent, the 
first reading was dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 16521, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Chairman William J. Green, of Pennsylvania, 
recognized r. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, and the following 
exchange took place:

        Mr. Chairman, I will not take very long on the bill.
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Staggers: I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, thank the gentleman for yielding.
        I take this time to ask if I am not correct in my information 
    that at the time the full committee considered the bill in 
    executive session, it was a closed session, but a recorded vote to 
    close the session was not taken.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Mr. Fascell was concerned, here, with what appeared to be an 
        inadvertent failure to follow clause 26(f) of Rule XI which 
        read [Rule XI clause 2(g)(1) House Rules and Manual Sec. 708 
        (1979)] in pertinent part: ``(f) Each meeting for the 
        transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, 
        of each standing committee or subcommittee thereof shall be 
        open to the public except when the committee or subcommittee, 
        in open session and with a quorum present, determines by 
        rollcall vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting 
        shall be closed to the public . . . .''
            See also Rule XI clause 2(g)(2), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 708 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Staggers: That is correct.
        Mr. Fascell: I thank the gentleman for saying that.
        Mr. Chairman, let me say that the present rule which makes this 
    bill in order does not waive points of order, and an issue could 
    have been raised with respect to the consideration of this bill, 
    which I certainly did not want to raise, but it would have put the 
    committee in the awkward position, had the point of order been 
    raised on consideration of the bill, of either going back to the 
    Rules Committee and getting a rule which waived points of order or 
    of going back to the committee and having another vote on the bill 
    which had been marked up.
        I thank the chairman for yielding me this time to raise this 
    issue, because I think it is important that in consideration of our 
    bills we do not inadvertently violate the rules of the House with 
    respect to the recorded vote on closed meetings.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Fascell was an author of House

[[Page 2735]]

Resolution 259 (9) which incorporated Rule XI clause 26(f) 
into the rules of the House. He had indicated he would raise a point of 
order against consideration of the bill when the motion was male to go 
into the Committee of the Whole,(10) but declined to do so 
after agreeing to make legislative history on the issue during general 
debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 6720, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 7, 1973.
10. Id. at p. 16521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Response to Press Allegation of Unauthorized Attendance at 
    Executive Session

Sec. 21.3 A committee has adopted a resolution refuting a newspaper 
    account to the effect that an unauthorized person had attended an 
    executive session.

    On Aug. 3, 1967,(11) Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record. The opportunity 
was utilized to respond to certain statements in the press regarding an 
executive session of the Subcommittee on Postal Rates. Accordingly, Mr. 
Dulski inserted the following resolution which was agreed to, 
unanimously, by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 21179, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Id. at p. 21180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas in the Washington Post on Sunday, July 23, 1967, in the 
    column headed ``The Federal Diary'' by Jerry Klutz, there appeared 
    the statement in connection with an article about a certain 
    legislative consultant that ``he walked out of Wednesday's closed 
    session with subcommittee members.'';
        Whereas this same allegation has appeared in other subsequent 
    newspaper articles;
        Whereas such allegation is false; Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved, That the subcommittee in executive session does 
    hereby declare that to the personal knowledge of the individual 
    Members of the subcommittee, including the chairman of the full 
    committee and ranking minority member, both of whom were in 
    attendance throughout the course of the executive session, and in 
    the personal knowledge of the Staff Director and other staff 
    present, and based upon the official records kept by the 
    subcommittee, neither the legislative consultant in question nor 
    any other person except members and authorized committee staff 
    personnel was in the committee room or participated in the 
    subcommittee executive session on the date specified or on any 
    other date during which the subcommittee met in executive session.

[[Page 2736]]




 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 22. --Use of Information Obtained in Executive Session

Insertion In Record of Executive Session Minutes

Sec. 22.1 Instance where a Member inserted in the Record a transcript 
    from the minutes of an executive session of the Committee on House 
    Administration, indicating the votes of members of that committee 
    (including proxies) on amendments to a resolution providing funds 
    for the Committee on Internal Security.

    On Apr. 29, 1971,(13) by direction of the Committee on 
House Administration, Mr. Frank Thompson, of New Jersey, called up a 
funding resolution (H. Res. 274), for the Committee on Internal 
Security and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution 
limited the committee's funding to $670,000 but was reported with a 
committee amendment (14) striking the latter figure and 
inserting the sum of ``$450,000''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 12483, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Id. at p. 12484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This amendment had been agreed to by the Committee on House 
Administration following the rejection of an amendment to the amendment 
which called for a figure of $570,000. The latter amount was rejected 
by a one-vote margin on a record vote in which five proxy votes were 
cast.
    In the course of the House's consideration of House Resolution 274, 
Mr. James C. Cleveland, of New Hampshire, sought to draw attention to 
the use of proxy votes (15) in this instance by inserting in 
the Record an account of the committee proceedings with respect to the 
amendments. The following (16) exchange resulted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Proxy voting is expressly permissible under the rules which provide 
        [see Rule XI clause 27(e), House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(e) 
        (1973)] in pertinent part: ``No vote by any member of any 
        committee with respect to any measure or matter may be cast by 
        proxy unless such committee, by written rule adopted by the 
        committee, permits voting by proxy and requires that the proxy 
        authorization shall be in writing, shall designate the person 
        who is to execute the proxy authorization, and shall be limited 
        to a specific measure or matter and any amendments or motions 
        pertaining thereto.''
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 12488, 12489, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cleveland: . . . Am I correct in saying that this 
    particular result that we have on the floor of the House, and for 
    which the chairman has expressed some regret, would never have 
    occurred if there had not been proxy

[[Page 2737]]

    votes? It is an example of why I oppose proxy voting. Were they not 
    decisive in the vote that resulted in the cut that has been 
    characterized here as too drastic?
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: As the gentleman 
    knows, that was the deciding factor, the proxy vote, because most 
    of us were there and voting.
        Mr. Cleveland: Thank you. For the information of the Members an 
    account of the committee action and the deciding role of the 
    proxies may be of interest, as follows:

                                 Committee Vote

            After considerable discussion Mr. Podell offered a motion 
        to strike out the entire amount requested. Mr. Devine then 
        offered a motion to table Mr. Podell's amendment. Mr. Abbitt 
        seconded the motion. On a voice vote the motion carried.
            Mr. Podell then offered a motion to reduce the amount to 
        $450,000.
            Mr. Dickinson then offered a motion to amend the Podell 
        proposal to read $570,000. Mr. Gray seconded the motion. This 
        motion failed to carry on a record vote, 9 ayes to 10 nays.
            The next vote was on Mr. Podell's motion to cut the amount 
        to $450,000. On a roll call vote there were 11 ayes and 7 nays.
            The Committee then agreed to the amended ($450,000) 
        resolution by voice vote.

            amendment by mr. dickinson to reduce amount to $570,000

            Hays: Aye (Proxy).
            Thompson: Nay.
            Abbitt: Aye.
            Dent: Nay (Proxy).
            Brademas: Nay (Proxy).
            Gray: Aye.
            Hawkins: Nay (Proxy).
            Gettys: Aye.
            Bingham: Nay (Proxy).
            Podell: Nay.
            Annunzio: Nay.
            Mollohan: Nay.
            (4 ayes, 8 nays.)
            Devine: Aye.
            Dickinson: Aye.
            Cleveland: Aye.
            Schwengel: Nay.
            Harvey: Aye.
            Veysey: Aye.
            Frenz 1: Nay.
            (5 ayes, 2 nays.)

              amendment by mr. podell to reduce amount to $450,000

            Thompson: Aye.
            Abbitt: Nay.
            Dent: Aye (Proxy).
            Brademas: Aye (Proxy).
            Gray: Aye.
            Hawkins: Aye (Proxy).
            Gettys: Nay.
            Bingham: Aye (Proxy).
            Podell: Aye.
            Annunzio: Aye.
            Mollohan: Aye.
            (9 ayes, 2 nays.)
            Devine: Nay.
            Dickinson: Nay.
            Cleveland: Nay.
            Schwengel: Aye.
            Harvey: Nay.
            Veysey: Nay.
            Frenzel: Aye.
            (2 ayes, 5 nays.)

Disclosure of Evidence Taken in Executive Session

Sec. 22.2 Evidence taken in an executive session of a committee may 
    later be made public by vote of the committee.

[[Page 2738]]

    On Apr. 26, 1972,(~17) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, Chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services, who called up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 918), 
and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution directed the 
President and the Secretary of Defense to furnish the House of 
Representatives, within 10 days after the adoption of the resolution 
``full and complete information'' concerning the specifics of various 
military operations in Southeast Asia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 118 Cong. Rec. 14348, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Mr. Hebert explained,(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 14349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Armed Services spent an entire 
    day in acting on the subject matter of the resolution sponsored by 
    the gentlewoman from New York.
        The committee began its hearings in open session at 10 a.m. on 
    April 18 and finally, after a number of interruptions, including a 
    break for lunch concluded its hearings in executive session at 5:17 
    p.m.

    Mr. Hebert proceeded to discuss the committee's vote on the 
measure, among other matters, after which he yielded 10 minutes' time 
to Ms. Bella Abzug, of New York, sponsor of the resolution of inquiry. 
At the conclusion of her remarks and pursuant to the requisite 
committee approval,(19) Ms. Abzug inserted (1) 
the text of the hearings, including that of an executive 
session,(2) in the Record. As she explained in so 
doing,(3~) however, certain deletions (4) were 
required to be made in the text of the executive session.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Since the text of the hearings on this resolution included an 
        executive session, Ms. Abzug was obliged to obtain prior 
        approval from the committee before inserting the text in the 
        Record in accordance with the rules [see Rule XI clause 27(o), 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(o) (1973)] which provide that: 
        ``No evidence or testimony taken in executive session may be 
        released or used in public sessions without the consent of the 
        committee.''
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 14352, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Id. at pp. 14372-77.
 3. Id. at p. 14352.
 4. All deletions were of classified material as the text of that 
        session [id. at p. 14376] reveals. The record of the executive 
        session had been routinely released by the committee after 
        classified portions of the testimony had been deleted.
5. See also Sec. 22.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.3 Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, because of 
    a committee determination that it may tend to degrade, defame, or 
    incriminate, does not, in every

[[Page 2739]]

    case, remain forever under the restrictions imposed by the 
    ``executive session'' label; a committee has the right to make such 
    information public at a later time and may, by vote of the 
    committee, do so.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(6) the House entertained consideration 
of privileged resolution (H. Res. 221), authorizing the expenditure of 
certain funds for the expenses of the Committee on Un-American 
Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 8420, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the ensuing debate, Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of 
Illinois, addressed a series of parliamentary inquiries to Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts. One of those inquiries prompted the 
following exchange

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, Rule XI, 26 (m) of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives (7~) states as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Rule XI clause 27(m), House Rules and Manual Sec. 735 (m) 
        (1973) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            If the committee determines that evidence or testimony at 
        an investigative hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or 
        incriminate any person, it shall--
            (1) receive such evidence or testimony in executive 
        session;

        Mr. Speaker, my question is this: If the committee determines 
    that the evidence it is about to receive may tend to defame, 
    degrade or incriminate a witness, is it not compulsory under the 
    Rules of the House for the Committee to hold such hearings in 
    executive session?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that is a matter which 
    would be in the control of the committee for committee action.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: I must say that I do not understand the ruling. Is 
    the Chair ruling that a committee can waive this rule? That it can 
    refuse to recognize this rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair would not want to pass upon a general 
    parliamentary inquiry, as distinguished from a particular one with 
    facts, but the Chair is of the opinion that if the committee voted 
    to make public the testimony taken in executive session, it is not 
    in violation of the rule, and certainly that would be a committee 
    matter.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. For an instance in which a committee [the Committee on Armed 
        Services] elected to make public certain information which it 
        had obtained in the course of an executive session, see 
        Sec. 22.2. supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference to Executive Session Testimony Without Quotation

Sec. 22.4 While it is not in order in debate for a Member to make 
    unauthorized reference to the proceedings of an executive session 
    of a com

[[Page 2740]]

    mittee, the Chair has permitted a Member to discuss certain matters 
    ``on his own responsibility'' where the Member has informed the 
    Chair that he did not purport to quote from committee proceedings 
    in executive session but was only referring to events or statements 
    which occurred outside of or independently of such session.

    On Feb. 1, 1940,(9) Speaker pro tempore R. Ewing 
Thomason, of Texas, recognized Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, who 
requested unanimous consent to withdraw certain remarks he had made on 
Jan. 23, 1940, with respect to a group of letters, known as the ``Pelly 
letters.'' Under reservation of objection, the matter was briefly 
discussed and ultimately objected to by Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of 
Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 952, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A short while later, Mr. Keefe, having obtained unanimous consent 
to speak for 10 minutes, proceeded to discuss the authenticity of the 
letters, which he stated were written by another individual, named 
Mayne. In the course of these remarks (10) he stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Dies committee, despite the innuendoes to the contrary, 
    have been pretty careful about this thing, so they have brought 
    before the committee the typewriter of Mr. Mayne and had these 
    letters examined by comparison with the typewriter of Mr. Mayne, 
    which they subpenaed. This afternoon, before the Dies committee, 
    Mr. Charles Appel, special agent in charge of laboratories of the 
    Department of Justice----

    At this juncture, the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Hook: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Keefe: I do not.
        Mr. Hook: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hook: The gentleman is quoting testimony taken before an 
    executive meeting. The point of order is that this is out of order 
    and the gentleman has no right to quote testimony taken in an 
    executive meeting of a committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    purports to discuss the executive proceedings of a committee it 
    will not be in order.
        Mr. Keefe: I am not discussing the executive proceedings. . . .
        Mr. Hook: He has referred to the testimony.
        Mr. Keefe: I am quoting on my own responsibility.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman purport to quote 
    the proceedings of a committee in executive session?

[[Page 2741]]

        Mr. Keefe: No.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If that is what the gentleman 
    undertakes to do, the point of order will be sustained.
        Mr. Hook: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I will have to ask, 
    then, that the remarks, if any, referring to the testimony taken in 
    the executive meeting be stricken.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: All the Chair knows is that the 
    gentleman says he is not purporting to quote the proceedings of an 
    executive session of a committee of this House. If that be true, 
    the point of order is overruled.

Reference in Debate to Minutes of Executive Session

Sec. 22.5 It has been held not in order in debate in the House to refer 
    to or quote from the minutes of an executive session of a 
    committee, unless the committee has voted to make such proceedings 
    public.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(11) debate ensued over a resolution (H. 
Res. 364), providing for payment from the contingent fund of certain 
expenses incurred by the Committee on Science and Astronautics pursuant 
to a previous resolution (H. Res. 312). In the course of that debate, 
differences of opinion were voiced as to the committee's need for two 
minority staff positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 8410, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Referring to an earlier debate about staffing which had taken place 
among the members of that committee during one of its meetings, Mr. Joe 
D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, noted that: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 8411, 8412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We entered into a discussion regarding the question of minority 
    staff, and during the course of the discussion the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Teague] was recognized by Chairman Miller. Mr. Teague 
    posed this question:
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask whether anyone on the 
    committee on either side, has asked the staff for something they 
    did not get and get it in the form they wanted it.
        Mr. Wydler, minority member, replied--and I think this is the 
    point he wanted to clarify in asking me to yield earlier--in this 
    manner:
        Mr. Wydler: I would answer by saying they get it. That is not 
    the purpose of a minority staff. The purpose of a minority staff is 
    really that they are present, operating within the confines of the 
    committee on a daily basis, to keep the minority membership 
    informed what is coming up, what is happening, and what is going to 
    happen in the future, to do advanced thinking on some of these 
    problems, and give us on the minority some idea of those things the 
    minority should be rightfully looking into.

    At this point, Mr. John W. Wydler, of New York, immediately raised 
a point of order with Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts. The 
following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Wydler: Mr. Speaker, is it proper to read from the minutes 
    of an

[[Page 2742]]

    executive committee meeting of a committee of the House of 
    Representatives on the floor of the House?
        The Speaker: The Chair would like to inquire of either the 
    gentleman from Louisiana or the gentleman from Texas whether the 
    gentleman from Louisiana is reading from the executive session 
    record?
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, are you addressing the inquiry to 
    me or to the gentleman from Texas?
        The Speaker: Either one may answer. . . .
        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Mr. Speaker, it is my 
    remembrance that what he is quoting was what took place at an 
    executive session.
        The Speaker: The Chair would like to make the further inquiry 
    as to whether or not the members in the executive session voted to 
    make public what took place in the executive session?
        Mr. Teague of Texas: It is my memory that we did not vote on 
    that and it was not discussed.
        The Speaker: The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from 
    Louisiana that he refrain from referring to what took place in the 
    executive session.


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 23. Reporting Measure From Committee Requires Quorum

Quorum Consists of Majority of Members of Committee Who Must Be 
    Actually Present

Sec. 23.1 No measure is to be reported from any committee unless a 
    majority of the committee was actually present when the measure was 
    ordered reported.

    On May 11, 1950,(13) a resolution was withdrawn when a 
point of order was raised that the measure had been reported out of 
committee in the absence of a quorum. Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, then initiated the following exchange with Speaker pro 
tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 6920, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House and the rules of 
    every committee, legislation is passed every day without a quorum 
    being present, and unless that question is raised they cannot go 
    into the courts and contest the legislation. The same thing applies 
    to the committee. A ruling to the contrary would simply demoralize 
    legislative procedure as far as the committees of this House are 
    concerned.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair calls the attention of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi to paragraph (d) of section 133 of the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act [of 1946], which reads as follows:

            No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        such committee unless a majority of the committee was actually 
        present.(l4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Formal Meeting Requirement

Sec. 23.2 A standing committee cannot validly report a meas

[[Page 2743]]

    ure under the rules unless the report was authorized at a formal 
    meeting of the committee with a quorum present.

    On Sept. 30, 1966,(15) Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, 
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, submitted a 
privileged report (H. Rept. No. 2158), to accompany a resolution (H. 
Res. 1028), providing funds for his committee and asked for its 
immediate consideration. At this juncture, Mr. Jonathan B. Bingham, of 
New York, rose to a point of order against the resolution on the ground 
that a quorum of the committee was not present when the resolution was 
reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 24548, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the ensuing discussion, the following exchange 
took place between Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, and Mr. 
Burleson:

        The Speaker: . . . The Chair wants to ask the gentleman from 
    Texas, the chairman of the committee, was a committee meeting 
    called for the purpose of acting on this resolution? And, if so, 
    was a quorum present?
        Mr. Burleson: Mr. Speaker, I have explained in some detail the 
    procedure used in this instance.(16) There was an 
    agreement by a majority of the committee that the resolution may be 
    presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Mr. Burleson was referring to a practice which the committee 
        employed on occasion in which a telephone poll of members would 
        be conducted to verify committee approval. For further details, 
        see Sec. 25.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Was there a meeting? Did the committee meet? Was 
    there a quorum present and voting and acting on it?
        Mr. Burleson: Mr. Speaker, on infrequent occasions when we have 
    resorted to this procedure as a matter of convenience and of 
    expediting legislation, it has always been accepted as establishing 
    a quorum. As far as I know this procedure has not been challenged. 
    In this case a majority of the committee agreed to the resolution 
    and I insist that a quorum was established and that the report is 
    proper and that the resolution is privileged.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair does not inquire into the procedure of a committee, 
    in reporting a bill, unless a point of order as to the matter is 
    raised and thus called to the attention of the Chair. Unless a 
    Member makes a point of order, the Chair does not go into the 
    question of committee procedure.
        However, since the point of order has been raised, the Chair 
    will point out that the provisions of clause 26(e), rule 
    XI,(17) make it clear that no measure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. At the time, Rule XI clause 26(e) [H. Jour. 1483, 89th Cong. 2d 
        Sess. (1966)] stated: ``No measure or recommendation shall be 
        reported from any committee unless a majority of the committee 
        were actually present.'' This provision is now part of a 
        different clause [Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 713(C) (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2744]]

    can be reported from a committee unless a majority of the committee 
    were actually present.

        The chairman of the Committee on House Administration has 
    stated that the resolution he now seeks to call up was not ordered 
    reported at a formal meeting of the committee where a quorum was 
    present.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Bingham].
        The report and resolution are recommitted to the Committee on 
    House Administration.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Burleson asked for the immediate 
consideration of House Resolution 1028 by unanimous consent. Mr. 
Bingham voicing objection, however, the bill continued as recommitted 
because of the invalid report.

Presumption of Quorum Upon Issuance of Report

Sec. 23.3 Unless a point of order is raised, the House assumes that 
    reports from committees are authorized when a quorum of the 
    committee was present.

    On Sept. 30, 1966,(18) Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, 
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, submitted a 
privileged report (H. Rept. No. 2158), to accompany a resolution (H. 
Res. 1028), providing funds for his committee and asked for its 
immediate consideration. Mr. Jonathan B. Bingham, of New York, then 
rose to make a point of order against the resolution on the ground that 
a committee quorum was not present when the resolution was reported. A 
discussion then ensued as to certain procedures undertaken by the 
committee with respect to measures of this kind.(l9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 24548, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. See Sec. 25.1, infra, for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to announcing his decision (20) with respect to 
the point of order, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, made 
the following observation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 23.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair does not inquire into the procedure of a committee, 
    in reporting a bill, unless a point of order as to the matter is 
    raised and thus called to the attention of the Chair. Unless a 
    Member makes a point of order, the Chair does not go into the 
    question of committee procedure.

Privileged Measure and Presence of Quorum

Sec. 23.4 Where the rules accord privileged status in the House to a 
    measure reported from a particular committee,

[[Page 2745]]

    such status is retained only if the measure is reported when a 
    quorum of such committee is present.

    On May 11, 1950,(1) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mary T. Norton, of New Jersey, 
Chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration, who offered a 
privileged (2) resolution (H. Res. 495), providing for the 
payment of certain investigatory expenses from the contingent fund of 
the House. She asked for its immediate consideration. A point of order 
having been raised against consideration of the measure on the ground 
that a quorum was not present when the committee reported it out, Mrs. 
Norton withdrew the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 96 Cong. Rec. 6920, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Committee on House Administration has ``leave to report at any 
        time'' on ``all matters of expenditure of the contingent fund 
        of the House;'' see Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Thomas B. Stanley, of Virginia, asked the 
following series of parliamentary inquiries regarding the status of 
House Resolution 495:

        What is the status of the resolution now that has just been 
    withdrawn?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman from New Jersey has 
    withdrawn the resolution. The matter is not before the House. 
    Therefore, there is no question for the Chair to pass upon.
        Mr. Stanley: Could the resolution be properly presented to the 
    House again without going back to the committee?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Of course, it could be taken up by 
    unanimous consent. In the event of its being presented again, a 
    point of order could be raised; but the Chair would not express any 
    opinion now on the point of order that might be raised at that 
    time.
        Mr. Stanley: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is 
    this a privileged matter?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If it is reported out of committee 
    with a quorum present, it is a privileged matter.

Committee Reconsideration of Votes Taken in Absence of Quorum

Sec. 23.5 Where a committee votes to report several bills in the 
    absence of a quorum and proceeds by omnibus motion to reconsider 
    them en bloc with a quorum present, unless a point of order is 
    raised in the committee at that time demanding the bills' separate 
    consideration, such action is in accordance with the parliamentary 
    procedures of the House.

[[Page 2746]]

    On July 9, 1956,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, who, by direction 
of the Committee on the District of Columbia (which he chaired), called 
up a bill (H.R. 4697), to amend the 1954 Alcoholic Beverage Control Act 
of the District of Columbia, and asked unanimous consent that the bill 
be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole. Immediately 
thereafter, Mr. Albert P. Morano, of Connecticut, raised a point of 
order against consideration of the bill on the ground that a quorum was 
not present when the committee ordered the measure reported. This 
prompted some discussion and much confusion owing to the fact that Mr. 
McMillan, under the Chair's questioning, indicated that a quorum was 
not present when the bill was passed, while Mr. Howard W. Smith, of 
Virginia, who was also a member of the committee, recalled the presence 
of a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 102 Cong. Rec. 12199, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the following exchange indicates, both gentlemen were correct:

        The Speaker: . . . The gentleman from South Carolina said that 
    when this bill was reported there was not a quorum present. Is the 
    Chair quoting the gentleman from South Carolina correctly?
        Mr. McMillan: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: . . . It is true, I believe, there was 
    not a quorum present when any one of these bills was considered, 
    but before the session adjourned a quorum did appear, and then a 
    blanket motion was made to reconsider all of the bills that had 
    previously been passed upon and to vote them out, which motion was 
    carried. May I ask the chairman of the committee if that is a 
    correct statement of what occurred?
        Mr. McMillan: That is correct.

    These facts prompted Mr. Morano to initiate the ensuing exchange 
(4) with the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 12199, 12200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morano: There is obviously a contradiction here, Mr. 
    Speaker. The chairman of the committee said there was not a quorum 
    present when this bill was considered. The issue before the 
    Speaker, as I understand it, is a ruling on this bill, not on other 
    bills that were considered en bloc.
        The Speaker: That is correct, but the gentleman from South 
    Carolina said that on the last action on the bill in the committee 
    a quorum was present.
        The Chair under the circumstances must overrule the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Connecticut.

    Although a point of order based on other considerations 
(5) was subsequently sustained against

[[Page 2747]]

Mr. McMillan's motion, the Chair's initial ruling provoked several 
parliamentary inquiries, including the following question raised by Mr. 
John Taber, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. The committee reported the bill while the House was in session 
        without having received permission to sit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, is it proper to consider by a single vote a 
    reconsideration of the votes by which several bills have been 
    reported, and then make a single omnibus motion by which all those 
    bills that have been so reconsidered would be reported?
        The Speaker: If, as seems to be true in this instance, no point 
    of order was made, then the action of the committee is presumed to 
    have been in accordance with parliamentary procedure of the House 
    of Representatives.

Waiver of Committee Quorum Requirement

Sec. 23.6 The House rejected a resolution, reported from the Committee 
    on Rules, providing for the consideration of a bill improperly 
    voted on and reported by the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
    Service.

    On July 23, 1973,(6) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, called up House Resolution 495 
and asked for its immediate consideration. The measure provided that 
upon the adoption of the resolution, it would be in order to move, 
``clause 27(e), Rule XI (7) to the contrary, 
notwithstanding,'' that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 8929), affecting 
certain postal rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 25476, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. This clause provides [Rule XI clause 27(e), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 735(e) (1973)] that: ``No measure or recommendation shall 
        be reported from any committee unless a majority of the 
        committee were actually present.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the discussion proceeded, Mr. Pepper sought to explain the 
origin of the waiver provision, resulting in the following 
(8) exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 25477, 25478, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 495 provides for an 
    open rule with 2 hours of general debate on H.R. 8929, a bill to 
    provide relief from postal rate increases for certain mailers.
        House Resolution 495 provides that the provisions of clause 
    27(e), rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives are 
    waived.
        I will state to my able friend from Iowa, whose inquiry I 
    anticipate, if I may, that the occasion for this request for a 
    waiver by the Committee on Rules is this: The committee [the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service] had before it H.R. 
    7554. The committee, on the 21st of June, I believe it was, voted, 
    with a quorum present, by

[[Page 2748]]

    a record vote of 33 to 10, to report out the committee bill, H.R. 
    7554, with amendments. The bill and the amendments were voted 
    favorably by the committee.
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Pepper: I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. Derwinski: The gentleman said the vote was 33 to 10. It was 
    13 to 10.
        Mr. Pepper: I am sorry. It was 13 to 10. I understand that 
    there are 25 members of the committee, and 23 voted, and the vote 
    to report out the bill was 13 to 10.
        The committee [on Post Office and Civil Service] voted to 
    report out a clean bill, which would embody H.R. 7554 and the 
    amendments in a single clean bill.
        On the day following that meeting of the committee there was 
    introduced a clean bill, embodying exactly H.R. 7554 plus the 
    amendments that had been voted upon favorably by the committee. 
    There was not a subsequent meeting of the committee upon the clean 
    bill. But the clean bill embodying what was voted upon exactly by 
    the committee, as H.R. 8929, was reported out and presented to the 
    Rules Committee. The situation was reported to the Rules Committee, 
    and the Rules Committee voted to recommend consideration of the 
    bill to the House, but recommended that there be a waiver of points 
    of order so that any technicality which might arise out of that 
    situation would be cured by the waiver of the rule, if the House 
    adopted the waiver of the rule.

    Following further discussion, the resolution was rejected 
(9) by a rollcall vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 25482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 24. Point of Order Based on Lack of Committee Quorum--Timing

Effect of Failure to Raise in Committee

Sec. 24.1 Failure to raise a point of no quorum upon the taking of a 
    committee vote to report a privileged resolution does not bar the 
    subsequent raising of such a point of order when the measure is 
    reported as privileged to the House.

    On May 11, 1950,(10) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mary T. Norton, of New Jersey, 
Chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration, who, acting by 
direction of that committee, offered and asked for the immediate 
consideration of a privileged resolution (H. Res. 495), providing for 
the payment of certain investigatory expenses of the Committee on the 
District of Columbia. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of 
Ohio, made a point of order against the resolution on the ground that a 
quorum was not present when it was reported out of committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 6920, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before the Chair was able to conclusively determine whether or

[[Page 2749]]

not a quorum had been present, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
raised a point of order against the point of order, prompting the 
following exchange:

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a further point of order. This is a 
    very serious proposition that really affects the orderly procedure 
    of the House. I make the point of order that it is too late to 
    raise a point of order that there was no quorum present in the 
    committee unless that point of order was made in the committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the point of 
    order can be made in the House when the report is made. A point of 
    order that a quorum was not present when the resolution was 
    reported out can be made when the resolution is reported to the 
    House. For that reason the Chair rules that the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. Hays] is within his rights at this particular time in making 
    the point of order that he has.

Against Resolution Providing for Consideration of Bill

Sec. 24.2 A point of order that a bill may not be reported from 
    committee in the absence of a quorum is properly raised when the 
    bill is called up for consideration--and such a point of order will 
    not lie against a resolution providing for the consideration of the 
    bill.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(~11) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, called up House Resolution 1256 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution provided that 
upon its adoption, it would be in order to move that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill 
(S. 2511), to maintain and improve the income of producers of crude 
pine gum, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 30738, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the Clerk read the resolution, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, 
who raised the following point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the consideration 
    of House Resolution 1256 on the grounds that the Committee on 
    Agriculture acted without a quorum being present when it ordered S. 
    2511 reported to the House on July 2, 1968.
        Rule XI, clause 26(e), of the rules of the House 
    (12) states as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Mr. Findley was referring to clause 27(e) [H. Jour. 1318, 90th 
        Cong. 2d Sess. (1968)]; see Rule XI clause 2(1)(2)(A), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            (e) No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.

[[Page 2750]]

        I have personally checked with the staff of the Committee on 
    Agriculture and have been informed that on July 2, 1968, there were 
    only 14 members of the committee present and that the vote to 
    report S. 2511 to the House was 11 to 0 in favor of such action. 
    Since the total membership of that committee is 35, there obviously 
    was not a majority actually present as required by rule XI, clause 
    26(e).
        Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order at this time in order 
    to have it presented to the Chair in a timely fashion. . . . [T]he 
    Chair stated in a response to a parliamentary inquiry by the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hall] on Monday of this week--October 
    7, page 29764 that any point of order under rule XI, clause 26(e), 
    would have to be made when the bill is called up.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Note, however, that such a point of order would not lie where a 
        bill was being considered under suspension of the rules; see 
        Sec. 24.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Since House Resolution 1256 is the rule which calls up S. 2511 
    for consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union, I therefore insist on my point of order at this time.

    The Speaker replied, as follows:

        The Chair states, in response to the inquiry of the gentleman 
    from Illinois, that the point of order at this time would be 
    premature.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Such a point of order will lie, however, pending a vote on a motion 
        that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
        for the consideration of the bill; see Sec. 24.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following Discharge of Committee of the Whole

Sec. 24.3 Following the discharge of the Committee of the Whole from 
    further consideration of a bill, a Member was permitted, pending 
    consideration of the bill, to make the point of order that the 
    measure had been reported from committee in the absence of a 
    quorum.

    The following proceedings were reported in the House Journal of 
Oct. 11, 1968: ~(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Jour. 1292, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On motion of Mr. [Thaddeus J.] Dulski [N.Y.], by unanimous 
    consent, the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
    was discharged from further consideration of the bill of the Senate 
    (S. 1507) to include firefighters within the provisions of section 
    8336(c) of title 5, United States Code, relating to the retirement 
    of Government employees engaged in certain hazardous occupations.
        Pending consideration of said bill, Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook 
    [Ohio], made a point of order against the bill and said:
        ``I make a point of order that report No. 1945 violates rule 
    XI, clause 26, and that a quorum was not present when the bill was 
    passed by the Post Office and Civil Service Committee.''
        The Speaker (16) sustained the point of order and 
    said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``The Chair sustains the point of order and the bill is 
    recommitted to

[[Page 2751]]

    the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.''
        The bill (S. 1507) was recommitted to the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service.

Pending Vote on Motion to Resolve Into Committee of the Whole

Sec. 24.4 A point of order that a bill was reported from committee in 
    the absence of a quorum is in order pending a vote on the motion 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
    the consideration of the bill.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(17) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, called up House Resolution 1256 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution provided that 
upon its adoption, it would be in order to move that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill 
(S. 2511), to maintain and improve the income of producers of crude 
pine gum, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 30738, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the Clerk read the resolution, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, 
who raised the point of order (1~8) that a quorum of the 
Committee on Agriculture was not present when that committee voted to 
report S. 2511 to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For more details, see Sec. 24.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker's reply was, as follows:

        The Chair states, in response to the inquiry of the gentleman 
    from Illinois, that the point of order at this time would be 
    premature.
        The Chair might state that the appropriate time to make the 
    point of order would be at the time the motion is made to go in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    After a brief discussion, House Resolution 1256 was agreed 
to,(19) whereupon William R. Poage, of Texas, Chairman of 
the Committee on Agriculture, moved that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of S. 2511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 30739, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of S. 2511 on the grounds that the Committee on 
    Agriculture acted without a quorum being present when it ordered S. 
    2511 reported to the House on July 2, 1968.
        Rule XI, clause [27(e)], of the rules of the House 
    (1) states as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2752]]

            (e) No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.

        I have personally checked with the staff of the Committee on 
    Agriculture and have been informed that on July 2, 1968, there were 
    only 14 members of the committee present and that the vote to 
    report S. 2511 to the House was 11 to 0 in favor of such action. 
    Since the total membership of that committee is 35, there obviously 
    was not a majority actually present as required by Rule XI clause 
    [27(e)].

    Mr. Findley having raised his point of order at the appropriate 
moment, the Speaker interrogated Mr. Poage and sustained the point of 
order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For more details on the Chair's ruling, see Sec. 25.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 24.5 A point of order against a bill on the ground that a quorum 
    of the committee was not present when the bill was ordered reported 
    should be made in the House and such points come too late after the 
    House has resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
    consideration of the measure.

    On June 14, 1946,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, who immediately moved that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of a bill (S. 524), to provide for one national cemetery 
in every state and for certain other national cemeteries. The motion 
was agreed to, and, after the first reading of the bill was dispensed 
with by unanimous consent, debate ensued in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 92 Cong. Rec. 6955, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The discussion had proceeded at some length when Chairman John W. 
Flannagan, Jr., of Virginia, recognized Mr. Forest A. Harness, of 
Indiana, for a parliamentary inquiry: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 6961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: At what time would a point of order lie 
    against the bill on the ground that the committee reporting it was 
    without jurisdiction because at the time it reported the bill there 
    was not a quorum present?
        The Chairman: Answering the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry 
    the Chair will state that such a point of order would be too late 
    now that the House is in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union. Such a point of order should be made in the 
    House before consideration of the bill.

After Debate on Measure Has Commenced

Sec. 24.6 The point of order that a bill was reported from a com

[[Page 2753]]

    mittee without a formal meeting and a quorum present is made too 
    late if debate has started on the bill in the House.

    On Feb. 24, 1947,(5) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, who, by 
direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia, called up a 
bill (H.R. 1700), to provide for daylight saving time in that city and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The Chair recognized Mr. Dirksen 
for one hour, and debate on the matter commenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 1368, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After much discussion on the subject, the Chair recognized Mr. 
Daniel A. Reed, of New York,(6) for a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 1374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I believe the Reorganization Act provides that no bill shall 
    come to the floor unless it is reported out of committee when a 
    quorum is present. As I understand the statement of the gentleman 
    from Illinois, there was no meeting of the committee.
        The Speaker: The point of order comes too late. It should have 
    been made before debate started on the bill.

After Adoption of Measure

Sec.  24.7 After the adoption of a resolution by the House, it is too 
    late to attack the validity of the action taken by the committee 
    reporting the resolution on the ground that a quorum was not 
    present when it was ordered reported.

    On Feb. 28, 1968,(7) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, 
by direction of the Committee on House Administration, submitted 12 
privileged reports on assorted resolutions providing funds for 
investigations, studies, and various expenses of certain standing and 
select committees. Each of the accompanying resolutions was agreed to. 
Mr. Friedel then submitted and then called up (8) a 
privileged report (H. Rept. No. 1127), on a resolution (H. Res. 1042), 
authorizing the expenditure of funds for expenses of the Committee on 
Un-American Activities, but withdrew the resolution (9) 
after Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York, made the point of order that a 
quorum was not present when the Committee on House Administration 
considered the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 4445-49, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Id. at p. 4449.
 9. See Sec. 25.3, infra, for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Edwin E.

[[Page 2754]]

Willis, of Louisiana, Chairman of the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, who initiated the following exchange:

        Mr. Speaker, the last resolution sought to be called up was a 
    resolution relative to the House Committee on Un-American 
    Activities, and it was withdrawn.
        Now, however, the gentleman from Maryland states, no, it is not 
    so, that there was no more a quorum present for all the other 
    resolutions than there was a quorum present to consider our 
    resolution.
        I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all the other 
    resolutions be withdrawn also.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that if a quorum was not 
    present--and the Chair is not saying that there was not a quorum 
    present--but if a quorum was not present then the point of order 
    should have been made by any Member at the time a particular 
    resolution was called up.

    Mr. Willis then obtained unanimous consent to address the House for 
one minute, and proceeded to examine the issue further:

        . . . I have asked for permission to proceed and ask these two 
    questions; that is all.
        Mr. Friedel: We considered your resolution in the committee.
        Mr. Willis: Was there a quorum present?
        Mr. Friedel: No quorum was present.
        Mr. Willis: Was there a quorum present for any other committee 
    appropriation?
        Mr. Friedel: That point was never raised.
        Mr. Willis: Well I just want to clarify the record and show 
    that probably no quorum was present in the House Administration 
    Committee for any of the resolutions approved today.

Bill Considered Under Suspension of the Rules

Sec.  24.8 Where a bill is being considered under suspension of the 
    rules, a point of order will not lie against the bill on the ground 
    that a quorum was not present when the bill was reported from 
    committee.

    On Oct. 7, 1968,(10) the program for the day entailed a 
number of bills scheduled to be considered under a suspension of the 
rules.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 114 Cong. Rec. 29764, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. The essential criteria to suspend the rules are set forth in the 
        following clause [Rule XXVII clause 1, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 902 (1973)]: ``No rule shall be suspended except by a vote 
        of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present; 
        nor shall the Speaker entertain a motion to suspend the rules 
        except on the first and third Mondays of each month, and on the 
        Tuesdays immediately following those days, and during the last 
        six days of a session.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the bills' consideration, Speaker John W. McCormack, of

[[Page 2755]]

Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, who 
initiated the following exchange:

        Mr. Speaker . . . [t]here are four bills from the Committee on 
    Post Office and Civil Service which, from evidence I have, were 
    reported in violation of rule XI, clause [27(e)](12) 
    which states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            (e) No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.

        The evidence I have is that H.R. 17954 and H.R. 7406 were 
    ordered reported from the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
    Service in executive session on August 2, 1968, without a quorum 
    present.
        Additional evidence reveals that S. 1507 and S. 1190 were 
    ordered reported from the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
    Service in executive session on September 3, 1968, without a quorum 
    present. I further cite from Jefferson's Manual, section 408: 
    (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 408 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A bill improperly reported is not entitled to its place on 
        the calendar; but the validity of a report may not be 
        questioned after the House has voted to consider it, or after 
        actual consideration has begun.

        Mr. Speaker, I submit that the bills S. 1507, S. 1190, H.R. 
    17954, and H.R. 7406 all were improperly reported. Mr. Speaker, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is this: At what point in the proceedings 
    would it be in order to raise the question against these bills as 
    being in violation of rule XI, clause [27(e)] inasmuch as they are 
    scheduled to be considered under suspension of the rules, which 
    would obviously suspend the rule I have cited? . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that any point of order would 
    have to be made when the bill is called up.
        The Chair might also advise or convey the suggestion to the 
    gentleman from Missouri that the bills will be considered under 
    suspension of the rules, and that means suspension of all rules.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Would 
    it not be in order, prior to the House going into the Consent 
    Calendar or suspension of the rules, to lodge the point of order 
    against the bills at this time?
        The Speaker: The point of order could be directed against such 
    consideration when the bills are called up under the general rules 
    of the House. The rules we are operating under today as far as 
    these bills are concerned concerns suspension of the rules, and 
    that motion will suspend all rules.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, if I may inquire further, is it not true 
    that, until such time as we go into that period of suspension of 
    the rules, a point of order would logically lie against such bills 
    which violate the prerogatives of the House and of the individual 
    Members thereof, to say nothing of the committee rules? My belief 
    that a point of order should be sustained is based on improper 
    committee procedure and addresses itself to the fact that the bills 
    are improperly scheduled, listed, or programed on the calendar, or 
    rule of suspension, and so forth.

[[Page 2756]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will state, as to points of order, at 
    the time the Chair answered the specific inquiry of the gentleman 
    from Missouri, a point of order would not lie until the bill is 
    reached and brought up for construction.

    At this juncture, Mr. Hall requested that the Speaker protect his 
rights by enabling him to raise the point of order at the appropriate 
time. The Speaker responded that ``The Chair will always protect the 
rights of any Member,'' but noted that a suspension of the rules 
procedure ``suspends all rules.''
    The Chair then recognized Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, who 
clarified the issue in the following manner:

        Do I correctly understand the ruling of the Chair that 
    suspending all the rules pertains to more than just the House; it 
    pertains to the rules of committee action likewise?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Two of the bills which were allegedly 
reported in the absence of a quorum, H.R. 17954 and H.R. 7406, were 
scheduled for consideration on both the Consent Calendar and under 
suspension of the rules. The Speaker did not foreclose the making of a 
point of order against a bill on the Consent Calendar. However, the two 
bills which might have been vulnerable when called on the Consent 
Calendar were passed over without prejudice by unanimous 
consent.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 29765, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 25. --Effect

Questioning of Committee Chairman

Sec. 25.1 Where a report from a committee is challenged on the ground 
    that a quorum of the committee was not present when the report was 
    authorized, the Speaker interrogates the chairman of the committee 
    concerned as to the facts in question.

    On Sept. 30, 1966,(15) Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, 
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, submitted a 
privileged report (H. Rept. No. 2158), to accompany a resolution (H. 
Res. 1028), providing funds for his committee and asked for its 
immediate consideration. At this juncture, Mr. Jonathan B. Bingham, of 
New York, rose to a point of order against the resolution on the ground 
that a quorum of the

[[Page 2757]]

committee was not present when the resolution was reported. Speaker 
John McCormack, of Massachusetts, then inquired of Mr. Burleson as to 
whether he had any comment. Mr. Burleson replied in the affirmative and 
initiated the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 24548, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Mr. Speaker, I do not see that this is a matter involving 
    rules but rather a matter of custom and practice. We were simply 
    following what has been a practice for a great many years relating 
    to noncontroversial matters. This method of obtaining committee 
    approval has been for the convenience of committee members. I shall 
    be glad to redate to the House in just a few words what transpired 
    in this instance.
        Recently it has been difficult to get a quorum, and, for 
    obvious reasons, it has been just about impossible for the last 10 
    days. Never before has the gentleman from New York objected to a 
    telephone poll of members. In this instance, each of the 25 members 
    of the committee, except those who were on the subcommittee 
    examining contracts, the subcommittee headed by the gentleman from 
    Ohio [Mr. Hays]--who had already agreed to the resolution, were 
    called, and a majority of the members approved the resolution.
        This practice has been prevalent and has been permitted over 
    the years, although it has been held to a minimum.
        Now Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to yield to the gentleman from 
    New York if he wants to tell us the real reason he is objecting to 
    the consideration of this resolution. The gentleman never before 
    has objected to this procedure and I ask why he objects now?
        Mr. Bingham: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Burleson: I yield to the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Bingham: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to explain. There has 
    been apparently the establishment of a subcommittee of the 
    Committee on House Administration.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not want to go into all that. The 
    Chair wants to ask the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the 
    committee, was a committee meeting called for the purpose of acting 
    on this resolution? And, if so, was a quorum present?
        Mr. Bureson: Mr. Speaker, I have explained in some detail the 
    procedure used in this instance. There was an agreement by a 
    majority of the committee that the resolution may be presented.
        The Speaker: Was there a meeting? Did the committee meet? Was 
    there a quorum present and voting and acting on it?
        Mr. Burleson: Mr. Speaker, on infrequent occasions when we have 
    resorted to this procedure as a matter of convenience and of 
    expediting legislation, it has always been accepted as establishing 
    a quorum. As far as I know this procedure has not been challenged. 
    In this case a majority of the committee agreed to the resolution 
    and I insist that a quorum was established and that the report is 
    proper and that the resolution is privileged.

    Having elicited the essential facts from Chairman Burleson, the 
Speaker sustained the point of order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For full discussion of the Chair's reasoning and ultimate 
        conclusion, see Sec. 23.2, supra.
            For a similar instance in which the Speaker noted that such 
        quorum issues are routinely decided ``by the Chair on the 
        statement of the chairman of the legislative committee 
        concerned,'' see 102 Cong. Rec. 12199, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        July 9, 1956.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2758]]

Recommittal of Measure

Sec. 25.2 Where the chairman of a committee admits a bill was reported 
    when a quorum was not present and a point of order is sustained 
    against the bill on that ground, the bill is recommitted.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(17) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, called up House Resolution 1256 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution provided that 
upon its adoption, it would be in order to move that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill 
(S. 2511), relating to producers of crude pine gum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 30738, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After brief discussion, House Resolution 1256 was agreed 
to,(1) whereupon William R. Poage, of Texas, Chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, moved that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of S. 2511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 30739.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, for a point of 
order:

        Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration of 
    S. 2511.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of S. 2511 on the grounds that the Committee on 
    Agriculture acted without a quorum being present when it ordered S. 
    2511 reported to the House on July 2, 1968.
        Rule XI, clause [27(e)], of the rules of the House 
    (2)) states as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual 713(c)(1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            (e) No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.

        I have personally checked with the staff of the Committee on 
    Agriculture and have been informed that on July 2, 1968, there were 
    only 14 members of the committee present and that the vote to 
    report S. 2511 to the House was 11 to 0 in favor of such action. 
    Since the total membership of that committee is 35, there obviously 
    was not a majority actually present as required by Rule XI clause 
    [27(e)].

    At this juncture, the Speaker interrogated Mr. Poage with respect 
to the committee's action on the measure:

        The Speaker: The Chair would like to inquire of the chairman of 
    the Committee on Agriculture if a quorum was present when the bill 
    was reported.

[[Page 2759]]

        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on 
    Agriculture was not present the day this bill was reported. The 
    record indicates that there were only 14 members of the committee 
    present at the time it was reported.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Texas state that the 
    record of his committee shows there were 14 members present when 
    the bill was acted upon and reported out?
        Mr. Poage: That is correct.

    Having obtained the necessary information, the Speaker ruled as 
follows:

        Clause 27 of rule XI clearly covers this situation. Paragraph 
    (e) of clause 27 of rule XI states:

            No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.

        Upon the statement of the chairman of the committee, a majority 
    of the committee were not actually present. Therefore, the point of 
    order is sustained; and the bill is recommitted to the Committee on 
    Agriculture.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. A similar point of order was raised the same day (114 Cong. Rec. 
        30751, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.) with respect to a bill (S. 1507), 
        entitling firefighters to certain retirement benefits. As the 
        committee with jurisdiction [the Committee on Post Office and 
        Civil Service] had less than a quorum present when the measure 
        was reported out, the Speaker ordered the bill recommitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withdrawal of Measure

Sec. 25.3 Where a point of order was raised against consideration of a 
    privileged resolution, reported and called up by the Committee on 
    House Administration, on the ground that a quorum was not present 
    when the resolution was ordered reported, the resolution was 
    withdrawn.

    On Feb. 28, 1968,(4) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, who, by 
direction of the Committee on House Administration, submitted a 
privileged report (H. Rept. No. 1127), on a resolution (H. Res. 1042), 
authorizing the expenditure of certain funds for the expenses of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, and asked for immediate 
consideration of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 4448, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York, raised a 
point of order against the consideration of the report on the ground 
that a quorum was not present when the matter was 
considered.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. The rules [see Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 713(c) (1979)] provide that: ``No measure or 
        recommendation shall be reported from any committee unless a 
        majority of the committee were actually present.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2760]]

    Desiring to be heard on the point of order, Mr. Friedel stated:

        Mr. Speaker, it is true that we did not have a quorum present 
    for the consideration of House Resolution 1042, but we had 
    unanimous consent by the members that they would not raise a point 
    of order.
        However, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, in view of the 
    point of order being raised, I withdraw the resolution.

    Parliamentarian's Note: After the point of order was sustained, the 
resolution was automatically recommitted and the Committee on House 
Administration met again with a quorum present and filed a new report 
on the resolution.



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 26. Introduction

    The Speaker's referral of private and public bills and resolutions, 
petitions, and memorials is authorized by Rule XXII clauses 1 and 4: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 849, 854 (1979). Clauses 2 and 3 
        of Rule XXII restrict the introduction of certain private bills 
        and provide for the correction in errors of reference of 
        private bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        1. Members having petitions or memorials or bills of a private 
    nature to present may deliver them to the Clerk indorsing their 
    names and reference or disposition to be made thereof; and said 
    petitions and memorials and bills of a private nature, except such 
    as, in the judgment of the Speaker, are of an obscene or insulting 
    character, shall be entered on the Journal, with the names of the 
    Members presenting them, and the Clerk shall furnish a transcript 
    of such entry to the official reporters of debates for publication 
    in the Record. . . .
        4. All other bills, memorials, and resolutions may, in like 
    manner, be delivered, indorsed with the names of Members 
    introducing them, to the Speaker, to be by him referred, and the 
    titles and references thereof and of all bills, resolutions, and 
    documents referred under the rules shal1 be entered on the Journal 
    and printed in the Record of the next day, and correction in case 
    of error of reference may be made by the House, without debate, in 
    accordance with Rule XI, on any day immediately after the reading 
    of the Journal, by unanimous consent, or on motion of a committee 
    claiming jurisdiction, or on the report of the committee to which 
    the bill has been erroneously referred.

    Messages from the President and communications are referred 
pursuant to Rule XXIV clause 2: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Senate bills are referred similarly to House bills except where a 
        House committee has reported or is about to report a similar 
        bill, in which case the Senate bill is customarily held at the 
        Speaker's table. Although the Speaker has the authority under 
        this rule to refer bills with amendments between the Houses to 
        committee, he rarely does so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2761]]

        2. Business on the Speaker's table shall be disposed of as 
    follows:
        Messages from the President shall be referred to the 
    appropriate committees without debate. Reports and communications 
    from heads of departments, and other communications addressed to 
    the House, and bills, resolutions, and messages from the Senate may 
    be referred to the appropriate committees in the same manner and 
    with the same right of correction as public bills presented by 
    Members; but House bills with Senate amendments which do not 
    require consideration in a Committee of the Whole may be at once 
    disposed of as the House may determine, as may also Senate bills 
    substantially the same as House bills already favorably reported by 
    a committee of the House, and not required to be considered in 
    Committee of the Whole, be disposed of in the same manner on motion 
    directed to be made by such committee.

    The rules of the House of Representatives as in effect in the 93d 
Congress listed, in Rule XI, the subject-matter jurisdiction of each 
standing committee of the House; the Committee Reform Amendments of 
1974 (8) transferred the list of committees and their 
respective jurisdictions, as modified by those amendments, to Rule X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the adoption of the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, 
the rules permitted neither the division of a bill for reference to 
more than one committee nor the simultaneous referral of a bill to more 
than one committee, except by way of a motion to refer or to 
recommit.(9) Thus the reference of bills and resolutions was 
based on the principle of primary jurisdiction over the subject matter. 
On occasion, the committee of reference operated under an informal 
agreement whereby the recommendations of another committee with 
jurisdiction over a portion of the legislation would be incorporated 
into the report of the reporting committee,(10) and the 
Committee on Rules has the authority to recommend in an order of 
business resolution that a committee other than the reporting committee 
be permitted to control some general debate in Committee of the Whole 
and offer its informal work product as an amendment in Committee of the 
Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5558; Sec. 29, infra. A motion to 
        recommit (or to commit or refer) may specify reference to any 
        committee regardless of rules for jurisdiction, and may refer 
        the bill to other than the reporting committee. 4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 4375; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2696, 
        2736.
10. See, i.e., Sec. 29.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some statutes prescribe the reference to a designated committee or 
committees of a particular kind

[[Page 2762]]

of communication from the executive branch.(11) And messages 
from the President which overlap the subject-matter jurisdiction of 
more than one committee may be referred to the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union rather than to a specific standing 
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 29.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee Reform Amendments delegated new powers to the Speaker 
in the referral of bills, resolutions, and other matters, allowing 
referrals to more than one committee by various methods: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule X clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 700 (1979), as added 
        by H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        5. (a) Each bill, resolution, or other matter which relates to 
    a subject listed under any standing committee named in clause 1 
    shall be referred by the Speaker in accordance with the provisions 
    of this clause.
        (b) Every referral of any matter under paragraph (a) shall be 
    made in such manner as to assure to the maximum extent feasible 
    that each committee which has jurisdiction under clause 1 over the 
    subject matter of any provision thereof will have responsibility 
    for considering such provision and reporting to the House with 
    respect thereto. Any precedents, rulings, and procedures in effect 
    prior to the Ninety-Fourth Congress shall be applied with respect 
    to referrals under this clause only to the extent that they will 
    contribute to the achievement of the objectives of this clause.
        (c) In carrying out paragraph (a) and (b) with respect to any 
    matter, the Speaker may refer the matter simultaneously to two or 
    more committees for concurrent consideration or for consideration 
    in sequence (subject to appropriate time limitations in the case of 
    any committee), or divide the matter into two or more parts 
    (reflecting different subjects and jurisdictions) and refer each 
    such part to a different committee, or refer the matter to a 
    special ad hoc committee appointed by the Speaker with the approval 
    of the House (from the members of the committees having legislative 
    jurisdiction) for the specific purpose of considering that matter 
    and reporting to the House thereon, or make such other provision as 
    may be considered appropriate.
        (d) After the introduction in the House of each bill or 
    resolution the Congressional Research Service of the Library of 
    Congress shall prepare a factual description of the subject 
    involved therein not to exceed one hundred words; such description 
    shall be published in the Congressional Record and the Digest of 
    Public General Bills and Resolutions as soon as possible after 
    introduction.
        (e) No bill or resolution introduced or received in the House 
    shall be referred to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

    As indicated in the new clause 5(b), Rule X, precedents as to 
referral occurring prior to the effective date of the Committee Reform 
Amendments of 1974 were to remain controlling only to the ex

[[Page 2763]]

tent necessary to carry out the purposes of the new clause, thereby 
modifying the previous principle that the erroneous reference of a 
public bill, if uncorrected, effectively granted jurisdiction to the 
committee receiving it.(13) Furthermore, the Speaker's new 
power to sequentially refer a bill once reported from the initial 
committee or committees to which referred indicates that the Speaker's 
initial referral under the new rule does not preclude other committees 
from obtaining subsequent consideration of the bill, and in some cases, 
in addition to the bill, of a committee amendment reported by the first 
committee or committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (note) (1979). Rule XXII clause 
        3 specifically states that an erroneous reference of a private 
        bill shall not confer jurisdiction over the committee to 
        consider or report the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A bill may be rereferred in the House by unanimous consent, by a 
motion authorized by a committee claiming jurisdiction, or on the 
report of the committee to which the bill has been erroneously 
referred.(14) But once a committee has reported a bill and 
it has been placed on the appropriate calendar, a motion for 
rereference or a point of order that the bill was improperly referred 
comes too late.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979).
15. Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (note) (1979). 
        See also Sec. 27.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wherever possible, the discussion of the jurisdiction of the 
respective standing committees of the House in this division will 
include pertinent information and changes resulting from the adoption 
of the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, but any precedents arising 
under those new rules of jurisdiction, and the scope of the Speaker's 
new powers of referral, will be preserved for later editions of this 
work.
    Further insight into the jurisdiction of committees may be found in 
the legislative subject categories lists dealing with the various 
committees prepared by the staff of the Select Committee on 
Committees.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of Representatives'', 
        93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974, committee print.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Collateral References
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, Explanation of H. Res. 998 as 
    Adopted by the House of Representatives, Oct. 8, 1974, Staff Report 
    of the Select Committee on Committees, House of Representatives, 
    93d Cong. 2d Sess. (1974).
Committee Organization in the House, Hearings and Panel Discussions 
    before

[[Page 2764]]

    the Select Committee on Committees, House of Representatives, 93d 
    Cong. 2d Sess., H. Doc. No. 94-187 (3 volumes).



                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 27. Referral of Measures to Committees; Procedure

Examination and Referral of Proposed Bills

Sec. 27.1 Referral of an executive communication or a bill drafted to 
    implement a policy set forth in a Presidential message is not 
    necessarily to the same committee to which the message was 
    referred.

    On Feb. 1, 1966,(17) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, laid before the House a message (H. Doc. No. 374), on 
the foreign aid program from the President which, after being read, was 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 1711, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
            For more detailed information on the subject of referral, 
        see Ch. 16 Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, initiated the 
following exchange with the Speaker: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 1716, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hall: Referring to the first of the Presidential messages 
    today, the one on foreign aid, in view of the last paragraph of 
    article VIII . . . concerning the submission of two separate 
    bills,(l9) my parliamentary inquiry would involve two 
    questions: First, would reference of the President's message to the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs of this House automatically involve 
    reference of bills referred to therein to the same committee of 
    this House? (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The President's message pointed out [id. at p. 1713], that 
        authorization requests for economic aid and military aid were 
        being proposed in separate bills.
20. For Mr. Halls' second inquiry, see Sec. 27.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: It would depend upon the nature of the bill. The 
    answer as to one does not necessarily follow as to the other. On 
    the other hand, the provisions of the bill and the Rules of the 
    House would govern.

Speaker Declines to Speculate About Referral

Sec. 27.2 Until a proposed bill has been examined, the Speaker declines 
    to speculate as to what committee would have jurisdiction.

    On Feb. 1, 1966,(21) shortly after a message (H. Doc. 
No. 374), from
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 112 Cong. Rec. 1716, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2765]]

the President on foreign aid was laid before the House, read, and 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Durward G. Hall, of 
Missouri, posed a parliamentary inquiry to Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, which resulted in the following exchange:

        The second portion of my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, if 
    I may continue, is this: In view of the fact that the military and 
    economic authorization requests are to be contained, according to 
    the President's message, in two separate bills--again, for the 
    first time in some years--would the military authorization part 
    thereof, when submitted, apparently by the administration, per this 
    message, be referred to the Legislative Committee on Armed Services 
    of this House, or would it go to the Committee on Foreign Affairs?
        The Speaker: The Chair is not prepared to answer that inquiry 
    at the present time, because the answer to the second inquiry would 
    relate back to the first inquiry made by the gentleman from 
    Missouri, and the response of the Chair to that inquiry.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the second question is related to 
    the first question, that question being answered that it does not 
    necessarily follow that specific legislation would be referred to 
    the committee to which the message would be referred.
        Mr. Hall: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker: Therefore, the Chair does not feel able to pass 
    upon the second inquiry until the Chair has had an opportunity to 
    observe the provisions of the bill.

Indivisibility of Bill for Referral Purposes

Sec. 27.3 Under the previous rule, a bill could not be divided and 
    referred to two or more committees.

    On Jan. 13, 1941,(22) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
obtained unanimous consent to have a resolution adopted by the 
Committee on Military Affairs [now the Committee on Armed Services] 
read to the House. The resolution directed the chairman of that 
committee ``at the first opportunity available to him'' to move to 
rerefer H.R. 1776, the so-called ``LendLease'' or ``Aid to Britain'' 
bill from the Committee on Foreign Affairs to the Committee on Military 
Affairs. It further provided that if such motion should be overruled by 
the Speaker, the chairman should appeal from such decision to the 
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 87 Cong. Rec. 127, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following exchange took place immediately after the Clerk read 
the resolution:

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (23) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2766]]

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, as I 
    understand, and I inquire of the Chair if my understanding is 
    correct, a bill cannot be divided and referred to two or more 
    committees?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As of 1973, a bill could not be subdivided 
per se in the course of referral. However, where a measure contained 
two subjects which were related but which fell within the jurisdiction 
of different committees, the legislative initiative was sometimes 
assumed by the committee having the primary concern for the subject 
matter with the understanding that the other committee involved would 
have an opportunity to consider that portion of the legislation within 
its jurisdiction and to handle the relevant portions of the bill should 
it be brought to the floor of the House.
    In the 94th Congress,(1) the House changed the rules 
regarding the divisibility and reference of measures and other matters 
to the committees. As a result, the indivisibility of bills for 
purposes of reference must be regarded as an historical matter and not 
as a principle which is currently observed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule X clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 700 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Division and Referral of Presidential Message

Sec. 27.4 The House has agreed to divide a message from the President 
    for referral to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
    the Union and to the Committee on Appropriations.

    On Jan. 21, 1946,(2) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, laid before the House a message 
(3) from the President on the state of the Union and 
transmitting the budget. After the Clerk read the President's message, 
the following exchange took place: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 164, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The text of the message appears at 92 Cong. Rec. 136-155, 79th 
        Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 165, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the President's message and the accompanying report from the 
    Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion be referred to the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered 
    to be printed, and so much of the President's message as relates to 
    the budget be referred to the Committee on Appropriations and 
    ordered to be printed.

[[Page 2767]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Tennessee.
        The motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXIV clause 2 (see House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 882 [1979]) provides that ``Messages from the President 
shall be referred to the appropriate committees without debate.'' While 
messages from the President (other than an annual message) are usually 
referred directly to a standing committee by direction of the Speaker, 
they may be referred by the House itself to one or more committees by 
dividing the message on motion by a Member (see 5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 6631; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3348), and such motion is 
privileged.

Timing of Motion to Correct Referral

Sec. 27.5 The Chair has stated that he will not recognize any motion to 
    correct referral of a bill to a committee prior to his own referral 
    thereof.

    On June 6, 1949,(5) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, 
addressed Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, and inquired as to the status 
of a bill (S. 1008), to provide a two-year moratorium with respect to 
the application of certain antitrust laws. The Chair having responded 
that the measure was on the Speaker's table, the following exchange 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 7255, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: Will it be referred to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary?
        The Speaker:  The Chair does not know about that.
        Mr. Patman: What action will be necessary in order to get it 
    referred to the committee?
        The Speaker: It is the duty and the privilege of the Chair to 
    refer bills to whatever committee he desires, after consultation 
    with the Parliamentarian, of course. The Chair will not recognize 
    any motion in that regard at this time.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XXIV clause 2, the Speaker is 
not required to immediately refer Senate bills to committee, and the 
right to correct the referral by motion of the committees concerned 
only becomes applicable after the Speaker has referred the bill.

Amending Motion to Refer

Sec. 27.6 Where a motion to refer a Presidential message to a 
    particular committee is sought to be challenged by the chairman of 
    another committee claiming jurisdiction thereof, the appropriate 
    procedure is to offer an

[[Page 2768]]

    amendment to the motion to refer; but such an amendment is not in 
    order unless the original movant yields for that purpose or unless 
    the previous question on the motion to refer is voted down.

    On June 3, 1937,(6) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, laid before the House a message (H. Doc. No. 261), from the 
President pertaining to creation of regional authorities or agencies to 
study regional conservation and development of national water 
resources. Immediately thereafter,(7) Mr. William M. 
Whittington, of Mississippi, moved that the message be referred to the 
Committee on Flood Control(8) and ordered to be printed. 
Joseph J. Mansfield, of Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Rivers and 
Harbors, then rose to propound a parliamentary inquiry, to which the 
Speaker responded as follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 5296, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Id. at p. 5297.
 8. The Committee on Flood Control and the Committee on Rivers and 
        Harbors were eventually merged into the Committee on Public 
        Works; see Rule X clause l(p), House Rules and Manual Sec. 685 
        (1979).
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 5298, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas propounds a parliamentary inquiry to 
    the Chair as to whether the gentleman would be entitled to offer as 
    a substitute for the motion made by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    a motion to refer the President's message to the Committee on 
    Rivers and Harbors.
        The Chair, anticipating that this question might arise, has 
    looked rather fully into the precedents in reference thereto and 
    finds that on April 4, 1933, when Mr. Rainey was Speaker of the 
    House, this identical proposition was presented.
        At that time it will be recalled that a bill was pending with 
    reference to the refinancing of farm-mortgage indebtedness. Two 
    committees claimed jurisdiction of the subject matter of that bill, 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency and the Committee on 
    Agriculture.
        When the President's message was read the chairman of the 
    Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones], 
    moved that the President's message be referred to the Committee on 
    Agriculture. Thereupon the specific inquiry now propounded by the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] was made.
        The Chair reads the query and the answer of the Speaker:

            Mr. Steagall. Mr. Speaker, I desire at the proper time to 
        submit a substitute motion that the message be referred to the 
        Committee on Banking and Currency.

        Mr. Jones said:

            Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for that purpose.

        The Speaker stated:

            The gentleman from Texas does not yield. It is necessary to 
        vote

[[Page 2769]]

        down the previous question before that motion will be in order.

        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whittington] is entitled to 
    1 hour, and the Chair understands he has perfected an arrangement 
    with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] by which he will 
    yield to the gentleman from Texas one-half of that time. At the 
    conclusion of the debate of 1 hour the Chair assumes the gentleman 
    from Mississippi will move the previous question on the motion 
    referring the message to the Committee on Flood Control. If the 
    previous question should be voted down, then the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Mansfield] would have the right and privilege of 
    offering an amendment to the motion to refer the message.

    Debate ensued, and upon the expiration of time, Mr. Whittington 
moved the previous question on the motion. After the previous question 
was rejected, the following exchange took place: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. Id. at p. 5306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mansfield: Mr. Speaker, I now move that the message of the 
    President be referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and 
    on that motion I move the previous question.
        Mr. Whittington: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Whittington: Mr. Speaker, there is now pending the motion I 
    made that the message of the President be referred to the Committee 
    on Flood Control. It occurs to me the motion made by the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] is improper, and that the proper motion 
    would be to amend my motion, if the gentleman desires that the 
    message be referred to his committee. My point is there is a motion 
    pending and an independent motion would not be in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair, upon reconsideration, is of the opinion 
    the proper procedure would be for the gentleman from Texas to offer 
    an amendment to the pending motion, to the effect that the message 
    of the President be referred to the Committee on Rivers and 
    Harbors.
        Mr. Mansfield: Mr. Speaker, I make that motion at this time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment to 
    the motion, which the Clerk will report.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mansfield moves, as an amendment to the motion made by 
        the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whittington], to refer the 
        President's message to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Immediately thereafter, Mr. Whittington 
stated that ``in view of the action of the House,'' he desired to 
withdraw his motion by unanimous consent in order that Mr. Mansfield 
might present his own motion. Unanimous consent was granted, whereupon 
Mr. Mansfield sought the referral of the Presidential message to the 
Committee on Rivers and Harbors as an independent motion. The

[[Page 2770]]

previous question was ordered, and the motion was agreed 
to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 5307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Order Against Consideration Based on Erroneous Referral

Sec. 27.7 While the rules provide that the erroneous reference of a 
    public bill may be corrected on any day after the reading of the 
    Journal, it is not in order to raise a question of committee 
    jurisdiction after a public bill has been reported.

    On Jan. 26, 1938,(12) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, recognized Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, Chairman of the 
Committee on Military Affairs (now the Committee on Armed Services), 
who, by direction of that committee called up a bill (H.R. 8176), 
providing for continuing retirement pay, under specified conditions, of 
certain officers and former officers of the Army, Navy, and Marine 
Corps. After several unanimous-consent requests pertaining to other 
matters, the Clerk read the title of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 83 Cong. Rec. 1142, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this juncture, Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, rose to advance the 
following point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 8176) that the bill was not 
    referred to the proper committee, the proper committee being the 
    Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation [now the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs]. Instead, the bill was referred to the Committee 
    on Military Affairs, and a report has been made by that committee.
        In support of the point of order it is necessary I give just a 
    little of the history of this legislation. In March 1928 the 
    Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation by a vote of 8 to 7 
    voted in favor of the retired emergency officers' bill. This bill 
    passed the House on May 24, 1928, I believe, and was enacted into 
    law before the first of June. This law provides for the retirement 
    of emergency officers according to their rank and all amendments to 
    this law should be referred back to the committee which passed on 
    the original bill.
        I invite the attention of the Chair to the fact that even an 
    amendment to the Clayton Act, which involves interstate commerce 
    alone, is invariably referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
    although one would think it would go to the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce, for the reason the House Committee on the 
    Judiciary is the committee which originally considered the Clayton 
    Act. This same principle is involved here.

    Mr. Patman continued to discuss the matter--stating that those who 
drafted the measure may have been motivated by the belief that they 
could not obtain a

[[Page 2771]]

favorable report from the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation; 
that the chairman of the latter committee was unavoidably absent 
because of illness; and that his committee was planning to hold 
hearings on the outright repeal of the law which H.R. 8176 would amend.
    The Chair then recognized Mr. May who responded to Mr. Patman's 
point of order, as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 1143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I should like to give to the distinguished 
    chairman of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation any 
    consideration to which he would be entitled under the ordinary 
    procedure of the House, but I make the point of order at this time 
    against the point of order of the gentleman from Texas that it 
    comes too late, because the committee to which the bill was 
    referred has already had hearings on the bill and made its report.

    Mr. Patman replied by contending that this was the first time he 
had had an opportunity to raise a point of order against the bill's 
consideration. The Speaker then announced his ruling:

        The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] raises the point of order 
    against consideration of the bill, that it was not referred under 
    the rules of the House to the Committee on World War Veterans' 
    Legislation, to which, according to his contention, it should have 
    originally been referred.
        Pending that question the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. May], 
    the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, raises the point 
    of order that the point of order made by the gentleman from Texas 
    comes too late.
        In view of that issue being raised the Chair feels it is his 
    duty primarily to dispose of that question, because a disposition 
    of that question, possibly, might settle the original point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Texas.
        This is not a matter of first impression, the Chair will state, 
    as there have been a number of decisions and precedents upon this 
    particular question. The Chair refers especially to a decision made 
    by Mr. Speaker Longworth, as reported in volume 7 of Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, section 2113:
        After a public bill has been reported--
        Which, of course, means after it has been reported by a 
    committee of the House--
        it is not in order to raise a question of committee 
        jurisdiction.

        The Speaker said:

            ``The Chair recalls when this bill was before him for 
        reference that he examined into the matter and it was quite 
        clear that the reference was correct, in view of the fact this 
        is an amendment of the Federal Reserve Act, and under the rules 
        the Committee on Banking and Currency has jurisdiction of 
        questions arising under the Federal Reserve Act; but whether 
        that be true or not, the point of order is evidently made too 
        late. The precedents are uniform that after a public bill has 
        been reported, it is too late to raise the

[[Page 2772]]

        point of order as to the jurisdiction of the committee.''. . .

        The Chair thinks it proper, however, in reply to the suggestion 
    made by the gentleman from Texas that this is the first opportunity 
    he has had to raise this point of order, to state that under the 
    rules the chairman of a committee seeking jurisdiction, or any 
    other Member of the House, has the privilege, after bills are 
    introduced and referred, to raise the question of jurisdiction by 
    proceeding under clause 3 of rule XXII.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The equivalent of that clause is contained within Rule XXII clause 
        4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979), the pertinent 
        portion of which provides that ``all bills, resolutions, and 
        documents referred under the rules shall be entered on the 
        Journal and printed in the Record of the next day, and 
        correction in case of error of reference may be made by the 
        House, without debate, in accordance with Rule X [which 
        delineates committees' jurisdiction] on any day immediately 
        after the reading of the Journal, by unanimous consent, or on 
        motion of a committee claiming jurisdiction, or on the report 
        of the committee to which the bill has been erroneously 
        referred [emphasis supplied].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated and in view of the precedents which to 
    the Chair seem to be well reasoned, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Kentucky that the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from Texas comes too late.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For more information on the introduction and reference of bills and 
        resolutions, see Ch. 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  27.8 Where a bill has been reported to the House and placed on 
    the appropriate calendar, a point of order that the measure was 
    improperly referred may not be entertained when it is called up 
    for, consideration under suspension of the rules.

    On June 21, 1943,(16) the House suspended the rules and 
entertained consideration of a bill (H.R. 2703), relating to veterans' 
laws pertaining to compensation, pensions, and retirement pay payable 
by the Veterans' Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 6209, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly after the Clerk read the bill, Speaker pro tempore Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. John Lesinski, of Michigan, who 
stated:

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the bill is 
    improperly brought in by the Committee on World War Veterans' 
    Legislation [subsequently incorporated into the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs] and that it belongs to the Committee on Invalid 
    Pensions [also incorporated into the Committee on Veterans' 
    Affairs].
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order comes too late. The 
    committee has reported the bill, and it is now under consideration 
    under a suspension of the rules.
        Mr. Lesinski: I know; but Mr. Speaker, the bill was brought in 
    to the

[[Page 2773]]

    Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation in typewritten form on 
    one day, passed the same day, and filed the same day. There was no 
    time for the chairman of any other committee to make an objection 
    at the time.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: The gentleman from 
    Michigan does not know it, but a motion to suspend the rules 
    suspends all rules.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The purpose of a motion to suspend the 
    rules, of course, is to suspend all rules of the House.

Sec. 27.9 A point of order against specific language of a paragraph in 
    a bill, on grounds that its subject matter is within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee, does not lie once the bill has 
    been reported; and a point of order against such language based on 
    the germaneness rule does not lie, since that rule requires 
    germaneness of amendments, rather than specific provisions of the 
    bill itself.

    On July 27, 1955,(17) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
7474), to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act to authorize 
appropriations for continuing the construction of highways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 101 Cong. Rec. 11689, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of that consideration, Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of 
New York, recognized Mr. H.R. Gross, of Iowa, who raised the following 
point of order: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 11710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the language in 
    section 14(a), page 30, lines 20 to 25, and page 31, lines 1 to 3; 
    reading as follows:

            Sec. 14. (a) The Secretary of Commerce, to the extent he 
        deems it necessary and appropriate in order to carry out the 
        provisions of this act, is authorized to place 2 positions in 
        the Bureau of Public Roads in grade 18 and a total of 20 
        positions in grades 16 and 17 of the General Schedule 
        established by the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. Such 
        positions shall be in lieu of any positions in the Bureau of 
        Public Roads previously allocated under section 505 of such 
        act.

        I make the point of order that this language is a violation of 
    the Classification Act of 1949, that it is an invasion of the 
    prerogatives of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, and is 
    not germane to the bill.

    The Chair responded, as follows:

        The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa that since the 
    provisions to which his point of order is directed are provisions 
    in the bill that has been reported from the standing committee [the 
    Committee on Public Works] the point of order is not well taken at 
    this time.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    The Chair's ruling immediately prompted Mr. Gross to seek some

[[Page 2774]]

clarification with a parliamentary inquiry:

        At what time would the point of order be well taken?
        The Chairman: The Chair would say to the gentleman from Iowa 
    that in the opinion of the Chair the point of order would not be 
    well taken at any time, inasmuch as the provisions to which the 
    point of order is directed are contained in the bill as introduced 
    and reported.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that once the committee 
had reported out the bill, any point of order based on an allegedly 
erroneous referral had been rendered untimely. The point of order based 
on germaneness did not lie since the language in question was contained 
in the bill and not in an amendment.

Referral of Senate Bills on Table

Sec.  27.10 The Speaker has responded to a parliamentary inquiry to 
    indicate to which committee he might refer a Senate bill on the 
    Speaker's table--under his discretionary authority to refer Senate 
    bills contained in Rule XXIV clause 2.

    On Mar. 14, 1935,(19) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, recognized Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, a member of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, who asked unanimous 
consent that the House immediately consider Senate Concurrent 
Resolution No. 12, which read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 3623, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the Federal Trade Commission be, and it is 
    hereby, directed to make an investigation and report its 
    conclusions to the Congress as to the propaganda which is now going 
    on over the Nation regarding Federal legislation on the subject of 
    holding companies, and to inform the Congress the origin, 
    magnitude, purpose, methods, and expense of said propaganda.

    Reserving the right to object, Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, 
initiated the following exchange:

        . . . [H]as the gentleman [Mr. Rayburn] taken up this 
    resolution with the members of his committee?
        Mr. Rayburn: The resolution would not have gone to the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in my opinion. I think 
    it would have gone to the Rules Committee.
        Mr. Snell: Has it been taken up with the Rules Committee?
        Mr. Rayburn: No.
        Mr. Snell: It seems to me a matter as important as this ought 
    to be taken up with some committee and should have some little 
    consideration. I do not know that I shall object, but I really 
    think if it is a matter that should go to

[[Page 2775]]

    the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee that the ranking 
    minority member of that committee should have an opportunity to be 
    here, or at least been notified before it was brought out on the 
    floor.
        Mr. Rayburn: It is my impression it would not go to that 
    committee.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snell: What committee would this resolution naturally go 
    to?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

    Mr. Rayburn's unanimous-consent request was objected 
to.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 3626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And, on the following day,(21~) the Speaker referred the 
measure to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 79 Cong. Rec. 3776, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 15, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec.  28. Motions to Rerefer

Debate on Motion

Sec.  28.1 A motion to rerefer a bill is not debatable except by 
    unanimous consent.

    On Jan. 13, 1941,(22) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, Chairman of the Committee on 
Military Affairs [now the Committee on Armed Services], who requested 
unanimous consent to address the House for 10 minutes. The Members were 
aware that Mr. May intended to offer a motion to rerefer H.R. 1776, the 
so-called ``LendLease'' or ``Aid to Britain'' bill from the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs to the Committee on Military Affairs. There were 
several reservations of objection, and a brief colloquy which included 
the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 87 Cong. Rec. 126, 127, 77th Cong. 1st sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [R. Ewing] Thomason [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, it is very 
    apparent that this is all a debate on the question of the 
    jurisdiction of this bill. I make the parliamentary inquiry as to 
    whether or not this question is debatable? I am opposed to my 
    chairman in his effort to re-refer the bill and so voted in the 
    Committee on Military Affairs, as did several others. The action of 
    the committee was not unanimous. I think the Speaker should be 
    sustained in the exercise of his sound discretion.
        The Speaker: It can only be debated by unanimous consent.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I admit that the motion to re-refer the 
    bill which I expect to make is not subject to debate. The only 
    purpose I had in propounding the unanimous-consent request was to 
    say something to the House about it.

Sec. 28.2 While a motion to rerefer may not be debated under the rules, 
    where a Member obtained unanimous

[[Page 2776]]

    consent to address the House for one minute and proceeded to 
    discuss reasons for a bill's rereferral, the Chair held, in 
    response to a point of order, that such action would not bar the 
    subsequent submission of the motion to rerefer.

    On Apr. 21, 1942,(1) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Samuel Dickstein, of New York, Chairman of the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization (since incorporated into the Committee 
on the Judiciary), who obtained unanimous consent to address the House 
for one minute. Mr. Dickstein then outlined several reasons why a bill 
(H.R. 6915), previously referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
should be referred to the committee he chaired. Immediately thereafter, 
by direction of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, he so 
moved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 3570, 3571, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this juncture, three points of order were raised--one of which 
prompted the following exchange:

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order against the motion that it is made in violation of the rule 
    (2) under which it is supposed to be presented, in that 
    there was debate by the distinguished gentleman from New York for 1 
    minute immediately preceding the submission of the motion, whereas 
    the opposition is denied that right by the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979) 
        which states, in pertinent part, that ``correction in case of 
        error of reference may be made by the House, without debate, in 
        accordance with Rule X [which sets out committee jurisdiction], 
        on any day after the reading of the Journal, by unanimous 
        consent, or on motion of a committee claiming jurisdiction, or 
        on the report of the committee to which the bill has been 
        erroneously referred [emphasis supplied]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair did not know what the gentleman from New 
    York was going to talk about. The Chair cannot look into the mind 
    of a Member when he asks unanimous consent to address the House for 
    1 minute and see what he intends to talk about.

    The other points of order having also been overruled, the motion to 
rerefer was considered by the House.

Speaker's Explanation of Referral

Sec. 28.3 The House having under consideration a [nondebatable] motion 
    to rerefer a bill from one standing committee to another, the 
    Speaker declined to respond to a parliamentary inquiry requesting 
    an explanation of his re

[[Page 2777]]

    ferral where objection was heard and unanimous consent to respond 
    unconditionally was not forthcoming.

    On Jan. 13, 1941,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, Chairman of the Committee on 
Military Affairs [now the Committee on Armed Services], who 
subsequently (4) moved that the Chair rerefer H.R. 1776, the 
so-called ``LendLease'' or ``Aid to Britain'' bill from the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs to the Committee on Military Affairs. Immediately 
thereafter, Mr. May obtained unanimous consent to have the Clerk read a 
resolution passed by his committee with respect to his motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 87 Cong. Rec. 126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Id. at pp. 127, 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then raised a 
parliamentary inquiry to which the Chair responded, leading to the 
following discussion:

        Mr. McCormack: Pursuing my parliamentary inquiry further, may I 
    ask the Chair if the Chair will state to the House the compelling 
    reasons which prompted him to refer this bill to the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs?
        The Speaker: The Chair will be very glad to make a statement as 
    to why this bill was referred as it was.
        Mr. [Albert J.] Engel [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts has propounded a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Engel: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that what the 
    gentleman has propounded is not a parliamentary inquiry. If we are 
    going to debate (5) one side of this question, I want 
    both sides debated. I do not know what I am going to do on this 
    bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Motions to rerefer are not debatable except by unanimous consent; 
        see Sec. 28.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair holds that that relates to the 
    proceedings of the House. The Chair thought that a unanimous-
    consent request might be granted or a parliamentary inquiry made of 
    him, so the Chair has prepared a statement he will make with 
    reference to this matter.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    Chair permit an inquiry?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. Michener: If the Speaker pursues that course, then in 
    effect he has opened this matter up to debate and the Speaker 
    himself has made a speech against the motion. That can be done by 
    unanimous consent, but it does seem to me we should do these things 
    according to the rules. If we are going to have debate, let us have 
    debate; if we are not, let us not have one side only.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman maintain that it is not the 
    business of the Chair to answer a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Michener: My point is that it was not a proper 
    parliamentary inquiry. It was a unanimous-consent re

[[Page 2778]]

    quest that the Speaker be permitted to state his reasons for doing 
    a certain thing.
        The Speaker: Under the rules of the House; yes.
        Mr. [Edward E. ] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I think 
    unquestionably the Chair has the right to state reasons for action 
    taken; but in order to avoid even the suspicion of undertaking to 
    influence the judgment of the Members on the subject, I hope the 
    Chair will forego the exercise of this right which he clearly has.
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I concur 
    with the gentleman from Georgia. Although I am in sympathy with the 
    viewpoint of the Speaker--and he is well within his rights in 
    saying anything he wants to the House--I hope he will forego those 
    rights in the interest of harmony and justice at the present time.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, may I make the additional statement that 
    I have no complaint against the Speaker for anything he has done 
    about this matter? I am just trying to pursue what I regard as the 
    proper course. This motion not being subject to debate, it is a 
    question in my mind whether or not in ruling on it the Speaker is 
    confined to the mere position of saying that it is overruled and 
    not sustained; but, in order to be perfectly fair about it, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Speaker may be permitted to make his 
    statement.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: I object to that, Mr. 
    Speaker. Either the Speaker has the right or he has not. I contend 
    that he has the right. I object.
        Mr. May: It will not hurt to have unanimous consent.
        The Speaker: The Chair believes that the questions raised here 
    are very fundamental and certainly go to the rights and the 
    prerogatives of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
    Therefore, the Chair had hoped that a time would come in these 
    proceedings when he might be able to say to the House what the 
    compelling reasons were for referring this bill to the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs. However, the Chair is not going to do that unless 
    by unanimous consent. The Chair will make a statement if unanimous 
    consent is granted. Is there objection?
        Mr. Engel: Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    that unanimous consent he granted to discuss the matter 20 minutes.
        The Speaker: The Chair will accept no time from the House on 
    any conditions; therefore, as the Chair interprets it, objection is 
    heard.

Authorization for Motion to Rerefer

Sec. 28.4 The motion for rereference of a bill by direction of a 
    committee claiming jurisdiction is a privileged matter, in order 
    after approval of the Journal, and the Chair may inquire if the 
    appropriate committee has authorized the motion. A motion to 
    rerefer a bill is not in order if the committee of original 
    reference has reported, and the Chair may examine the Journal to de

[[Page 2779]]

    termine if the bill has been reported.

    On May 4, 1939,(6) following the reading of the Journal 
and several unanimous-consent requests, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, recognized Mr. William T. Schulte, of Indiana, who, by 
direction of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization (since 
incorporated into the Committee on the Judiciary), submitted a motion 
to the House that a bill (H.R. 5138), to make unlawful attempts to 
overthrow the Government of the United States; to require licensing of 
civilian military organizations, to make unlawful attempts to interfere 
with the discipline of the Army and Navy, to require registration and 
fingerprinting of aliens, to enlarge the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals in certain cases, and for other purposes, be 
rereferred from the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 5119, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker put the question on the motion 
whereupon Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, rose to a point of order, 
stating, in part:

        Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House a motion of this kind 
    must have been authorized by formal action of the committee from 
    which the motion comes. As I understand this motion, it is a motion 
    of the Immigration Committee to take from the Judiciary Committee a 
    bill which has previously been referred to the Judiciary Committee 
    by the Speaker. It does not appear from the motion that there was 
    any formal action taken by the Committee on Immigration. . . .
        I make the further point of order, Mr. Speaker, that nothing 
    appears in this motion to show what is the present status of that 
    bill as far as the Committee on the Judiciary is concerned. Under 
    the precedents of the House--and the Chair had occasion to rule on 
    this point just a couple of days ago--when a bill has been reported 
    from a committee it is too late to make that point. For aught that 
    appears to the Speaker or to the House this morning, the Committee 
    on the Judiciary may have already acted upon the bill, in which 
    event this motion would come too late. . . . At this late hour the 
    gentleman without any reason being assigned for a reference of this 
    bill makes this motion to refer the matter to another committee 
    which has never had and which it does not appear from the motion 
    could possibly have any jurisdiction of the subject matter.

    Mr. Schulte, in response, noted:

        . . . [W]e are within our rights and we are within our bounds 
    when we protest the reference of the bill now in question in view 
    of the fact that this bill has not been reported to the House. The 
    so-called Smith bill is strictly an immigration bill and is so 
    interpreted by every one who has read it. Titles I and II pertain 
    to citizens and aliens alike. Titles III, IV, and V

[[Page 2780]]

    of the bill are immigration matters absolutely 100 percent.

    Shortly thereafter, the Chair announced he was ready to rule, and 
the following exchange took place: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 5119, 5120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:  . . . In reference to the first point of order, 
    made by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith], challenging the 
    fact that the motion made by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
    Schulte] was made by authority of the Committee on Immigration and 
    Naturalization, the Chair asks the gentleman from Indiana if such 
    was the case?
        Mr. Schulte: It was, Mr. Speaker. I was instructed by the 
    Committee on Immigration and Naturalization to move that this bill 
    be rereferred.
        The Speaker: By a vote of the committee?
        Mr. Schulte: By a unanimous vote of the Committee on 
    Immigration and Naturalization.
        The Speaker: The Chair accepts that statement and overrules the 
    first point of order made by the gentleman from Virginia.
        On the second point of order the Chair thinks it might be 
    proper to have read into the Record the rule governing propositions 
    of this character. Clause 3 of rule XXII (8) provides as 
    follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            All other bills, memorials, and resolutions may, in like 
        manner, be delivered, endorsed with the names of Members 
        introducing them, to the Speaker, to be by him referred, and 
        the titles and references thereof and of all bills, 
        resolutions, and documents referred under the rules shall be 
        entered on the Journal and printed in the Record of the next 
        day, and correction in case of error of reference may be made 
        by the House, without debate, in accordance with rule XI, on 
        any day immediately after the reading of the Journal, by 
        unanimous consent, or on motion of a committee claiming 
        jurisdiction, or on the report of the committee to which the 
        bill has been erroneously referred.

        Under any fair construction of that rule, the Chair is 
    compelled to hold that the gentleman from Indiana is clearly within 
    his rights and the rights of the committee for which he is acting 
    in making this motion to rerefer this bill from the Committee on 
    the Judiciary to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.
        In reference to the suggestion made by the gentleman from 
    Virginia that for aught appearing the committee had made a report 
    on this bill, of course, the Journal of the House itself shows that 
    no such report has been made to the House by the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.
        The Chair, therefore overrules the points of order made by the 
    gentleman from Virginia.

Tabling Motion to Rerefer

Sec. 28.5 A motion to rerefer a bill to a committee claiming 
    jurisdiction may be laid on the table (and does not carry the bill 
    to the table).

[[Page 2781]]

    On Apr. 21, 1942,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Samuel Dickstein, of New York, Chairman of the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization (since incorporated into the Committee 
on the Judiciary), who, by direction of that committee, moved that a 
bill (H.R. 6915), pertaining to the detention of certain aliens be 
rereferred from the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 3571, 3572, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair then dealt with several points of order (10) 
after which the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 28.2, supra
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to lay on the table the motion of the gentleman from New York.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Mississippi.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Dickstein) there were--ayes 79, noes 25.
        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 238, nays 83, 
    answered ``present'' 2, not voting 108. . . .

    So the motion to table the motion to rerefer was agreed 
to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For a comparable instance, see 84 Cong. Rec. 5120, 76th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 4, 1939, where the House, by division vote, rejected 
        a motion to rerefer a bill (H.R. 5138), from the Committee on 
        the Judiciary to the Committee on Immigration and 
        Naturalization. As in the instant case, the Committee on 
        Immigration and Naturalization sought the rereference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 29. Overlapping Jurisdiction; Proposals Involving More Than One 
    Subject

    Note: This section pertains to some of the general methods by which 
problems of overlapping jurisdiction were dealt with prior to the 94th 
Congress when the Committee Reform Amendments permitting joint, split, 
and sequential referral became effective.

Informal Committee Agreements

Sec. 29.1 Where a legislative proposal contains two subjects which are 
    intricately related but which fall within the jurisdiction of 
    different committees, the legislative initiative is sometimes 
    assumed by

[[Page 2782]]

    the committee having the primary concern for the subject matter 
    with the understanding that the other committee involved will have 
    an opportunity to consider that portion of the legislation within 
    its cognizance and handle the relevant portions of the measure if 
    and when it is brought to the floor of the House.

    On June 17, 1969,(12) a letter from the Secretary of 
Transportation [Exec. Comm. No. 863], transmitting a draft of proposed 
legislation to provide for the expansion and improvement of the 
Nation's airport and airway system, for the imposition of airport and 
airway user charges, and for other purposes was taken from the 
Speaker's table and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 16211, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next day, June 18, 1969,(13) Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who made the following 
request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 16301, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Executive 
    Communication No. 863, received from the Secretary of 
    Transportation on June 17, relating to the future of air 
    transportation, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, be 
    referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    because the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce [Harley 0. Staggers, of West Virginia] and the chairman of 
    the Committee on Ways and Means understand that the tax provisions 
    contained in that message will be handled by the Committee on Ways 
    and Means.

    There was no objection to the request.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Following the rereference of Executive 
Communication No. 863, Mr. Staggers introduced H.R. 12374, embodying 
the proposals contained in the draft bill submitted with that 
communication; and the bill was immediately referred (14) to 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The precedent for the 
agreement between the two committees had been established earlier over 
the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, where Title II (the Highway 
Revenue Act of 1956) was considered by the Committee on Ways and Means 
although the overall jurisdiction of the program lay within the 
Committee on Public Works.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 17138, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1969.
15. See Sec. 29.4, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2783]]

Presidential Messages

Sec. 29.2 A message from the President relating to subject matters 
    within the jurisdiction of several committees may be referred to 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

    On Jan. 31, 1935,(16) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, laid before the House a message from President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt, which was read and referred to the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union.(17) The Record discloses 
that prior to the reference, the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 1327, 1328, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. The Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is 
        treated in Ch. 19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, before 
    the message is referred, I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bland: The message relates to aviation matters that come 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, 
    and Fisheries [now the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries]. 
    It also relates to matters that come before the Interstate Commerce 
    Commission. It seems to me that it is highly objectionable that a 
    message of this kind should be referred to one committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair has the idea of referring the message to 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and 
    later when the bills are introduced they will be referred to the 
    proper committees. The message, with the accompanying papers, will 
    be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
    Union and ordered to be printed.

Executive Communications; Statutory Requirements

Sec. 29.3 Pursuant to statutory obligation, the Speaker has referred an 
    executive communication to three committees of the House, 
    simultaneously.

    On May 18, 1960,(18) Executive Communication No. 2166, a 
letter from the Acting Secretary of State, transmitting the report of 
the President on determinations under the Mutual Defense Assistance 
Control Act of 1951 for the quarter ending Mar. 31, 1960, was taken 
from the Speaker's table and referred to the Committees on Foreign 
Affairs, Armed Services, and Appropriations pursuant to section 103(b) 
of the act providing for transmittal of such information to the 
chairmen of the aforementioned committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 10625, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Classified reports submitted to the Con

[[Page 2784]]

gress under section 103(b) of the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act 
of 1951 are normally transmitted directly from the Speaker's office to 
the appropriate committees of the House. This particular report was 
referred by the Speaker because it was submitted in a form which 
indicated a departure from the normal practice, i.e., the letter 
addressed to the Speaker had attached thereto one copy of the 
classified enclosure in addition to the three copies normally furnished 
for the use of the respective committees.

Proposals Relating to Internal Revenue Code and the Highway Trust Fund

Sec. 29.4 A bill relating to the interstate highway program and 
    containing a title amending the Internal Revenue Code to provide 
    for a temporary increase in the gas tax and a transfer of certain 
    tax receipts to the Highway Trust Fund was referred to the 
    Committee on Public Works with the understanding that it was not to 
    constitute a precedent with respect to surrender of jurisdiction 
    over the fund by the Committee on Ways and Means.

    On Aug. 14, 1959,(19) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. George H. Fallon, of Maryland, of the Committee on 
Public Works, who announced his introduction, that day, of certain 
emergency legislation (H.R. 8678), ``to keep the interstate and defense 
highway program on schedule.'' As Mr. Fallon elaborated, H.R. 8678 was 
a bill in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5950, a measure introduced 
earlier (1) in the session which the Committee on Public 
Works had agreed to report to the House, ``contingent on favorable 
action by the Committee on Ways and Means in providing the necessary 
financing provisions.'' He then noted that that committee had completed 
such action, and its work product was incorporated in title II of the 
bill [i.e., of H.R. 8678]. That title, he stated,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 105 Cong. Rec. 15895, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. 105 Cong. Rec. 4999, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [P]rovides a temporary increase in the Federal tax on 
    motor fuels of 1 cent per gallon--from 3 to 4 cents--effective 
    September 1, 1959 through June 30, 1961; a transfer to the Highway 
    Trust Fund of the receipts from 5 percentage points of the excise 
    tax on passenger cars and the receipts from 5 percentage points of 
    the excise tax on parts and accessories, effective July 1, 1961, 
    until June 30, 1964.

[[Page 2785]]

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Fallon yielded to Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who initiated 
the following exchange: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 15896, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 14, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Will my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, advise us whether 
    or not the bill he has introduced today contains a title II dealing 
    with the financing of the road program for the 2-year period 
    involved?
        Mr. Fallon: Yes; it does.
        Mr. Mills: The language of title II in your bill is the 
    language which was prepared by the Committee on Ways and Means with 
    regard to the financing?
        Mr. Fallon: It is the exact language.
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which should, in my 
    opinion, be handled in one bill. However, it should be understood 
    that this is not in any way to indicate the establishment so far as 
    our committee is concerned of a precedent with respect to 
    jurisdiction of the Highway Trust Fund.

    As the Record discloses, H.R. 8678 was referred to the Committee on 
Public Works.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at P. 15916.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Differing Jurisdiction Over Senate Bill and House Substitute

Sec. 29.5 The House agreed to a resolution providing for the 
    consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries, making it in order, after passage, to take 
    from the Speaker's table a similar Senate bill which, under the 
    precedents, would have fallen within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had it been referred to 
    committee, and to insert the House language as an amendment.

    On Sept. 23, 1969,(4) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, called up House Resolution 
544 and asked for its immediate consideration. House Resolution 544 
provided that upon its adoption, it would be in order to move that the 
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of a bill (H.R. 12549), to amend the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act to provide for the establishment of a Council on 
Environmental Quality, and for other purposes. The resolution 
additionally provided that debate on the bill would be controlled by 
the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 26569, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final provision of House Resolution 544 was devised to pre

[[Page 2786]]

vent a jurisdictional problem and read, as follows:

        . . . After the passage of H.R. 12549, it shall be in order in 
    the House to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 1075 and to 
    move to strike out all after the enacting clause of said Senate 
    bill and insert in lieu thereof of provisions contained in H.R. 
    12549 as passed by the House.

    The Senate bill referred to, S. 1075, was generally similar to the 
House bill (H.R. 12549), but did not amend the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act. This feature was critical (5) to the 
determination that H.R. 12549 lay within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. The Senate bill had been 
passed (6) after being considered and reported out by that 
body's Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. The rules [see Rule X clause 1(n)(4), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 683, (1979)] provide that the jurisdiction of the 
        Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries includes: 
        ``fisheries and wildlife, including research, restoration, 
        refuges, and conservation.''
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 19013, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 10, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The matter of jurisdictional overlap was briefly discussed in the 
ensuing debate by Mr. Delbert L. Latta, of Ohio, who made the following 
observation: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 26569, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 23, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I want to point out that the Rules Committee has had this 
    resolution under consideration since July for the reason that there 
    was a jurisdictional question which arose concerning a matter 
    between the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. It is our understanding 
    now that the difficulties have been resolved and that, by an 
    agreement between the two committees, when this matter goes to 
    conference two members of the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs will be on the conference committee.

    House Resolution 544 was agreed to shortly 
thereafter.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 26571.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In light of its environmental subject 
matter and in the absence of any provision affecting the Fish and 
Wildlife Coordination Act, S. 1075 would have been referred to the 
House's Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.(9) 
However, Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, Chairman of the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs, agreed that he would not oppose the rule 
embodied by House Resolution 544 provided that certain amendments which 
he proposed to offer on the floor, would be accepted by the Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,(10) and if,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Rule X clause 1(k), House Rules and Manual Sec. 608 (1979).
10. Mr. Aspinall's amendments were readily accepted by that committee. 
        See 115 Cong. Rec. 26587, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2787]]

when conferees were named on the bill, members of his committee would 
be included.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Conferees, when appointed, represented both committees. Id. at p. 
        26591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Measures Relating to National Forests

Sec. 29.6 A Senate bill extending the boundaries of a national forest, 
    created from public domain and thus within jurisdiction of the 
    House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, was referred to 
    the Committee on Agriculture, with the consent of the Chairman, 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and with the 
    understanding that the reference would not effect a change of 
    jurisdiction.

    On Apr. 22, 1963,(12) Executive Communication No. 709, a 
letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, transmitting a draft of a 
proposed bill to add certain lands to the Cache National Forest, Utah, 
was taken from the Speaker's table and referred to the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs. This communication explained that the 
Cache National Forest had been carved from the public domain and that 
the proposed additions were lands within reclamation 
projects.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 109 Cong. Rec. 6655, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The rules provide [see Rule X clause 1(k), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 680 (1979)] that the Committee on Interior and Insular 
        Affairs has jurisdiction over ``forest reserves and national 
        parks created from the public domain [clause 1(k)(1)],'' 
        ``reclamation [clause 1(k)(5)],'' and ``public lands generally 
        [clause 1(k)(15)].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 24, 1963,(14) a bill (H.R. 7218), to accomplish 
the same end was introduced by Mr. Laurence J. Burton, of Utah. That 
bill, however, did not indicate that the forest had been ``public 
domain,'' and accordingly (15) was referred to the Committee 
on Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 11443, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The rules provide [see Rule X clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 670 (1979)] that the Committee on Agriculture has subject 
        matter jurisdiction over ``forestry in general, and forest 
        reserves other than those created from the public domain 
        [clause 1(a)(13)].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Senate passed a similar bill (S. 1388),(16) the 
measure was held at the desk until the Chairman of the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs, Wayne

[[Page 2788]]

N. Aspinall, of Colorado, disclosed that he had no objection to the 
reference of the Senate bill to the Committee on Agriculture in light 
of the circumstances, and with the understanding that such approval did 
not constitute a precedent with respect to the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 11552, 11553, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 25, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several days later, on July 15, 1963,(17) the Record 
indicates that S. 1388, an ``act to add certain lands to the Cache 
National Forest, Utah,'' was referred to the Committee on 
Agriculture.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 109 Cong. Rec. 12525, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. S. 1388 was reported by the Committee on Agriculture on July 29, 
        1963 (H. Rept. No. 597).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Select Committee to Investigate Domestic Energy Resources

Sec. 29.7 The House rejected a resolution, reported from the Committee 
    on Rules, establishing a select committee to investigate all 
    aspects of energy resources in in the United States.

    On May 26, 1971,(19) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. William R. Anderson, of Tennessee, called up House 
Resolution 155 and asked for its immediate consideration. The 
resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 117 Cong. Rec. 16984, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That there is hereby created a select committee to be 
    composed of seven Members of the House of Representatives to be 
    appointed by the Speaker, one of whom he shall designate as 
    chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the committee 
    shall be filled in the same manner in which the original 
    appointment was made.
        The committee is authorized and directed to conduct a full and 
    complete investigation of all aspects of the energy resources in 
    the United States, including (1) the availability of oil, gas, 
    coal, and nuclear energy reserves; (2) the identification of the 
    ownership of such reserves; (3) the reasons and possible solutions 
    for the delay in new starts of fossil fueled powerplants; (4) the 
    effect of pricing practices by the owners of energy reserves; (5) 
    the effect of the import of low sulfur fuels; (6) measures to 
    increase the availability of pipelines, railways, barges, and ships 
    needed to transport fuel materials; (7) measures to close the gap 
    between the supply and demand for electric energy; and (8) the 
    identification of the environmental effects of the electricity 
    industry. . . .
        The committee shall report to the House as soon as practicable 
    during the present Congress the results of its investigation and 
    study, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable. 
    Any such report which is made when the House is not in session 
    shall be filed with the Clerk of the House.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Anderson summarized the nature of the 
resolution:(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 16985.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2789]]

        . . . [T]he resolution before us, House Resolution 155, is to 
    create a select committee to be composed of seven Members to be 
    appointed by the Speaker.
        The responsibility of the committee shall be to investigate all 
    aspects of the energy resources in the United States, including the 
    availability of oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy reserves; the 
    identification of the ownership of such reserves; the reasons and 
    possible solutions for the delay in new starts of fossilfueled 
    powerplants; the effect of pricing practices by the owners of 
    energy reserves; the effect of the import of low sulfur fuels; 
    measures to increase the availability of pipelines, railways, 
    barges, and ships needed to transport fuel materials; measures to 
    close the gap between the supply and demand for electric energy; 
    and the identification of the environmental effects of the 
    electricity industry.

    Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised the following issues with respect 
to the resolution:

        What about the invasion of the jurisdiction of the standing 
    committees that are already in existence with staffs sufficient to 
    go into the matters included in the resolution? It seems to me in 
    reading this list that the proposed new commission would be 
    invading the jurisdiction of a half dozen regularly established 
    committees in the House of Representatives.

    Mr. Anderson responded by stating that fragmentation in the regular 
committee structure with respect to energy matters was a problem in 
itself. He noted, however, that he visualized the proposed committee 
``as being an aid to the other House committees in terms of a full-time 
study of a very, very vital national problem and being of assistance to 
the other committees rather than an infringement on their character and 
the rules that they operate under.''
    Other Members voiced concern about the proposed jurisdiction of the 
select committee. Emanuel Celler, of New York, Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, observed that: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 16986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [U]nder the language of the bill for the establishment of 
    this special group there is listed ``the effect of pricing 
    practices by the owners of energy reserves.'' We have now pending 
    in the Judiciary Committee a number of bills with reference to 
    pricing practices concerning those who manufacture energy. Am I 
    going to run a race with you to conduct the hearings in my 
    committee while you conduct hearings in your committee on pricing 
    practices, predatory practices, reciprocal relations between 
    various companies, all of which are embodied in the provisions in 
    the pending resolution?

    Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, Chairman of the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs, stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at pp. 16997, 16998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In my opinion House Resolution 155 will raise serious 
    jurisdictional ques

[[Page 2790]]

    tions with existing House committees. For example, item (1) of 
    House Resolution 155, the availability of oil, gas, coal, and 
    nuclear energy reserves, is clearly within the jurisdiction of the 
    Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. The House rules assign to 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House--and I 
    cite only pertinent sections of those rules (3)--
    responsibility for mineral reserves on the public lands; mining 
    interest generally; and petroleum conservation on the public lands 
    and conservation of the radium supply in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Rule XI clause 10, House Rules and Manual Sec. 702 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The conflicts with item (2), the identification of the 
    ownership of reserves, is less clear but where those minerals occur 
    on the public lands of this Nation which incidentally make up about 
    one-third of our total land area, I am convinced that again the 
    responsibility lies with the House Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs.
        I will not make a detailed comparison of the remaining five 
    items in House Resolution 155 with the present jurisdictional 
    responsibility of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. I 
    am convinced, however, that there are substantial areas of conflict 
    or duplication that would raise serious jurisdictional questions.
        For these reasons I must oppose House Resolution 155.

    Mr. John E. Moss, of California, a member of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, contended that:

        . . . [I]t is not only the jurisdiction of the Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce Committee which the proposed select committee 
    would infringe upon.\(4)\ The same is true of the jurisdiction of 
    the Public Works Committee,\(5)\ the Ways and Means Committee,\(6)\ 
    the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee,\(7)\ and the Joint
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The rules [see Rule XI clause 12, House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 
        (1973)] provide that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
        Commerce possesses jurisdiction over interstate and foreign 
        commerce generally [clause 12(a)], interstate oil compacts and 
        petroleum and natural gas, except on the public lands [clause 
        12(d)], regulation of interstate and foreign transportation, 
        except transportation by water not subject to the jurisdiction 
        of the Interstate Commerce Commission [clause 12(h)], and 
        regulation of interstate transmission of power, except the 
        installation of connections between government water-power 
        projects [clause 12(i)], among other subjects.
 5. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works [see Rule XI 
        clause 16, House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1973)] includes oil 
        and other pollution of navigable waters [clause 16(f)], and 
        water power [clause 16(j)], among other subjects.
 6. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means [see Rule XI 
        clause 21, House Rules and Manual Sec. 724 (1973)] extends to 
        such subjects as ports of entry and delivery [clause 21(a)], 
        reciprocal trade agreements [clause 21(c)], revenue measures 
        generally [clause 21(d)], and transportation of dutiable goods 
        [clause 21(h)], among others.
 7. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
        includes [see Rule XI clause 14, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 709 (1973)] merchant marine generally [clause 14(a)], 
        measures relating to the regulation of common carriers by water 
        (except matters subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate 
        Commerce Commission) [clause 14(e)], navigation and the laws 
        relating thereto, including pilotage [clause 14(g)], and the 
        registering and licensing of vessels and small boats [clause 
        14(i)], among other subjects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2791]]

    Committee on Atomic Energy.\(8)\ All of these committees have 
    legislative jurisdiction with regard to particular aspects of 
    energy resources and environmental protection, and the 
    establishment of a new select committee would tend to hinder rather 
    than further the legislative output of these committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy extended 
        to the making of continuing studies of problems relating to the 
        development, use, and control of atomic energy. See Sec. 7, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proponents of House Resolution 155 did not choose to deny the 
existence of jurisdictional changes but responded, instead, by arguing 
that a comprehensive analysis by the select committee would be 
preferable to the present approach. Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, a 
cosponsor of the resolution, argued that the Nation's energy problems 
could not be addressed on an ``ad hoc basis.'' \(9)\ Mr. Thaddeus J. 
Dulski, of New York, asserted that ``overlapping responsibilities'' 
\(10)\ were partly to blame for ``what amounts to a desperate national 
energy crisis.'' Contending that there was a ``definite 
interrelationship between fuels''\(11)\ the understanding of which was 
essential to formulation of policy, Mr. Don Fuqua, of Florida, stated 
that ``this resolution (H. Res. 155) will provide the most logical 
vehicle to define this interrelationship and provide us with a workable 
energy policy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 117 Cong. Rec. 17000, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., May 26, 1971.
10. Id. at p. 17001.
11. Id. at p. 17002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On a subsequent roll call vote, the resolution was rejected.\(12)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 17003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 30. Committee on Agriculture

    The Committee on Agriculture became a standing committee of the 
House on May 3, 1820,\(13)\ with jurisdiction over ``subjects relating 
to agriculture.'' \(14)\ Under the rules revisions of 1880, this 
jurisdiction was extended to include forestry, and the committee was 
granted the authority to receive the estimates and report ap
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4149.
14. Terrence T. Finn, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974) committee 
        print, p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2792]]

propriations bills for the Department of Agriculture. This latter 
authority was transferred to the Committee on Appropriations in 
1920.\(15)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the committee under the 1973 rules,\(16)\ which 
derived from the revisions effected by the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1946, read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XI clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 677 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 670 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Adulteration of seeds, insect pests, and protection of 
    birds and animals in forest reserves;
        (b) Agriculture generally;
        (c) Agricultural and industrial chemistry;
        (d) Agricultural colleges and experiment stations;
        (e) Agricultural economics and research;
        (f) Agricultural education extension services;
        (g) Agricultural production and marketing and stabilization of 
    prices of agricultural products;
        (h) Animal industry and diseases of animals;
        (i) Crop insurance and soil conservation;
        (j) Dairy Industry;
        (k) Entomology and plant quarantine;
        (l) Extension of farm credit and farm security;
        (m) Forestry in general, and forest reserves other than those 
    created from the public domain;
        (n) Human nutrition and home economics;
        (o) Inspection of livestock and meat products;

        (p) Plant industry, soils, and agricultural engineering;
        (q) Rural electrification.

    Upon the adoption of the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, 
paragraph 7 [paragraph (g) in the 1973 rules] was altered and 
paragraphs 18 and 19 were added as follows: \(17)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975. See Rule X clause 1(a)(7), (18), 
        (19), House Rules and Manual Sec. 670 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (7) Agricultural production and marketing and stabilization of 
    prices of agricultural products, and commodities (not including 
    distribution outside of the United States). . . .
        (18) Commodities exchanges.
        (19) Rural development.

    The effect of these changes was to give the committee jurisdiction 
over agricultural commodities (including the Commodity Credit 
Corporation) but to transfer jurisdiction over foreign distribution and 
nondomestic production of commodities (except sugar) to the Committee 
on International Relations.\(18)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Rule X clause 1(k), House Rules and Manual Sec. 680 (1975) for 
        the new jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
        Relations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these areas, the committee has reported on mat

[[Page 2793]]

ters not clearly indicated in the rules. Among these \(19)\ are the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of Representatives'' 
        (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), committee print.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        1. Animal welfare;
        2. Flood control;
        3. Food stamps;
        4. Foreign assistance;
        5. International health;
        6. International trade;
        7. Pesticides;
        8. Rural development, including:

            (a) Loans for rural firehouses, community centers, and 
        businesses;
            (b) Nonfarm rural housing loans;
            (c) Rural telephone banks;
            (d) Rural water supply;
            (e) Water pollution control programs;

        9. Wild areas (in forests).

    Further elaboration on the extent of the committee's jurisdiction 
is provided by a partial list set forth by the Chairman \(20)\ of the 
Committee on Agriculture in the course of a statement \(21)\ he made 
before the Committee on Rules on Mar. 2, 1971. Among the subject areas 
he listed were the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William R. Poage (Tex.).
21. Terrence T. Finn, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) The restoration, expansion, and development of foreign 
    markets for American agricultural products and of international 
    trade in agriculture products; the use of agricultural commodities 
    pursuant to Public Law 480, Eighty-third Congress, as amended and 
    the use of the foreign currencies accruing therefrom; and the 
    effect of the European Common Market and other regional economic 
    agreements and commodity marketing and pricing systems upon United 
    States agriculture.
        (2) All matters relating to the establishment and development 
    of an effective Foreign Agricultural Service pursuant to title VI 
    of the Agricultural Act of 1954.
        (3) All matters relating to the development, use, and 
    administration of the national forests, including but not limited 
    to development of a sound program for general public use of the 
    national forests consistent with watershed protection and 
    sustained-yield timber management, and study of the forest fire 
    prevention and control policies and activities of the Forest 
    Service and their relation to coordinated activities of other 
    Federal, State, and private agencies.
        (4) Price spreads between producers and consumers.
        (5) The formulation and development of improved programs for 
    agricultural commodities; matters relating to the inspection, 
    grading, and marketing of such commodities; and the effect of 
    trading in futures contracts for such commodities.
        (6) The administration and operation of agricultural programs 
    through State and county agricultural stabilization and 
    conservation committees and the administrative policies and 
    procedures

[[Page 2794]]

    relating to the selection, election, and operation of such 
    committees.
        (7) The development of upstream watershed projects authorized 
    by Public Law 156, Eighty-third Congress, and the administration 
    and development of watershed programs pursuant to Public Law 566, 
    Eighty-third Congress, as amended; the development of land use 
    programs pursuant to the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 and the 
    Agricultural Act of 1970.
        (8) All programs of food assistance or distribution supported 
    in whole or in part by funds authorized to be used by the 
    Department of Agriculture, including but not limited to the food 
    stamp program, the commodity distribution program, the school milk 
    program, and programs established pursuant to the Child Nutrition 
    Act of 1966.
        (9) The implementation and administration of the Wholesome Meat 
    Act of 1967, the Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968, and the 
    Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970, including the establishment 
    and development of inspection services as required by the Acts.
        (10) All matters relating to the Federal Insecticide, 
    Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, and the Federal 
    Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, as well as all 
    agricultural chemicals registered and regulated under such Act.

    In addition to the subject areas already identified, as the 
precedents reveal, the Committee on Agriculture also has jurisdiction 
over measures regulating the transportation, sale, and handling of dogs 
and cats to be used for research,\(22)\ commodities owned by the 
Commodity Credit Corporation,\(23)\ measures granting congressional 
consent to an interstate forest fire protection compact,\(24)\ and 
certain watershed work plans.\(25)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Sec. 30.2 infra.
23. Sec. 30.1, infra.
24. Sec. 30.5, infra.
25. Sec. 30.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973, the Committee on Agriculture maintained six commodity 
subcommittees and four operational subcommittees, as follows:

                            Commodity Subcommittees

        1. Subcommittee on Cotton;
        2. Subcommittee on Dairy and Poultry;
        3. Subcommittee on Forests;
        4. Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains;
        5. Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice; and
        6. Subcommittee on Tobacco.

                           Operational Subcommittees

        1. Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit;
        2. Subcommittee on Department Operations;
        3. Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and Consumer Relations; 
    and
        4. Subcommittee on Family Farms and Rural Development.

    The oversight responsibilities of the committee extend to the 
Department of Agriculture, the Farm Credit Administration, and, in

[[Page 2795]]

part, the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. 
These duties are undertaken by the Subcommittee on Department 
Operations.
                          -------------------

Commodities Owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation

Sec. 30.1 The Committee on Agriculture has jurisdiction of a measure 
    which authorizes the sale, exchange, barter or donation of 
    commodities owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation.

    On June 9, 1954,\(26)\ the Committee on Agriculture reported out a 
bill (S. 2475), to authorize the President to use agricultural 
commodities to improve the foreign relations of the United States, and 
for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. 100 Cong. Rec. 7981, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The measure ultimately became the Agricultural Trade Development 
and Assistance Act of 1954.\(27)\ This legislation authorized the 
President to negotiate with foreign governments for the purpose of 
selling or otherwise disposing of agricultural stocks owned by the 
Commodity Credit Corporation. The Corporation was authorized, in 
addition, to barter such commodities, to donate them to state, federal, 
or private agencies for use  school lunch programs, hospitals, and 
charitable institutions. The act directed the Secretary of Agriculture 
to utilize the authority given him by the Commodity Credit Corporation 
Charter Act \(28)\ to make barters or exchanges of agricultural 
commodities for strategic materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. 68 Stat. 454, 7 USC Sec. 1691.
28. 62 Stat. 1070, 15 USC Sec. 714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act was reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency in 
1948,\(1)\ and by agreement between that committee and the Committee on 
Agriculture, all measures amending the Charter Act were, until 1974, 
referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency. As in the instant 
case, however, the Committee on Agriculture has jurisdiction of many 
bills which deal with the sale, exchange, barter or donation of 
agricultural commodities owned by the Corporation.\(2)\ After the Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See the Parliamentarian's Note to  Sec. 33.2, infra, for additional 
        information.
 2. Other examples of the Committee on Agriculture's jurisdiction in 
        this regard would include: Pub. L. No. 84-50 [70 Stat. 188] by 
        which the Corporation was authorized under regulations to be 
        issued by the Secretary of Agriculture to donate food 
        commodities acquired through price support operations to 
        federal penal and correctional institutions; Pub. L. No. 86-756 
        [74 Stat. 899] authorizing the Corporation to donate dairy 
        products and other agricultural commodities for use in home 
        economics courses; and Pub. L. No. 87-179 [75 Stat. 411] 
        permitting the use of donated foods under certain circumstances 
        for training college students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2796]]

mittee Reform Amendments of 1974, the Committee on Banking and Currency 
relinquished jurisdiction over the Commodity Credit Corporation to the 
Committee on Agriculture.

Domestic Animals

Sec. 30.2 In the 89th Congress, by a rereference, the House confirmed 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture (as distinguished 
    from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce) of bills 
    authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the 
    transportation, sale, and handling of dogs and cats intended for 
    use in research or experimentation.

    On July 29, 1965,(~3~) Oren Harris, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, obtained 
unanimous consent that his committee be discharged from the 
consideration of three bills (H.R. 9750, H.R. 9869, and H.R. 9875) 
mentioned above, and that they be rereferred to the Committee on 
Agriculture. In so doing, Mr. Harris pointed out that an identical bill 
(H.R. 9743), had previously been rereferred earlier in the 
session.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 18691, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 17981, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.3 The Committee on Agriculture and not the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries has jurisdiction over a bill relating 
    to the domestic raising of fur-bearing animals.

    On Feb. 14, 1945,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, Chairman of the Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, who obtained unanimous consent that 
his committee be discharged from further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
2115) relating to domestic raising of fur-bearing animals, and that it 
be rereferred to the Committee on Agriculture.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 1085, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. H.R. 2115 was reported by the Committee on Agriculture on Dec. 10, 
        1945 (H. Rept. No. 1346).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2797]]

Sec. 30.4 The Committee on Agriculture and not the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries has jurisdiction of a bill 
    transferring government activities in connection with domestic 
    rabbits to the Department of Agriculture.

    On Jan. 22, 1945,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, Chairman of the Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, who sought unanimous consent that a 
bill (H.R. 95) to transfer government activities in connection with 
domestic rabbits to the Department of Agriculture be rereferred from 
his committee to the Committee on Agriculture.
    No objection being voiced, the rereferral was 
effected.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 424, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. For a similar rereferral, see 90 Cong. Rec. 2794, 78th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Mar. 20, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forest Fire Protection

Sec. 30.5 The Committee on Agriculture and not the Committee on the 
    Judiciary has jurisdiction of a bill granting the consent and 
    approval of Congress to an interstate forest fire protection 
    compact.

    On May 26, 1954,(9) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Chauncey W. Reed, of Illinois, Chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, who obtained unanimous consent to have 
his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
6393), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Agriculture.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 100 Cong. Rec. 7138, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. H.R. 6393 was reported by the Committee on Agriculture on July 12, 
        1954 (H. Rept. No. 2179). 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water Conservation

Sec. 30.6 The Committee on Agriculture and not the Committee on 
    Interior and Insular Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill to amend 
    section 7 of the act of Aug. 11, 1939, as amended, authorizing 
    construction of water conservation and utilization projects in the 
    Great Plains and arid and semiarid areas of the United States--a 
    law which provided water supply for farmers.

    On Mar. 17, 1953,(11) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Arthur L. Miller, of Nebraska, Chairman of

[[Page 2798]]

the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, who made the following 
request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 99 Cong. Rec. 2004; 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
    Interior and Insular Affairs be discharged from further 
    consideration of H.R. 2229, a bill to increase the maximum amount 
    of Federal funds which may be expended for any one water facilities 
    project in the arid and semiarid areas of the United States, and 
    that it be referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
        It is the sense of the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs that this bill properly comes within the scope and 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture.

    The Chair then inquired as to whether there was any objection, and 
none being stated, the measure was rereferred.

Watershed Work Plans

Sec. 30.7 Two of four communications received from the Director of the 
    Bureau of the Budget relating to watershed work plans were referred 
    to the Committee on Agriculture pursuant to the requirements of 16 
    USC Sec. 1002.

    On Aug. 13, 1957,(1~2) two of four (13) 
communications (Exec. Comm. Nos. 1122-1125), from the Director of the 
Bureau of the Budget transmitting watershed work plans were taken from 
the Speaker's table and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 14628, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The other two (Exec. Comm. Nos. 1123, 1125) were referred to the 
        Committee on Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The referrals in question were identified, as follows:

        1122. A letter from the Director, Bureau of the Budget, 
    Executive Office of the President, transmitting a watershed work 
    plan for the Caney Creek watershed, Arkansas, pursuant to section 5 
    of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (68 Stat. 
    667), as amended by the act of August 7, 1956 (70 Stat. 1088), and 
    Executive Order No. 10654 of January 20, 1956; to the Committee on 
    Agriculture. . . .
        1124. A letter from the Director, Bureau of the Budget, 
    Executive Office of the President, transmitting a watershed work 
    plan for the Lacamas Creek tributaries watershed, Washington, 
    pursuant to section 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood 
    Prevention Act (68 Stat. 667; Public Law 566, 83d Cong.) and 
    Executive Order No. 10654 of January 20, 1956; to the Committee on 
    Agriculture.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to the requirements of 16 USC 
Sec. 1002, the Committee on Agriculture has jurisdiction of executive 
communications relating to watershed work plans involving no single 
structure providing more than 4,000 acre-feet of total capacity, and 
the Committee on Public Works has jurisdiction of such plans involving 
any single struc

[[Page 2799]]

ture of more than 4,000 acre-feet of total capacity.


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 31. Committee on Appropriations

    Created in 1865 out of jurisdiction formerly accorded the Committee 
on Ways and Means,(14) the Committee on Appropriations has 
been concerned traditionally with the ``appropriation of the revenue 
for the support of the Government.'' (1) Today, the 
committee has plenary jurisdiction over all appropriation bills for the 
various departments and agencies of government. Historically, the 
committee's jurisdiction has undergone periodic transformation as 
various committees had at certain times jurisdiction over particular 
appropriation bills.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4032.
 1. This language was used in the 1865 rule as well as the 1880 
        revision. In 1865, however, more detail followed the general 
        description. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4032.
 2. Id. at Sec. 4032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The largest standing committee in the House, with 55 members in 
1973, the Committee on Appropriations possesses 13 subcommittees. The 
latter vary in size from eight to 12 members and consist of:

        1. The Subcommittee on Agriculture-Environmental and Consumer 
    Protection;
        2. The Subcommittee on Defense;
        3. The Subcommittee on the District of Columbia;
        4. The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations;
        5. The Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Development-Space-
    Science- Veterans [Matters];
        6. The Subcommittee on the Interior;
        7. The Subcommittee on Labor-Health, Education and Welfare;
        8. The Subcommittee on Legislative [Matters];
        9. The Subcommittee on Military Construction;
        10. The Subcommittee on Public Works-Atomic Energy Commission;
        11. The Subcommittee on State, Justice, Commerce and the 
    Judiciary;
        12. The Subcommittee on Transportation;
        13. The Subcommittee on Treasury-Postal Service-General 
    Government.

    In addition to its jurisdiction over ``appropriation of the revenue 
for the support of the Government,'' (3) the committee under 
the 1973 rules,(4) was expressly authorized whether ``acting 
as a whole or by any subcommittee . . . to conduct studies and 
examinations of the organization and operation of any executive 
department or other executive agency.'' Each subcommittee was assigned 
jurisdiction over specific agencies,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XI clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 (1973). 
 4. Rule XI clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2800]]

commissions, councils, and departments by the main committee. The list 
which follows (5) groups the specific agencies or 
departments which fell under the jurisdiction of each subcommittee in 
1973 [enumeration added]:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. This list, reproduced in its entirety, was compiled by Robert C. 
        Ketcham for the Select Committee on Committees. See 
        ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, pp. 21-24.
            Many of these agencies or departments have been transferred 
        to other subcommittees since 1973 (see later editions of this 
        work).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Agriculture-Environmental and Consumer Protection Subcommittee

        (1) Department of Agriculture (except Forest Service).
        (2) Consumer Information Center (GSA).

        (3) Consumer Product Safety Commission.
        (4) Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
    Environmental Quality.
        (5) Environmental Financing Authority (Treasury).
        (6) Environmental Protection Agency.
        (7) Farm Credit Administration.
        (8) Federal Trade Commission.
        (9) Food and Drug Administration (HEW).
        (10) Grants for Basic Water@Sewer Facilities (HUD).
        (11) National Commission on Materials Policy.
        (12) National Industrial Pollution Control Council (Commerce).
        (13) National Study Commission on Water Quality Management.

                              Defense Subcommittee

        (1) Department of Defense--Military:

        --Department of Army.
        --Department of Navy (including Marine Corps).
        --Department of Air Force.
        --Office of Secretary of Defense.

            Except: Military Construction, Military Assistance, and 
        Civil Defense.

                       District of Columbia Subcommittee

        (1) District of Columbia.

                        Foreign Operations Subcommittee

        (1) Agency for International Development.
        (2) Action (international programs Peace Corps).
        (3) Asian Development Bank.
        (4) Cuban Refugee Program (HEW).
        (5) Export-Import Bank.
        (6) Foreign Military Credit Sales.
        (7) Inter-American Development Bank.
        (8) Inter-American Foundation;
        (9) International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
    (World Bank).
        (10) International Development Association.
        (11) International Monetary Fund.
        (12) Migration and Refugee Assistance (State).
        (13) Military Assistance Program.
        (14) Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

[[Page 2801]]

                    HUD-Space-Science-Veterans Subcommittee

        (1) Department of Housing and Urban Development (except grants 
    for basic water and sewer facilities).
        (2) Federal Communications Commission.
        (3) Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
        (4) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
        (5) National Aeronautics and Space Council.
        (6) National Science Foundation.
        (7) Office of Science and Technology.
        (8) Renegotiation Board.
        (9) Securities and Exchange Commission.
        (10) Selective Service System.
        (11) Veterans' Administration.

                             Interior Subcommittee

        (1) Department of the Interior.
        Except: Alaska Power Administration, Bonneville Power 
    Administration, Bureau of Reclamation, Southeastern Power 
    Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and Underground 
    Electric Power Transmission Research.

        Related Agencies:

        --American Revolution Bicentennial Commission.
        --Commission of Fine Arts.
        --Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Board of Review.
        --Forest Service (USDA).
        --Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission.
        --Indian Claims Commission.
        --Indian Education Activities (HEW).
        --Indian Health Activities (HEW).
        --Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska.
        --National Capital Planning Commission.
        --National Council on Indian Opportunity.
        --National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
        --Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation.
        --Smithsonian Institution.
        --National Gallery of Art.
        --Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
        --Youth Conservation Corps (Forest Service).

               Labor-Health, Education, and Welfare Subcommittee

        (1) Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
        Except: Cuban refugee program, Emergency health activities, 
    Food and Drug Administration, Indian educational activities, Indian 
    health and construction activities, and Office of Consumer Affairs.
        (2) Department of Labor.

        Related Agencies:

        --Action (domestic programs).
        --Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-Speaking 
            People.
        --Commission on Railroad Retirement.
        --Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
        --Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
        --National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.
        --National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse.
        --National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary 
            Education.
        --National Labor Relations Board.
        --National Mediation Board.
        --Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
        --Office of Economic Opportunity.

[[Page 2802]]

        --Railroad Retirement Board.
        --United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home.

                            Legislative Subcommittee

        (1) House of Representatives.
        (2) Joint Items.
        (3) Architect of the Capitol (except Senate items).
        (4) Botanic Garden.
        (5) Cost-Accounting Standards Board.
        (6) General Accounting Office.
        (7) Government Printing Office.
        (8) Library of Congress.

                       Military Construction Subcommittee

        (1) Military Construction in the Army.
        (2) Military Construction in the Navy (including Marine Corps).
        (3) Military Construction in the Air Force.
        (4) Military Construction in Defense Agencies.
        (5) Military Construction for Reserve Forces.
        (6) Homeowners Assistance Fund.
        (7) Military Family Housing.

                         Public Works-AEC Subcommittee

        (1) Atomic Energy Commission.
        (2) Department of Defense--Civil.

            Department of the Army: Cemeterial Expenses, Corps of 
        Engineers--Civil.

        (3) Department of the Interior:

        --Alaska Power Administration.
        --Bonneville Power Administration.
        --Bureau of Reclamation.
        --Office of the Secretary: Underground Electric Power 
            Transmission Research.
        --Southeastern Power Administration.
        --Southwestern Power Administration.

        Related Agencies:

        --Appalachian Regional Commission.
        --Appalachian Regional Development Programs.
        --Delaware River Basin Commission.
        --Federal Power Commission.
        --Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
        --National Water Commission.
        --Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
        --Tennessee Valley Authority.
        --Water Resources Council.

              State, Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary Subcommittee

        (1) Department of Commerce (except NIPCC).
        (2) Department of Justice.
        (3) Department of State (except Migration & Refugee 
    Assistance).
        (4) The Judiciary.

        Related Agencies:

        --American Battle Monuments Commission.
        --Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
        --Commission on American Shipbuilding.
        --Commission on Civil Rights.
        --Commission on the Organization of the Government for the 
            Conduct of Foreign Policy.
        --Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
        --Federal Maritime Commission.
        --Foreign Claims Settlement Commission.
        --International Radio Broadcasting.
        --Marine Mammal Commissions.
        --National Commission for the Review of Federal and State Laws

[[Page 2803]]

            Relating to Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance.
        --Small Business Administration.
        --Special Representative for Trade Negotiations.
        --Subversive Activities Control Board.
        --Tariff Commission.
        --U.S. Information Agency.

                          Transportation Subcommittee

        (1) Department of Transportation.

        Related Agencies:

        --Aviation Advisory Commission.
        --Civil Aeronautics Board.
        --Commission on Highway Beautification.
        --Interstate Commerce Commission.
        --National Transportation Safety Board.
        --Panama Canal.
        --Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

            Treasury-Postal Service-General Government Subcommittee

        (1) Treasury Department.
        (2) United States Postal Service.
        (3) Executive Office of the President:

        --Compensation of the President.
        --Council of Economic Advisers.
        --Council on International Economic Policy.
        --Domestic Council.
        --Executive Residence.
        --National Commission on Productivity.

    Rule X clause 1(b) [House Rules and Manual Sec. 671(a) (1979)] sets 
forth the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations as follows:

        (1) Appropriation of the revenue for the support of the 
    government.
        (2) Rescissions of appropriations contained in appropriation 
    acts.
        (3) Transfers of unexpended balances.
        (4) The amount of new spending authority (as described in the 
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974) which is to be effective for a 
    fiscal year, including bills and resolutions (reported by other 
    committees) which provide new spending authority and are referred 
    to the committee under clause 4(a).
        . . . In addition to its jurisdiction under the preceding 
    provisions of this paragraph, the committee shall have the fiscal 
    oversight function provided for in clause 2(b)(3) and the budget 
    hearing function provided for in clause 4(a).

    Following a period during which certain appropriation bills were 
distributed to other committees, the Committee on Appropriations was 
again given jurisdiction over all appropriations by an amendment to the 
rules adopted June 1, 1920.(6) Effective July 12, 1974, 
special Presidential messages on rescissions and deferrals of budget 
authority submitted pursuant to sections 1012 and 1013 of the 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 332 et seq.), as well as 
rescission bills and impoundment resolutions defined in section 1011 
and required in section 1017 to be referred to the appropriate 
committee, are referred to the Committee on Appropriations if the

[[Page 2804]]

proposed rescissions or deferrals involve funds already appropriated or 
obligated. Also effective July 12, 1974, in the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 [88 Stat. 320, Sec. 404(a)] as perfected by House 
Resolution 988, 93d Congress, the committee was given jurisdiction over 
rescissions of appropriations (paragraph 2), transfers of unexpended 
balances (paragraph 3), and the amount of new spending authority to be 
effective for a fiscal year (paragraph 4) including measures reported 
by other committees which exceed the appropriate allocation of new 
budget authority contained in the most recently agreed to concurrent 
resolution on the budget for such fiscal year as provided in clause 
4(a)(2) of Rule X (H. Res. 988, 93d Congress). The authority to conduct 
studies and examinations of the organization and operation of executive 
departments and agencies was made part of the standing rules on Jan. 3, 
1953, and is now listed as a general oversight responsibility of the 
committee in clause 2(b)(3) of Rule X. The committee is also authorized 
and directed to hold hearings on the budget as a whole in open session 
within 30 days of its submission [clause 4(a)(1)(A) of Rule X], and to 
study on a continuing basis provisions of law providing spending 
authority or permanent budget authority and to report to the House 
recommendations for terminating or modifying such provisions [Rule X 
clause 4(a)(3)]. In addition, clause 2(l)(1)(C) of Rule XI requires the 
committee to submit a summary report comparing its recommendations in 
all regular appropriation bills with the appropriate levels of budget 
outlays and authority contained in the most recently agreed to 
concurrent resolution on the budget for that year. The requirement of 
section 139 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 
812) that the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate 
develop a standard appropriation classification schedule has been 
superseded by section 202(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970 (84 Stat. 1167) which now imposes that responsibility upon the 
Secretary of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget. The 
further requirement of section 139 that the Appropriations Committees 
study existing permanent appropriations and recommend which, if any, 
should be discontinued has been made the responsibility of all standing 
committees of the House by clause 4(f)(1), (2), Rule X, section 253 of 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1175).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House rules in 1973 contained a specific conferral of sub

[[Page 2805]]

pena authority [see Rule XI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 
(1973)]. This conferral of authority was superseded by the Committee 
Reform Amendments of 1974. Rule XI clause 2(m) [House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 718 (1979)] contains a general conferral of subpena authority on 
all committees.
    The principal task of the Committee on Appropriations is its 
comprehensive review of the federal budget (7)--a process 
oriented toward funding requirements and spending levels as opposed to 
explicit statements of any policy implications or legislative concepts. 
The latter are matters within the purview of the standing committees 
which authorize the particular appropriations. Accordingly, the rules 
prohibit any legislation on general appropriation bills as well as the 
making of any unauthorized appropriations in general bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Ch. 13 (Powers and Prerogatives of the House) Sec. 21 
        (Congressional Budget Act), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973, this joint prohibition was contained within Rule XXI, 
which read,(8) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriation 
    bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure 
    not previously authorized by law, unless in continuation of 
    appropriations for such public works and objects as are already in 
    progress. Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment 
    thereto changing existing law be in order, except such as being 
    germane to the subject matter of the bill shall retrench 
    expenditures by the reduction of the number and salary of the 
    officers of the United States, by the reduction of the compensation 
    of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States, or by 
    the reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill: Provided, 
    That it shall be in order further to amend such bill upon the 
    report of the committee or any joint commission authorized by law 
    or the House Members of any such commission having jurisdiction of 
    the subject matter of such amendment, which amendment being germane 
    to the subject matter of the bill shall retrench expenditures.

    While the reporting in general appropriation bills of 
appropriations unauthorized by law is expressly forbidden, exceptions 
are granted ``in continuation of appropriations for such public works 
and objects as are already in progress.'' Interpretation of this 
language by precedent has clarified the committee's jurisdictional 
authority.(9) Thus, a public work which is continued ``must 
not be so conditioned in relation to place as to become a new work.'' 
(10) An
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For more details see Ch. 26, Unauthorized Appropriations; 
        Legislation on Appropriation Bills, infra.
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 839 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2806]]

appropriation for site selection of a public building is not the 
equivalent of a public work in progress.'' (11) A general 
system of roads on which some work has been done cannot be admitted as 
a work in progress.(12) Conversely, the continuation of such 
works as a topographical survey, a geological map, the marking of a 
boundary line, and the recoinage of coins in the Treasury 
(13) are deemed, by precedent, to constitute the 
continuation of works in progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 839 (1979).
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 839 (1979).
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 840 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The prohibition against any provision in ``[an appropriation] bill 
or amendment thereto changing existing law'' is construed to mean the 
enactment of law where none exists (14) or a proposition for 
the repeal of existing law.(15) The committee may not report 
a bill with a provision construing existing law since such a 
proposition, itself, constitutes legislation.(16) 
Propositions establishing affirmative directions for executive officers 
are also outside the committee's jurisdiction as is the making or 
changing of cost limitations involving public works. Limitations on the 
use of funds, however, are not forbidden--the theory being that since 
the House may decline to appropriate for a purpose authorized by law, 
so it may prohibit the use of the money for part of the purpose while 
appropriating for the remainder of it.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 842 (1979).
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 842 (1979).
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 842 (1979).
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 843 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to works in progress, the other exception to Rule XXI, 
clause 2 prohibitions affecting appropriations measures in the ``Holman 
rule.'' The latter consists of the language commencing with the second 
sentence of clause 2 (i.e., Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 834 [1979]) and pertains to the permissibility of germane 
amendments notwithstanding their legislative effect so long as the 
amendments ``shall retrench [i.e., reduce]'' expenditures from the U.S. 
Treasury.(2) It should be noted, however, that any 
appropriations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The Holman rule also permits the offering of further germane 
        amendments retrenching expenditures when offered by a committee 
        or commission (authorized by law or by the House) to have 
        jurisdiction over the subject matter of such amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2807]]

measure or amendment thereto which is purported to fall within the 
Holman rule must reduce expenditures on its face; (3) the 
mere probability of a reduction in expenditures is insufficient to meet 
this obligatory criterion.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 844 (1979).
 4. Thus, even a provision reducing the number and salary of certain 
        officers of the United States does not necessarily comport with 
        the Holman rule; see 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations is further 
affected by another restriction contained within the House rules 
(5) pertaining to general appropriation measures. To wit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XXI clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be 
    received or considered if it contains a provision reappropriating 
    unexpended balances of appropriations; except that this provision 
    shall not apply to appropriations in continuation of appropriations 
    for public works on which work has commenced.

    The foregoing rule notwithstanding, where the reappropriation 
language is identical to the language of a legislative authorization 
enacted subsequent to the adoption of the rule,(6) the 
latter yields to the more recently expressed will of the House evinced 
by the law.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. The reader should bear in mind that the rules of one Congress do 
        not automatically govern the next. Each Congress adopts its own 
        rules.
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 18133, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 5, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents reveal, the Committee on Appropriations has 
reported measures containing legislation which did not fall within the 
exceptions specified in the rules. Such instances occur where the 
measure is not a general appropriation bill (8) or where an 
express waiver is granted by the House.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 31.8, infra.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 31.1, 31.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The investigative jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations 
overlaps with the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government 
Operations and with the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
Means. The rules (10) charge the Committee on Government 
Operations with the duty of ``studying the operation of Government 
activities at all levels with a view to determining its economy and 
efficiency.'' Although this would seem to conflict with the oversight 
responsibilities of the Committee on Appropriations, no
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XI clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 691 (1973). See also 
        Rule X clause 1(i), House Rules and Manual Sec. 678 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2808]]

significant jurisdictional conflict has resulted. The jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, however, extends to major entitlement 
spending authorities resulting in significant impacts on the budget.

    This impact on the budget is derived from certain permanent 
spending authorities which fall within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Ways and Means such as social security, medicare, interest 
on the national debt, general revenue sharing (after 1974, within 
jurisdiction of Committee on Government Operations), public assistance 
grants, and other social services and benefits.(11) It has 
been estimated that in light of such permanent spending authorities, in 
1973, the Committee on Appropriations ``has effective control over only 
about 44 percent of net budget authority.'' (12) The 
Committee on Appropriations must, however, recommend appropriations of 
funds to finance entitlement spending programs within the jurisdiction 
of other committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Robert C. Ketcham, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 12.
12. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a final note, it should be borne in mind that the committee's 
jurisdictional control over appropriations sometimes had been eroded by 
the historical growth of so-called ``back door'' appropriations. 
Programs of such magnitude as revenue sharing, highway trust funds, 
public works projects, and mass transit have come ``through the `back 
door.' ''(13) Four types of ``back door'' funding mechanisms 
have been defined, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.  Id. at p. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) Borrowing authority--the authority to obligate and spend 
    from funds obtained by borrowing from the general public by either 
    the Secretary of the Treasury or by a federal agency or 
    corporation.
        (2) Contract authority--the requirement of subsequent action in 
    appropriations bills to liquidate a contractual obligation that the 
    Executive Department has made under its authority to enter into 
    contracts.
        (3) Permanent appropriations--those which provide for specific 
    amounts of time in a definite or indefinite amount (i.e., interest 
    on the public debt, revenue sharing).
        (4) Mandatory entitlements--instances in which the Federal 
    Government is obligated to pay benefits established by law.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The common element in each of these funding 
mechanisms was the inability of the Committee on Appropriations to 
limit in advance of the obligation being incurred the amount of the 
obligation.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Note: Under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 [88 Stat. 297, 31 
        USC Sec. Sec. 1302-1353], certain types of borrowing 
        (Sec. 401(a)), contract (Sec. 401(a)), and entitlement 
        authority (Sec. 401(b)) may not be included in legislation, 
        unless limited by amounts in advance in appropriations acts, 
        and points of order may be raised against the bills pursuant to 
        the Budget Act provisions. Thus, an enforcement mechanism 
        against backdoor spending has emerged. See House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 1008 (1979).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2809]]

    Effective on July 12, 1974, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
granted to the Committee on Appropriations jurisdiction over 
rescissions of appropriations contained in appropriations acts, over 
the amount of new spending (contract and indebtedness) authority to be 
effective for a fiscal year, and over bills and resolutions reported 
from other committees, providing new spending (entitlement) authority 
in excess of that allocated to the reporting committee in connection 
with the most recently agreed--to concurrent resolution on the budget 
for the fiscal year in question.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Pub. L. No. 93-344, Sec. 404(a). See Sec. 401(b)(2) of Pub. L. No. 
        93-344 for the requirement that certain entitlement bills be 
        referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and for the 
        authority of the committee over such measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective Jan. 3, 1975, the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 
included within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations 
transfers of unexpended balances,(16) and included within 
Rule X clause 4(a)(2), the requirement under the Budget Act that 
certain bills and resolutions reported from other committees be 
referred to the Committee on Appropriations for not to exceed 15 
legislative days.(17) Thus in the 94th Congress, the 
jurisdiction of the committee read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H. Res. 988, Sec. 301, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, Oct. 8, 1974.
17. H. Res. 988, Sec. 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (b) Committee on Appropriations.
        (1) Appropriation of the revenue for the support of the 
    Government.
        (2) Rescissions of appropriations contained in appropriation 
    Acts.
        (3) Transfers of unexpended balances.
        (4) The amount of new spending authority (as described in the 
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974) which is to be effective for a 
    fiscal year, including bills and resolutions (reported by other 
    committees) which provide new spending authority and are referred 
    to the committee under clause 4(a).
        The committee shall include separate headings for 
    ``Rescissions'' and ``Transfers of Unexpended Balances'' in any 
    bill or resolution as reported from the committee under its 
    jurisdiction specified in subparagraph (2) or (3), with all 
    proposed rescissions and proposed transfers listed therein; and 
    shall include a separate section with respect to such rescissions 
    or transfers in the accompanying committee report.

[[Page 2810]]

    In addition to its jurisdiction under the preceding provisions of 
    this paragraph, the committee shall have the fiscal oversight 
    function provided for in clause 2(b)(3) and the budget hearing 
    function provided for in clause 4(a).

    Parliamentarian's Note: The language ``transfers of unexpended 
balances'' refers to transfers of appropriations within the confines of 
the same bill, which are normally considered in order on a general 
appropriation bill. These should be distinguished from reappropriations 
of unexpended, or lapsed, balances, which are prohibited by Rule XXI 
clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1979). Under the latter 
rule, a provision in an appropriation bill permitting an appropriation 
previously made (in another act) to be used for a new purpose is not in 
order.                          -------------------

Express House Authorization to Incorporate Specific Legislation in Any 
    General or Special Appropriation Measure

Sec. 31.1 The Committee on Appropriations has been authorized by 
    resolution to investigate allegations that certain federal 
    employees were unfit to continue in that employment by reason of 
    association with subversive groups and to incorporate legislation 
    approved by the committee emanating from the same resolution in any 
    general or special appropriation measure or to be offered as a 
    committee amendment to such measure notwithstanding the rules.

    On Feb. 9, 1943,(18) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, 
submitted a privileged resolution (H. Res. 105), reported from the 
Committee on Rules, which he sent to the desk and called up for 
immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 89 Cong. Rec. 734, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

        Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations, acting through 
    a special subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman of such 
    committee for the purposes of this resolution, is authorized and 
    directed to examine into any and all allegations or charges that 
    certain persons in the employ of the several executive departments 
    and other executive agencies are unfit to continue in such 
    employment by reason of their present association or membership or 
    past association or membership in or with organizations whose aims 
    or purposes are or have been subversive to the Government of the 
    United States. Such examination shall be pursued with the view of 
    obtaining all available evidence bearing upon each particular case 
    and reporting to the House the conclusions of the committee

[[Page 2811]]

    with respect to each such case in the light of the factual evidence 
    obtained. The committee, for the purposes of this resolution, shall 
    have the right to report at any time by bill, amendment, or 
    otherwise, its findings and determination. Any legislation approved 
    by the committee as a result of this resolution may be incorporated 
    in any general or special appropriation measure emanating from such 
    committee or may be offered as a committee amendment to any such 
    measure notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI.
        For the purposes of this resolution, such committee or any 
    subcommittee thereof is hereby authorized to sit and act during the 
    present Congress at such times and places within the United States, 
    whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, to 
    hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses, 
    and the production of such books or papers or documents or vouchers 
    by subpena or otherwise, and to take such testimony and records as 
    it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued over the signature of 
    the chairman of the committee or subcommittee, or by any person 
    designated by him, and shall be served by such person or persons as 
    the chairman of the committee or subcommittee may designate. The 
    chairman of the committee or subcommittee, or any member thereof, 
    may administer oaths to witnesses.
        With the following committee amendment:
        Page 2, line 4, after the period, strike out all of the 
    language following up to the period in line 6.

    Immediately thereafter, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, put the 
question on whether the House would consider the resolution, since the 
resolution had been called up the same day as reported from the 
Committee on Rules. Two-thirds of the House having voted in favor 
thereof in the Chair's estimation, the matter was entertained, and 
debate ensued. At the conclusion of the debate, none of it touching 
upon the aforementioned exception to Rule XXI, the resolution, with the 
committee amendment, was agreed to.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 742.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Appropriation Bills With Senate Amendments

Sec. 31.2 General appropriation bills with Senate amendments thereto 
    may be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

    On July 2, 1945,(1) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
announced that he had referred H.R. 3368, the ``war agencies bill'' 
with Senate amendments thereto, to the Committee on Appropriations 
pursuant to his discretionary authority under Rule XXIV clause 2, 
seldom exercised, to refer Senate amendments to any House-passed bill 
to the appropriate committee.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Cong. Rec. 7142, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 3368 was reported by the Committee on Appropriations on July 
        11, 1945 (H. Rept. No. 880).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2812]]

Legislation in Appropriation Bills

Sec. 31.3 The Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has addressed 
    himself to the use of resolutions reported by the Committee on 
    Rules and adopted by the House, waiving points of order against 
    noncontroversial legislation in appropriation bills.

    On Mar. 23, 1945,(3) the House entertained consideration 
of a resolution (H. Res. 194), reported from the Committee on Rules 
which called for the waiver of points of order against legislative 
provisions in an agricultural appropriations bill (H.R. 
2689).(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 2668, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. For discussion of this subject in general, see Ch. 26, Legislation 
        in Appropriation Bills, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of that consideration, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized (5) Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, who elaborated, in part, on the practice 
of his committee with respect to requesting such resolutions.

        Said Mr. Cannon: (6) May I again allude to the long-
    established policy of the committee, which the members of the 
    committee have so frequently emphasized from the well of this 
    House, under which the Committee on Appropriations does not include 
    new or controversial legislation in its bills. Our bills are 
    uniformly clean of any new legislation, any major legislation. We 
    include only those provisions which have been carried in the bills 
    for many years by both parties, or of an emergency nature, on which 
    there is general agreement. In this instance, the great Committee 
    on Agriculture, which has jurisdiction, approved the bill and the 
    Committee on Rules approved it; otherwise we would not have 
    reported it to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 2671, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Id. at p. 2672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.4 The Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations gave notice 
    to the executive departments and the legislative committees that in 
    the next session of Congress nothing would be included in any 
    appropriation bill which was not specifically authorized by law 
    regardless of custom or urgency.

    On Mar. 23, 1945,(7) as the House considered a 
resolution (H. Res. 194), waiving points of order against legislative 
provisions in an upcoming appropriations bill (H.R. 
2689),(8) Speaker Sam Ray
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 2671, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. For further discussion of this subject, see Ch. 26, Legislation in 
        Appropriation Bills, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2813]]

burn, of Texas, recognized Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, Chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations, who made the following remarks, among 
others: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 2672, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to add 
    as an individual member of the committee that in view of the fact 
    that points of order have been so persistently raised on this bill 
    that the Committee on Appropriations should in the future, 
    notwithstanding the needs of the departments in the transaction of 
    their routine business, be like Caesar's wife: innocent of even the 
    implication of any infringement upon any rule or practice of the 
    House. I should like to give notice to the departments, to the 
    legislative committees of the House and to all concerned that in 
    the next session nothing will be included in any appropriation 
    bill, however customary or however urgent, that is not specifically 
    authorized by law. I trust this notice is in ample time to permit 
    any department to make application to legislative committees having 
    jurisdiction, and in time for such committees to report such 
    authorization, if they so desire.

Monthly Budget Summary

Sec. 31.5 The Committee on Appropriations has been authorized to insert 
    in the Congressional Record a summary of national budget receipts 
    and expenditures each month of a session.

    On Mar. 11, 1963,(10) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
initiated the following exchange with the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 3943, 3944, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations each month makes a 
    concise summary of current budget results in relation to the 
    previous year and the current budget estimates.
        For the information of Members and others who may find it of 
    interest, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
    synoptic tabulation of the trend of net budget receipts and 
    expenditures in the current fiscal year 1963 with comparisons to 
    the official budget estimates for the fiscal year 1963 and to 
    corresponding actual data for the previous fiscal year 1962.
        The Speaker: (11) Without objection, it is so 
    ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Following the insertion of the above-mentioned summary, Mr. Cannon 
made this request:

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we may have leave to 
    insert a similar type of statement each month of the session.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
        There was no objection.

Previously Appropriated Revenues

Sec. 31.6 The Committee on Appropriations, under the

[[Page 2814]]

    rules, does not have jurisdiction over a proposition amending 
    section 305 of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 to make 
    the revolving loan fund therein, which consists of funds already 
    appropriated for one purpose, available for a new purpose.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(12) pursuant to a special rule (H. 
Res. 661), the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 7248), to amend and extend the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts dealing with higher 
education.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 37769, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Id. at p. 37765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    House Resolution 661 provided, among other things, that an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Education and Labor would be treated as an original bill, and all 
points of order against the amendment for failure to comply with the 
provisions of Rule XVI clause 7,(14) and Rule XXI clause 
4,(15) would be waived. The resolution further provided 
that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. This clause read [see Rule XVI clause 7, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 793 794 (1973)] as follows: ``A motion to strike out 
        and insert is indivisible, but a motion to strike out being 
        lost shall neither preclude amendment nor motion to strike out 
        and insert; and no motion or proposition on a subject different 
        from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of 
        amendment.''
15. This clause [see Rule XXI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 
        (1973)] provided: ``No bill or joint resolution carrying 
        appropriations shall be reported by any committee not having 
        jurisdiction to report appropriations, nor shall an amendment 
        proposing an appropriation be in order during the consideration 
        of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee not 
        having that jurisdiction. A question of order on an 
        appropriation in any such bill, joint resolution, or amendment 
        thereto may be raised at any time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [A]ll titles, parts, or sections of the said substitute, 
    the subject matter of which is properly within the jurisdiction of 
    any other standing committee of the House of Representatives, shall 
    be subject to a point of order for such reason if such point of 
    order is properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 7248.

    After considerable discussion the Committee rose,(16) 
and Chairman James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, reported to Speaker Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, that the Committee had come to no resolution on 
the bill. The next day, however, on Oct. 28, 1971,(17) the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 37812, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
17. 117 Cong. Rec. 38036, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2815]]

Committee reconvened, and H.R. 7248 was considered again.

    In the course of that further consideration, a point of order was 
raised (18) with respect to section 712 of the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute. Section 712 amended existing law so as to 
enable a revolving loan fund to be utilized to provide loan insurance. 
As the following exchange reveals, this was thought by Mr. Frank T. 
Bow, of Ohio, to infringe upon the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Appropriations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 38077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against lines 5 
    through 19 on page 173 on the ground that it constitutes an 
    appropriation of the revenue of the support of the Government which 
    falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations 
    under the provisions of rule 11, clause 2.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations [see Rule XI 
        clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 (1973)] extends to 
        all matters relating to the appropriation of revenue for the 
        support of the government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Now, under the rude, if adopted, there is a waiver of 
    appropriations under clause 4 of rule 21 and clause 7 of rule 16. 
    However, under the rule to which I refer, which gives the Committee 
    on Appropriations the jurisdiction to appropriate revenue for the 
    support of the Government, it is not waived and the rule under 
    which we are now working provides that ``all titles, parts, or 
    sections of the said substitute, the subject matter of which is 
    properly within the jurisdiction of any other standing committee of 
    the House of Representatives, shall be subject to a point of order 
    for such reason if such point of order is properly raised during 
    the consideration of H.R. 7248.''
        This is not a transfer of funds. This is the incorporation of a 
    revolving fund into an insurance fund. This is properly within the 
    jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee.
        Under the rule under which we are operating, although they have 
    waived some of the rules on appropriations, there was no waiver of 
    rule XI, clause 2.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order 
    providing for the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee.
        The Chairman: Does any other Member desire to be heard on the 
    point of order?
        If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        It is quite true as the gentleman from Ohio points out that the 
    rule under which this bill is being considered expressly makes in 
    order any point of order against any title, part, or section of the 
    committee substitute which falls properly within the jurisdiction 
    of any other standing committee of the House of Representatives.
        The Chair has referred to rule XI(2) (a) to which the gentleman 
    from Ohio makes reference and in which jurisdiction over certain 
    matters is given to the Committee on Appropriations.
        Subparagraph (a) the Chair observes that the Committee on 
    Appropriations is to be given jurisdiction over the appropriation 
    of the revenues for the sup

[[Page 2816]]

    port of the Government. It appears to the Chair that the language 
    in the section under dispute, section 712, refers not to an 
    appropriation of revenues, but to a use of revenues which already 
    have been appropriated and that the reappropriation of these 
    revenues would not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Appropriations. For those reasons, the Chair is 
    constrained to overrule the point of order.
        The point of order is overruled.

Public Buildings Act Project; Prospectus Approval

Sec. 31.7 A communication from the Chairman of the Committee on Public 
    Works, advising of the approval of a prospectus for a project under 
    the Public Buildings Act of 1959, is laid before the House and 
    referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

    On Apr. 19, 1961,(20) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
laid before the House the following communication from Charles A. 
Buckley, of New York, Chairman of the Committee on Public Works:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 6284, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        My Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the provisions of section 7(a) 
    of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, the Committee on Public Works 
    of the House of Representatives approved on April 18, 1961, a 
    prospectus for the following public building project which was 
    transmitted to this committee from the General Services 
    Administration: Macon, Ga., Post Office and Federal Office 
    Building.

    This message was then referred to the Committee on 
Appropriations.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Communications under the Public Buildings Act are customarily 
        referred in this manner, pursuant to the law. For a similar 
        instance, see 106 Cong. Rec. 4223, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 2, 
        1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Appropriation Bills Containing Legislative Provisions

Sec. 31.8 The Committee on Appropriations has jurisdiction over a bill 
    providing ``special'' appropriations even if it contains 
    legislative provisions, and no point of order lies against such 
    legislative provisions under Rule XXI clause 2, as the restrictions 
    contained therein apply only to general appropriation bills.

    On June 16, 1939,(1) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 326), making appropriations for work relief, 
relief, and to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 7282, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2817]]

increase employment by providing loans and grants for public works 
projects for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940. The measure had been 
reported to the House by the Committee on Appropriations (2) 
and had been made in order by unanimous consent.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 7198, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1939.
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 7018, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the many sections of the measure, in addition to the specific 
language appropriating funds from the Treasury, were the following: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 84 Cong. Rec. 7345, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 16, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 29. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to 
    solicit, or knowingly be in any manner concerned in soliciting, any 
    assessment, subscription, or contribution for the campaign expenses 
    of any individual or political party from any person entitled to or 
    receiving compensation or employment provided for by this title.
        (b) Any person who knowingly violates any provision of this 
    section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be 
    fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, 
    or both. The provisions of this section shall be in addition to, 
    not in substitution for, any other section of existing law, or of 
    this title.
        Sec. 30. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or 
    indirectly, to promise any employment, position, work, 
    compensation, or other benefit, provided for or made possible by 
    this title, or any other act of the Congress, to any person as 
    consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for 
    the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political 
    party in any election.
        (b) Except as may be required by the provisions of subsection 
    (b) of section 31 hereof, it shall be unlawful for any person to 
    deprive, attempt to deprive, or threaten to deprive, by any means, 
    any person of any employment, position, work, compensation, or 
    other benefit, provided for or made possible by this title, on 
    account of race, creed, color, or any political activity, support 
    of, or opposition to any candidate or any political party in any 
    election.
        (c) Any person who knowingly violates any provision of this 
    section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be 
    fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, 
    or both. The provisions of this section shall be in addition to, 
    not in substitution for, any other sections of existing law, or of 
    this title.
        Sec. 31. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person employed in 
    any administrative or supervisory capacity by any agency of the 
    Federal Government, whose compensation or any part thereof is paid 
    from funds authorized or appropriated by this title, to use his 
    official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with 
    an election or affecting the results thereof. While such persons 
    shall retain the right to vote as they please and to express 
    privately their opinions on all political subjects, they shall take 
    no active part, directly or indirectly, in political management or 
    in political campaigns or in political conventions.

[[Page 2818]]

        (b) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall 
    be immediately removed from the position or office held by him, and 
    thereafter no part of the funds appropriated by this title shall be 
    used to pay the compensation of such person. The provisions of this 
    section shall be in addition to, not in substitution for, any other 
    sections of existing law, or of this title.

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized 
Mr. Claude V. Parsons, of Illinois, who initiated the following 
exchange with respect to the aforementioned sections: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 84 Cong. Rec. 7365, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I rise to make the point of order against 
    sections 29, 30, and 31, on page 27, on the ground that this is an 
    appropriation bill, and the sections mentioned are legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. Also, I make the point of order that in 
    addition to its being legislation on an appropriation bill contrary 
    to existing law, the language seeks to enact penalties involving 
    far-reaching consequences to practically everyone outside of the W. 
    P. A. appropriation bill. This point was brought up 1 year ago when 
    something like the same language was used in this bill, and the 
    language was ruled out on a point of order.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XXI clause 2, provided then, as in 1973, that ``No 
        appropriations shall be reported in any general appropriation 
        bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any 
        expenditure not previously authorized by law, unless in 
        continuation of appropriations for such public works and 
        objects as are already in progress. Nor shall any provision in 
        any such bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in 
        order, except such as being germane to the subject matter of 
        the bill shall retrench expenditures. . . .'' [H. Jour. 1122, 
        76th Cong. 1st Sess. (1939); Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 834 (1973)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. On May 21, 1937, 
    in connection with the W. P. A. relief bill, which was under 
    consideration at the time, the Chairman, Mr. O'Connor, ruled on the 
    identical question which the gentleman from Illinois has raised and 
    on that occasion the Chairman said:

            The bill in question is not a general appropriation bill 
        and, therefore, clause 2 of rule XXI does not apply.

        Following that precedent, the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Parsons: But, Mr. Chairman, the Chair does not take into 
    consideration the point I raised that the language seeks to impose 
    penalties involving every person outside of the W. P. A.
        The Chairman: The ruling which the Chair has just quoted 
    applies also to the point of order raised by the gentleman on the 
    matter of penalties.

    Shortly after this exchange, another point of order was raised by 
Mr. Jack Nichols, of Oklahoma, who stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 7366, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2819]]

        I make a point of order, Mr. Chairman, against section 30 of 
    the bill and direct the attention of the Chair to that language in 
    section 30 of the bill, in line 23, which reads, ``or any other act 
    of the Congress''; for the reason that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and it goes far beyond the purview of the 
    instant bill under consideration and is not germane to this bill.

    As Mr. Nichols elaborated under the Chair's questioning:

        Of course, I thoroughly understood the ruling of the Chair on 
    the point of order raised by the gentleman from Illinois. I want to 
    read, for the benefit of the Chair . . . section 30:

            It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or 
        indirectly, to promise any employment, position, work, 
        compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible by 
        this title--

        Up to that point I quite agree with the ruling of the Chair--
        or any other act of the Congress--
        Which is the part of the section to which I direct my point of 
    order.
        Now, this bill is brought to the floor of the House by the 
    Committee on Appropriations. While I have been a Member of this 
    body only a limited number of years and while I have no disposition 
    to argue with the ruling of the Chair, if my feeble conception of 
    the rules of the House has taught me anything it has taught me that 
    legislation in an appropriation bill can only place a limitation on 
    the appropriation.

    At this juncture, Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of Virginia, contended 
that:

        The gentleman has an improper premise. This is not an 
    appropriation bill. It is a general legislative bill.

    Mr. Nichols took exception to that position after which Mr. Herman 
P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, obtained the floor and stated:

        I just want to call the attention of the Chair to the title of 
    the bill, which reads:

            Joint resolution making appropriations for work relief, 
        relief, and to increase employment by providing loans and 
        grants for public-works projects, for the fiscal year ending 
        June 30, 1940.

        The title of the bill says nothing whatever about regulation or 
    legislation in any respect whatsoever, and is nothing except an 
    appropriation bill under its title.

    The Chair then announced he was ready to rule and rendered the 
following decision:

        The Chair will state that the title of a bill is merely for the 
    purpose of identification. The position taken by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma, as well as that taken by the gentleman from Illinois, 
    would have been correct, in the opinion of the Chair, if applied to 
    a general appropriation bill; but in the opinion of the Chair there 
    is a clear distinction between a general appropriation bill and the 
    joint resolution pending before the Committee today, which is a 
    combination of appropriation and legislation.
        When this bill was introduced on June 13 it was referred by the 
    Speaker to the Committee on Appropriations and reported by the 
    Committee on Appropriations and is being considered now as the 
    result of a unanimous-consent agreement.

[[Page 2820]]

        This bill not being a general appropriation bill, but being 
    legislative in character, the Chair is constrained to rule that the 
    point of order of the gentleman from Oklahoma is not well taken.
        For the reasons stated the point of order is 
    overruled.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. General and special appropriation bills are distinguished in Chs. 
        25 and 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act Plans

Sec. 31.9 A communication from the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Agriculture, advising of the approval of plans under the Watershed 
    Protection and Flood Prevention Act, was laid before the House and 
    referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

    On May 21, 1959,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
placed before the House the following communication from Harold D. 
Cooley, of North Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 105 Cong. Rec. 8808, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the provisions of section 2 of 
    the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended, the 
    Committee on Agriculture has today considered the work plans 
    transmitted to you by Executive Communication 921 and referred to 
    this committee and unanimously approved each of such plans. The 
    work plans involved are:

                            State and Watershed

        Alabama: Little Paint Creek.
        Iowa: Big Park.
        Tennessee: Jennings Creek.
        Utah: American Fork-Dry Creek.

    The message was then referred to the Committee on 
Appropriations.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. For a similar instance, see 105 Cong. Rec. 3042, 3043, 86th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Feb. 26, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker refers to the Committee on 
Appropriations communications from the Chairmen of the Committees on 
Agriculture and Public Works, respectively, advising the Speaker of 
approval of plans under the provisions of the Watershed Protection and 
Flood Prevention Act [16 USC Sec. 1002] which prohibit appropriations 
from being made prior to such approval.

Sec. 31.10 A communication from the Chairman of the Committee on Public 
    Works, advising of the approval of plans under the Watershed 
    Protection and Flood Prevention Act, was laid before the House by 
    the Speaker and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

[[Page 2821]]

    On June 8, 1959,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid 
before the House the following communication from Charles A. Buckley, 
of New York, Chairman of the Committee on Public Works:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 10164, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the provisions of section 2 of 
    the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended, the 
    Committee on Public Works has approved the work plans transmitted 
    to you which were referred to this committee. [The work plans were 
    here set forth.]

    This information, in its entirety, was then referred to the 
Committee on Appropriations.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For a similar instance, see 105 Cong. Rec. 3784, 86th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Mar. 10, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 32. Committee on Armed Services

    Established Jan. 2, 1947, as a result of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946,(13) the Committee on Armed 
Services combined the Committees on Military Affairs and on Naval 
Affairs. The latter committees had been created in 1822 (14) 
and between 1885 and 1920 these committees had jurisdiction of military 
and naval appropriations. In 1953, the clause specifying the 
committee's responsibilities was changed in order to reflect the 
committee's jurisdiction over the then newly created Department of 
Defense which had been established by the National Security 
Act.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 60 Stat. 812.
14. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4179, 4189.
15. 61 Stat. 495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services pursuant to the 
1973 rules (16) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XI clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 681 (1973). See also 
        Rule X clause 1 Sec. (c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 672 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Common defense generally.
        (b) The Department of Defense generally, including the 
    Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force generally.
        (c) Ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; Army, Navy, and Air 
    Force reservations and establishments.
        (d) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum and 
    oil shale reserves.
        (e) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and 
    privileges of members of the armed forces.
        (f) Scientific research and development in support of the armed 
    services.
        (g) Selective service.
        (b) Size and composition of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
        (i) Soldiers' and sailors' homes.
        (j) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the common 
    defense.

    As the precedents reveal, the jurisdiction of the committee and its

[[Page 2822]]

predecessors over public bills has extended to permitting civil actions 
against the United States for damage to the reputation of servicemen; 
(17) authorizing the President to bestow military medals; 
(18) authorizing review of the armed services' retirement, 
disability, and discharge determinations; (1) dealing with 
certain military retirement (2) and other benefits; 
(3) authorizing construction of certain facilities at the 
Walter Reed Medical Center; (4) providing for payment of 
death gratuities by the military departments; (5) granting 
honorable discharges to World War I veterans; (6) 
recognizing the war time services of civilian groups; (7) 
amending the National Security Act to achieve military economies 
through reorganization; (8) furnishing headstones and 
memorials for military decedents and missing servicemen; (9) 
investigating artifacts of the Ryukyuan people; (10) 
amending the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 to authorize 
payment of claims arising from the correction of military records; 
(11) authorizing appropriations for the acquisition of 
military housing; (12) and authorizing payment from military 
appropriations of moneys due on military housing 
contracts.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sec. 32.1, infra.
18. Sec. Sec. 32.2, 32.3, infra.
 1. Sec. Sec. 32.4-32.8, infra.
 2. Sec. Sec. 32.19, 32.22, 32.23, infra.
 3. Sec. Sec. 32.20, 32.21, 32.29, infra.
 4. Sec. 32.9, infra.
 5. Sec. 32.10, infra.
 6. Sec. 32.11. infra.
 7. Sec. 32.28, infra.
 8. Sec. 32.12, infra.
 9. Sec. Sec. 32.13-32.15, infra.
10. Sec. 32.16, infra.
11. Sec. 32.29, infra.
12. Sec. 32.18, infra.
13. Sec. 32.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of private bills, the precedents indicate the committee's 
jurisdiction embraces such matters as conveying military property to a 
private corporation; (14) crediting certain military service 
for purposes of promotion; (15) and the making of 
determinations affecting individuals' retirement 
remuneration.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sec. 32.24, infra.
15. Sec. 32.25, infra.
 1. Sec. Sec. 32.26, 32.27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As formalized by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, the 
committee's oversight jurisdiction includes not only those laws and 
agencies within its legislative jurisdiction (including titles 10 and 
32 of the United States Code) but also special oversight jurisdiction 
over international arms control and military dependents' 
education.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule X clause 3(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1979), as 
        amended by H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, Oct. 8, 1974.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2823]]

    The subcommittee structure of the Committee on Armed Services, in 
1973, consisted of five legislative subcommittees, two special 
subcommittees, and one oversight subcommittee, as follows:

                         Legislative Subcommittees

        1. Subcommittee on Research and Development;
        2. Subcommittee on Military Personnel;
        3. Subcommittee on Seapower;
        4. Subcommittee on Military Compensation;
        5. Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities.

                           Special Subcommittees

        1. Special Subcommittee on Human Relations;
        2. Special Subcommittee on Intelligence.

                           Oversight Subcommittee

        1. Armed Services Investigating Subcommittee.

    In the 95th Congress, the committee obtained jurisdiction over 
military applications of nuclear energy, when the legislative 
jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was 
abolished.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53-70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
        1977.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Actions for Damages Brought Against the United States by 
    Servicemen

Sec. 32.1 In the 91st Congress, the Committee on Armed Services, and 
    not the Committee on the Judiciary, had jurisdiction over a bill 
    adding a new chapter to title 10, United States Code, to permit 
    civil actions in federal courts against the United States for 
    damage to the reputation of members of the armed forces charged 
    with committing certain crimes against civilians in combat zones if 
    such members are acquitted of such charges.

    On July 15, 1970,(4) Mr. Jack T. Brinkley, of Georgia, 
obtained unanimous consent to have H.R. 18365 discharged from further 
consideration by the Committee on the Judiciary and rereferred to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 24451, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorizing President to Bestow Military Medals

Sec. 32.2 The Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill 
    authorizing the President to bestow the

[[Page 2824]]

    decoration of the Purple Heart upon an individual.

    On Jan. 8, 1947,(5) H.R. 714 was referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 193, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.3 The Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill 
    authorizing and directing the President to award posthumously a 
    Congressional Medal of Honor.

    On Jan. 9, 1947,(6) H.R. 743 was referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 209, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armed Services' Review Over Discharge and Disability Matters

Sec. 32.4 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill to amend section 302 
    of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, authorizing the armed 
    services' secretaries and the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    establish boards of review to examine the previous findings of 
    retirement boards regarding the physical condition of any officer 
    or former officer at the individual's request.

    On Mar. 1, 1950,(7) John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 5604 and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 2591, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.5 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill to amend the 
    Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, to insure proper review of 
    disability status of officers discharged from the armed services.

    On Jan. 19, 1951,(8) John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 1085 and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 97 Cong. Rec. 453, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
            For a similar instance, see also 99 Cong. Rec. 1441, 83d 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 26, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.6 The Committee on Armed Services and not the

[[Page 2825]]

    Committee on Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill to amend 
    the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 to: (1) insure proper 
    review of disability status of persons discharged from the armed 
    services, (2) provide for a copy of the disability record, and (3) 
    provide for a presumption of service-connected injury or disease.

    On Feb. 26, 1953,(9) Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts, Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have her committee discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 1534 and to have it rereferred to the Committee 
on Armed Services. In so doing, Mrs. Rogers noted that a similar bill 
had been referred to that committee the previous year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 99 Cong. Rec. 1442, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.7 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill to authorize the 
    review of the findings of naval retiring boards and physical 
    evaluation boards in certain cases.

    On Apr. 16, 1951,(10) John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 3648 and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 97 Cong. Rec. 3919, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.8 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of proposals to amend section 
    301 of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 with respect to 
    the jurisdiction of boards of review established under that section 
    to reconsider military discharges.

    On Feb. 20, 1952,(11) the Speaker (12) 
recognized John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, Chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, who noted that a communication (Exec. Comm. No. 
1171) from the Assistant Secretary of Defense recommending an amendment 
to the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 as described above, was 
referred to his committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 98 CONG. REC. 1200, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Rankin added:

        While it is true that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has 
    jurisdiction over this law, the Boards of Review are administered 
    entirely by the Secretary

[[Page 2826]]

    of Defense and relate entirely to matters coming within the 
    jurisdiction of the Secretary. I therefore believe that it will be 
    more appropriate to have this matter considered by the Committee on 
    Armed Services and ask unanimous consent that the Executive 
    communication No. 1171 may be referred to the Committee on Armed 
    Services.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted Mr. Rankin's 
request.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 98 Cong. Rec. 1201, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
            Two days later, a bill (H.R. 6769), to amend Sec. 301 of 
        the act so as to limit the jurisdiction of the boards of review 
        was referred directly to the Committee on Armed Services. See 
        98 Cong. Rec. 1283, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Construction of Military Facilities

Sec. 32.9 In the 89th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services, and 
    not the Committee on Public Works, had jurisdiction of a measure 
    authorizing the Secretary of the Army to construct facilities at 
    Walter Reed Medical Center for the Armed Forces Institute of 
    Pathology.

    On Oct. 3, 1966,(14) Mr. Kenneth J. Gray, of Illinois, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Public Works 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 18019 and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on Armed Services.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 24859, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 18019 was reported by the Committee on Armed Services on Oct. 
        5, 1966 (H. Rept. No. 2190).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payment of Death Gratuities by Military Departments

Sec. 32.10 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill to amend section 301 
    of the Servicemen's and Veterans' Survivor Benefits Act to provide 
    for expeditious payment of the death gratuity by military 
    departments.

    On Mar. 12, 1957,(16) Mr. Porter Hardy, Jr., of 
Virginia, obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5382 and to have 
it rereferred to the Committee on Armed Services. In so doing, Mr. 
Hardy noted that he had discussed the matter with the chairmen of both 
committees, and they
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 3529, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For a similar instance, see 103 Cong. Rec. 14569, 85th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 13, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2827]]

were ``in agreement that this should be done.''

Honorable Discharges

Sec. 32.11 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill to provide for the 
    granting of honorable discharges to certain persons who served in 
    the Army during World War I.

    On Jan. 19, 1951,(17) John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 1080 and to have it referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 453, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military Economies Through Reorganization

Sec. 32.12 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on 
    Expenditures in the Executive Departments (now the Committee on 
    Government Operations) had jurisdiction over a bill to amend the 
    National Security Act of 1947 to promote economy and efficiency 
    through certain reorganizations and the integration of supply and 
    service activities within and among the military departments.

    On June 18, 1952,(18) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services requested unanimous consent to have 
H.R. 8130 rereferred from the Committee on Expenditures in the 
Executive Departments (now the Committee on Government Operations), to 
the Committee on Armed Services. Although several Members, under 
reservation of objection, expressed concern about the shift of 
jurisdiction, each subsequently withdrew his objection and unanimous 
consent was granted.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 7532, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Id. at p. 7544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burial Headstones and Memorials for the Military

Sec. 32.13 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the 
    Secretary of the Army to furnish headstones to mark the actual or 
    honorary burial places of deceased members or former members of the 
    military and naval forces.

[[Page 2828]]

    On Feb. 24, 1949,(1) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who requested unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 920 and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Armed Services. 
In advancing his request, Mr. Rankin noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 1498, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Armed Services 
    has jurisdiction over this type of bill, and has a number of such 
    bills before it.

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange took place:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi?
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker, is this re-reference agreeable to the 
    Committee on Armed Services or the chairman thereof?
        Mr. Rankin: I suppose so. I am sure it is. I can see no reason 
    why it should not be.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Notwithstanding the transfer of 
jurisdiction to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in 1967 of veterans' 
cemetary legislation, bills to provide headstones or markers for former 
members of the armed forces have continued to be referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services. Such bills normally amend title 24 USC 
Sec. 279a, which law is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Armed Services.

Sec. 32.14 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill to provide for the 
    erection of appropriate memorial stones in memory of certain 
    members of the armed forces in World War II who were missing, 
    missing in action, or buried at sea.

    On Apr. 20, 1950,(2) John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 8082 and to have if rereferred to the Committee on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 5462, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.15 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on 
    Foreign Af

[[Page 2829]]

    fairs has jurisdiction of a bill authorizing an appropriation to 
    the Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission of an amount equal to 
    amounts, not in excess of $7,500,000, to be received by the 
    Secretary of the Navy from the sale of vessels stricken from the 
    Naval Vessel Register.

    On July 10, 1958,(3) Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of 
Pennsylvania, a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have that committee discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 13265 and to have it rereferred to the Committee 
on Armed Services.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 13417, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. H.R. 13265 was reported by the Committee on Armed Services on July 
        17, 1958 (H. Rept. No. 2213).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investigating Ryukyuan Artifacts

Sec. 32.16 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services, and 
    not the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, had jurisdiction 
    of a bill to authorize an investigation of cultural and historical 
    artifacts of the Ryukyuan people.

    On Aug. 7, 1961,(5) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 8461 and to have it rereferred to the Committee 
on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 14786, 14787, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armed Services Housing Contracts

Sec. 32.17 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services, and 
    not the Committee on Banking and Currency, had jurisdiction of a 
    bill conferring jurisdiction in certain cases on the secretaries of 
    the military departments to authorize payment from appropriated 
    funds of the military departments of amounts determined to be owing 
    to contractors under armed services housing contracts entered into 
    under authority of the National Housing Act.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 12 USC Sec. Sec. 1748 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 21, 1962,(7) Brent Spence, of Kentucky, Chairman 
of the Committee on Banking and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 2684, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2830]]

Currency, obtained unanimous consent to have his committee discharged 
from further consideration of H.R. 10251 and to have it rereferred to 
the Committee on Armed Services.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The armed services' contracts referred to 
consisted of housing contracts entered into under the authority of the 
National Housing Act.

Acquisition of Military Housing

Sec. 32.18 In the 90th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services, and 
    not the Committee on Banking and Currency, had jurisdiction of a 
    bill authorizing appropriations for use by the Secretary of Defense 
    for acquisition of housing on or near military bases which have 
    been ordered closed, even though the authorization for such program 
    was contained in an omnibus housing act [reported from the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency].

    On Apr. 18, 1967,(8) Wright Patman, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous consent to 
have S. 1216 rereferred from his committee to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 113 Cong. Rec. 9981, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan 
Development Act of 1966 [42 USC Sec. 3347] contains a section 
authorizing the Secretary of Defense to acquire housing on or near a 
military base which is ordered closed; the section specifies that no 
funds may be appropriated for such acquisitions unless authorized in a 
military construction authorization act. Requests for such 
authorizations are thus referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. S. 1216 was reported by the Committee on Armed Services on Apr. 26, 
        1967 (H. Rept. No. 215).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military Discharge and Retirement

Sec. 32.19 The Committee on Military Affairs (now the Committee on 
    Armed Services) and not the Committee on World War Veterans' 
    Legislation (now the Committee on Veterans' Affairs) had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to extend indefinitely the time before which 
    valid applications could be filed for disabled emergency officers' 
    retirement benefits.

[[Page 2831]]

    On Jan. 29, 1941,(10) John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 2260 and to have it rereferred to the Committee 
on Military Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 348, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veterans' Benefits

Sec. 32.20 The Committee on Military Affairs (now the Committee on 
    Armed Services) and not the Committee on World War Veterans' 
    Legislation (now the Committee on Veterans' Affairs) had 
    jurisdiction over a bill relating to the type of discharge to be 
    awarded to veterans who served honorably during World War I and 
    were later discharged.

    On June 19, 1939,(11) John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 5027 and to have it rereferred to the Committee 
on Military Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 7462, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.21 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill to amend section 102 
    of the Servicemen's and Veterans' Survivor Benefits Act to specify 
    a method of determining basic pay for the purpose of that act in 
    the case of members and former members of the Philippine Scouts.

    On Mar. 12, 1957,(12) Mr. Porter Hardy, Jr., of 
Virginia, obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5701 and to have 
it rereferred to the Committee on Armed Services. In so doing Mr. Hardy 
noted that he had discussed the matter with the chairmen of both 
committees, and they were ``in agreement that this should be done.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 3529, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.22 The Committee on Military Affairs (now the Committee on 
    Armed Services) and not the Committee on World War Veterans' 
    Legislation (now the Committee on Veterans' Affairs) had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to provide retirement benefits for certain 
    emergency officers of the First World War.

[[Page 2832]]

    On May 27, 1941,(13) John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 3208 and to have it rereferred to the Committee 
on Military Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 87 Cong. Rec. 4447, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.23 The Committee on Military Affairs (now the Committee on 
    Armed Services) and not the Committee on World War Veterans' 
    Legislation (now the Committee on Veterans' Affairs) had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to remove certain limitations on the amount 
    of retired pay of regular or emergency officers who were veterans 
    of the War with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, the China 
    Relief Expedition or World War I.

    On Feb. 24, 1941,(14) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, Chairman of the Committee on World War Veterans' 
Legislation was granted unanimous consent that his committee be 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 319 and that the bill be 
rereferred to the Committee on Military Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 1328, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conveyance of Military Property

Sec. 32.24 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services, and 
    not the Committee on Public Works, had jurisdiction of a private 
    bill authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to convey to a private 
    corporation certain lands which were part of a naval ordnance 
    facility.

    On Apr, 10, 1961,(15) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent to have 
H.R. 6026 which had been referred to the Committee on Public Works, 
rereferred to the Committee on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 5526, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Bill Crediting Service for Air Force Promotion

Sec. 32.25 The Committee on Armed Services, and not the Committee on 
    the Judiciary, has jurisdiction of a private bill to credit service 
    performed as a Judge Advocate General in the Air Force as ``regular 
    service'' for purposes of promotion.

[[Page 2833]]

    On May 22, 1961,(16) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, obtained unanimous consent to have H.R. 6277 referred 
from the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong Rec. 8556, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Bill for Military Retirement Benefits

Sec. 32.26 The Committee on Armed Services, and not the Committee on 
    the Judiciary has jurisdiction of a private bill establishing the 
    basis for computation of retired pay of a member of the military 
    services.

    On June 12, 1961,(17) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, obtained unanimous consent that H.R. 6738 be rereferred 
from the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on Armed Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 107 Cong. Rec. 10096, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.27 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on the 
    Judiciary has jurisdiction of a private bill authorizing and 
    directing the Secretary of the Navy to pay a fixed monthly sum for 
    life to a former associate professor of the U.S. Naval Academy.

    On Jan. 24, 1950,(18) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, requested unanimous consent 
that H.R. 2932 which had been referred to that committee, be rereferred 
to the Committee on Armed Services. The bill provided for the payment 
of $100 per month for life to the individual described above beginning 
with the month in which the measure was approved and with costs to be 
charged to such appropriations as would be made for the payment of 
retirement annuities to civilian members of the teaching staff of the 
academy and its postgraduate schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 845, 846, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection to the request.

Recognition of Civilian Volunteers

Sec. 32.28 The Committee on Military Affairs (now the Committee on 
    Armed Services) and not the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and 
    Measures (now the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs) 
    had jurisdiction of a bill to provide for suitable recognition of 
    the voluntary services of civilian nurses

[[Page 2834]]

    with the Army during the influenza epidemic.

    On Feb. 28, 1940,(1) Mr. Andrew L. Somers, of New York, 
requested unanimous consent to have the Committee on Coinage, Weights, 
and Measures discharged from consideration of H.R. 8394, and upon 
noting it was the ``practice of the Congress to consider these measures 
through the Committee on Military Affairs,'' he additionally requested 
the bill be rereferred to that committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 2117, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Claims of Servicemen Arising From Correction of Military Records

Sec. 32.29 The Committee on Armed Services and not the Committee on the 
    Judiciary had jurisdiction of a bill to amend section 207 of the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 so as to authorize payment 
    of claims arising from correction of military or naval records.

    On Apr. 4, 1950,(2) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, requested unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of H.R. 
2058 and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Armed Services. In 
so doing, he noted that ``Past practice indicated the procedure that 
these bills were always considered by the Committee on Armed 
Services.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 4666, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.



                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 33. Committee on Banking and Currency

    Although originally created in 1865,(3) the Committee on 
Banking and Currency largely derives its current jurisdiction from the 
1947 revisions prompted by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. 
At that time, the committee was granted most of the jurisdiction of the 
former Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. In 
1971,(4) it was additionally given jurisdiction over the 
``impact on the economy of tax-exempt foundations and charitable 
trusts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4082.
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 12081, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 27, 1971 [H. Res. 
        320].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency

[[Page 2835]]

pursuant to the 1973 rules (5) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 683 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause l(d), in the 1979 House Rules and Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Banking and currency generally.
        (b) Control of price of commodities, rents, or services.
        (c) Deposit insurance.
        (d) Federal Reserve System.
        (e) Financial aid to commerce and industry, other than matters 
    relating to such aid which are specifically assigned to other 
    committees under this rule.
        (f) Gold and silver, including the coinage thereof.
        (g) Impact on the economy of tax-exempt foundations and 
    charitable trusts.
        (h) Issuance of notes and redemption thereof.

        (i) Public and private housing.
        (j) Valuation and revaluation of the dollar.

    Within the jurisdictional realm of the committee, though not 
expressly stated in the rules (6) are matters such as: (1) 
strengthening of public credit; (2) taxation of notes; (3) propositions 
to maintain the parity of U.S. money; (4) national banks and current 
deposits of public money; (5) incorporation of an international bank; 
(6) the Freedmen's Bank; (7) the Farm Loan Act; (8) home loan bills; 
(9) stabilization of the dollar; (10) the War Finance Corporation; and 
(11) Federal Reserve Bank buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule X clause 1(d), House Rules and Manual Sec. 673 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee also has had legislative jurisdiction over small 
business matters. In 1971, when tax-exempt foundations and charitable 
trusts were added to its jurisdiction, the committee obtained all of 
the files and papers of the Subcommittee on Foundations of the Select 
Committee on Small Business. While the Select Committee on Small 
Business was made a permanent committee of the House in 
1971,(7) that select committee was not granted legislative 
jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 5, 117 Cong. Rec. 143, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22. 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective Jan. 3, 1975, however, the standing Committee on Small 
Business was created and the Committee on Banking and Currency lost 
jurisdiction over that subject.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Banking and Currency also has had jurisdiction 
over the Commodity Credit Corporation, since it reported the 
legislation establishing it as an agency and instrumentality of the 
United States in 1948, with the passage of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Charter Act.(9) This
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 60 Stat. 1070; 15 USC Sec. 714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2836]]

act granted the Corporation the power to (1) support prices of 
agricultural commodities; (2) procure commodities for sale to 
government agencies, foreign governments, relief agencies, etc.; and 
(3) remove and dispose of surplus agricultural commodities.

    Having reported the legislation which established the Corporation, 
the Committee on Banking and Currency had, until the Committee Reform 
Amendments of 1974, reported legislative proposals dealing with 
amendments to the Charter Act. For example, bills raising the 
limitation on the dollar amount which the Corporation can borrow had 
traditionally been handled by the committee, as had measures which, 
while not specifically amending the charter, do relate to the capital 
structure of the Corporation and indirectly with its borrowing 
authority.
    Effective Jan. 3, 1975, jurisdiction over the Commodity Credit 
Corporation was transferred to the Committee on 
Agriculture.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional indicia of the jurisdictional realm of the Committee on 
Banking and Currency may be gleaned from the following 
lists,(11) the first consisting of new legislation or 
amendments to legislation enacted between the 90th and 93d Congresses, 
the second consisting of executive departments over which the committee 
has, in the past, exercised some legislative responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. These lists were compiled by Dennis J. Taylor, ``Monographs on the 
        Committees of the House of Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), committee print, pp. 35, 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Legislative Enactments

        (1) Bank Holding Company Act.
        (2) Defense Production Act.
        (3) Economic Stabilization Act.
        (4) Emergency Home Finance Act.
        (6) Export Control Act.
        (7) Export and Import Bank Act.
        (8) Federal Reserve Act.
        (9) FHA and Rural Housing Program Insurance Authority.
        (10) Housing and Urban Development Act.
        (11) Interest Rates and Insurance on Mortgages.
        (12) International Financial Institutions.
        (13) Separate Federal Credit Union Agency and Insurance of 
    Accounts.
        (14) Small Business Act.
        (15) Small Business Investment Act.
        (16) State Taxation of National Banks.
        (17) Urban Mass Transportation Assistance.

                             Executive Departments

        (1) Commerce Department.
        (2) Comptroller of the Currency.
        (3) Cost of Living Council.
        (4) Export-Import Bank.

[[Page 2837]]

        (5) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
        (6) Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
        (7) Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
        (8) Federal National Mortgage Association.
        (9) Federal Reserve System.
        (10) Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation.
        (11) Housing and Urban Development, Department of.
        (12) National Credit Union Administration.
        (13) Office of Emergency Planning.
        (14) Small Business Administration.
        (15) Transportation Department.
        (16) Treasury Department.

    As the precedents reveal, the legislative jurisdiction of the 
committee and its predecessors has also extended to such matters as 
enabling the Commodity Credit Corporation to aid farmers in marketing; 
(12) relieving purchasers of goods converted by warehousemen 
from claims of the Commodity Credit Corporation; (13) 
promoting balanced urban development through coordination of urban 
development grants; (14) and acquiring land in the District 
of Columbia as a building site for the International Monetary 
Fund.(15) The committee has also reported sense of the 
Congress resolutions pertaining to the advisability of cash bonuses for 
veterans,(16) and the need for the continued existence of a 
particular tin smelter.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sec. 33.1, infra.
13. Sec. 33.2, infra.
14. Sec. 33.3, infra.
15. Sec. 33.8, infra.
16. Sec. 33.9, infra.
17. Sec. 33.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Handling the broad spectrum of legislative responsibilities of the 
Committee on Banking and Currency, in 1973, were eight subcommittees. 
Alphabetically, they are categorized, as follows:

        1. Subcommittee on Bank Supervision and Insurance;
        2. Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs;
        3. Subcommittee on Domestic Finance;
        4. Subcommittee on Housing;
        5. Subcommittee on International Finance;
        6. Subcommittee on International Trade;
        7. Subcommittee on Small Business; and
        8. Subcommittee on Urban Mass Transit.

    Effective Jan. 3, 1975, the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 
redesignated the committee as the Committee on Banking, Currency and 
Housing; added specific jurisdiction to the committee over federal 
monetary policy, money and credit, urban development, economic 
stabilization, defense production and renegotiation, international 
finance, and

[[Page 2838]]

international financial and monetary organizations; and transferred 
from the committee jurisdiction over the Commodity Credit Corporation 
(to the Committee on Agriculture), over export controls (to the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs), over international economic policy (to 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs), over construction of nursing home 
facilities (to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce), and 
over urban mass transportation (to the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation).(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the 95th Congress, the committee was 
redesignated as the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs.                          -------------------

Commodity Credit Corporation

Sec. 33.1 The Committee on Banking and Currency and not the Committee 
    on Agriculture formerly had jurisdiction of a bill to enable the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation to better serve farmers in marketing 
    and to provide credit and facilities for carrying surpluses from 
    season to season.

    On Feb. 26, 1936,(19) Mr. T. Alan Goldsborough, of 
Maryland, requested unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture 
be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 11104, and that it be 
rereferred to the Committee on Banking and Currency. In so doing, he 
noted that ``I have consulted with the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture this morning, and that is satisfactory to him.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 2848, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous 
consent.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For additional information, see the Parliamentarian's Note to 
        Sec. 33.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.2 The Committee on Banking and Currency and not the Committee 
    on Agriculture formerly had jurisdiction of bills to amend the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act in order to relieve 
    innocent purchasers of fungible goods converted by warehousemen 
    from claims of the Commodity Credit Corporation.

    On May 3, 1955,(21) Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, 
Chairman of the Committee on Agri
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 101 Cong. Rec. 5501, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2839]]

culture, obtained unanimous consent to have his committee discharged 
from further consideration of five identical bills (H.R. 2137, H.R. 
2872, H.R. 2007, H.R. 694, and H.R. 646), and to have them referred to 
the Committee on Banking and Currency.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Commodity Credit Corporation was 
established as an agency and instrumentality of the United States in 
1948, with the passage of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act 
[62 Stat. 1070; 15 USC Sec. 714 (S. 1322, 80th Cong.; H.R. 6263, 
reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency, Apr. 22, 1948)]. 
This enabling act provided that the Corporation has the power to (1) 
support prices of agricultural commodities; (2) procure commodities for 
sale to government agencies, foreign governments, relief agencies, 
etc.; and (3) remove and dispose of surplus agricultural commodities.
    By legislation enacted in 1949, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
Charter Act was amended to make the Secretary of Agriculture the 
Chairman of the Board, and the Secretary was in effect given general 
supervision and direction of the Corporation [63 Stat. 154; 15 USC 
Sec. 714 (S. 900, 81st Cong.; H.R. 2682, reported from the Committee on 
Banking and Currency, Apr. 9, 1949)].
    From the establishment of the Corporation, the Committee on Banking 
and Currency, until the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, 
consistently reported legislative proposals dealing with amendments to 
the Charter Act. For example, bills raising the limitation on the 
dollar amount which the Corporation could borrow had been handled by 
the Committee on Banking and Currency, as had measures which, while not 
specifically amending the charter, did relate to the capital structure 
of the Corporation and indirectly with its borrowing authority.

Coordination of Urban Development Grants

Sec. 33.3 Under the rules in effect in the 91st Congress, the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency, and not the Committee on Government 
    Operations, had jurisdiction of a bill designed to promote 
    ``balanced urban development and growth'' by providing coordination 
    in different categories of urban development grants and amending 
    various laws within the jurisdiction of the Committees on Banking 
    and

[[Page 2840]]

    Currency, Public Works, Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and 
    others.

    On Mar. 18, 1970,(22) Wright Patman, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Banking and Currency, sought unanimous consent to 
have H.R. 13217 rereferred from the Committee on Government Operations 
to the Committee on Banking and Currency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 116 Cong. Rec. 7887, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after Mr. Patman voiced his request, the following 
exchange took place:

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency if a representative, the 
    chairman, or some other member, from the Committee on Government 
    Operations is in accord with the request.
        Mr. Patman: I have a letter from the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Dawson), the chairman, that he is in agreement with it. The 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Holifield [of the Committee on 
    Government Operations]) is present, as is also the gentleman from 
    North Carolina (Mr. Fountain) who is chairman of the 
    Intergovernmental Relations Committee. He is in agreement with it, 
    and also the author of the bill.
        Mr. [Chet] Holifield: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: I yield to the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Holifield: I would like to affirm what the chairman has 
    said. We feel that this re-referral is proper. We feel that it is a 
    substantive matter which ought to be considered by the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Will the chairman of the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency read the title of the bill again, please.
        Mr. Patman: Yes. The title of the bill is ``to provide for the 
    balanced urban development and growth of the United States.''
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Speaker [John W. McCormack of Massachusetts]: Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The bill was originally referred to the 
Committee on Government Operations since it was similar to other 
measures providing for consolidation of grant-in-aid programs. Since 
the bill had as its specific purpose the consolidation of grants for 
urban development, the Committee on Government Operations had no 
objection to its rereferral to the Committee on Banking and Currency. 
The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 specifically conferred 
jurisdiction over urban development upon the committee.

Farm Housing; Lanham War Housing Act

Sec. 33.4 The Committee on Banking and Currency and not

[[Page 2841]]

    the Committee on Agriculture formerly had jurisdiction of a bill to 
    provide assistance to farmers in securing farm housing and other 
    farm buildings.

    On Feb. 17, 1949,(23) Brent Spence, of Kentucky, 
Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, stated that H.R. 
1376 was referred to the Committee on Agriculture by inadvertence. 
After noting that he had conferred with the Chairman of the Committee 
on Agriculture, Mr. Spence requested unanimous consent that that 
committee be discharged from further consideration of the measure, and 
that the bill be referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 95 Cong. Rec. 1367, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Sec. 33.5 The Committee on Banking and Currency and not the Committee 
    on Public Works has jurisdiction of a bill to permit a first 
    preference for former owners of certain dwellings being sold under 
    the Lanham War Housing Act [act of Oct. 14, 1940].

    On July 10, 1953,(24) George A. Dondero, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of H.R. 
6130 (1) and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Banking and Currency.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 99 Cong. Rec. 8533, 8534, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. 54 Stat. 862, 42 USC Sec. Sec. 1521 et seq.
 2. H.R. 6130 was reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency on 
        July 27, 1953 (H. Rept. No. 973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact on Economy of Tax Exempt Foundation and Charitable Trusts

Sec. 33.6 The House adopted a privileged resolution, reported from the 
    Committee on Rules, amending the rules to vest jurisdiction over 
    the impact on the economy of tax-exempt foundations and charitable 
    trusts in the Committee on Banking and Currency. Oversight of this 
    matter had formerly been exercised by the Select Committee on Small 
    Business.

    On Apr. 27, 1971,(3) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, a member of that committee, 
called
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 12080, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2842]]

up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 320), and asked for its immediate 
consideration. The Clerk proceeded to read the resolution, as follows:

        Resolved, That clause 4, rule XI, of the rules of the House 
    (4) is hereby amended by--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. This clause (clause 4) prescribed the jurisdiction of the Committee 
        on Banking and Currency at the time [Rule XI clause 4, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 683 (1971)], as follows: ``(a) banking 
        and currency generally; (b) control of price of commodities, 
        rents, or services; (c) deposit insurance; (d) Federal Reserve 
        System; (e) financial aid to commerce and industry, other than 
        matters relating to such aid which are specifically assigned to 
        other committees under this rule; (f) gold and silver, 
        including the coinage thereof; (g) issuance of notes and 
        redemption thereof; (h) public and private housing; and (i) 
        valuation and revaluation of the dollar.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) renumbering paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) as paragraphs (h), 
    (i), and (j), and
        (2) inserting a new paragraph (g) as follows
        ``(g) Impact on the economy of tax-exempt foundations and 
    charitable trusts.``
        Sec. 2. All files, records, documents, and papers in possession 
    of the Subcommittee on Foundations of the Select Committee on Small 
    Business are hereby preserved intact and transferred to the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency.

    In the course of the brief discussion which ensued, Wright Patman, 
of Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency and 
Chairman of the Select Committee on Small Business' Subcommittee on 
Foundations, stated:

        There is no objection that I know of to this resolution from 
    any of the committee chairmen involved or any other members. The 
    resolution is cosponsored by myself, Mr. Evins, Mr. Widnall, and 
    Mr. Conte, the chairmen and ranking minority members of the two 
    committees involved.

    Moreover, he pointed out that:

        . . . With the recent changes in the law in this area, we now 
    feel it is appropriate that a broader look be taken at the impact 
    of foundations and other tax-exempt organizations on the national 
    economy. We believe the Committee on Banking and Currency is an 
    appropriate committee for such a study.

    Shortly thereafter, the resolution was agreed to.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 12081, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Financial Organizations

Sec. 33.7 Under the rules in effect in the 86th Congress, the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency, and not the Committee on Foreign Affairs,

[[Page 2843]]

    had jurisdiction over proposed legislation to provide for the 
    participation of the United States in the International Development 
    Association, an international financial organization to operate 
    under the provisions of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act and to be 
    financed partly from special notes issued by the Secretary of the 
    Treasury under the Second Liberty Bond Act.

    On Feb. 18, 1960,(6) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid 
before the House a message (H. Doc. No. 345), from President Dwight D. 
Eisenhower, submitting to the House the articles of agreement for the 
establishment of the International Development Association and 
recommending legislation authorizing U.S. membership in the 
association. The message was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 106 Cong. Rec. 2952, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 9, 1960,(7) however, Thomas E. Morgan, of 
Pennsylvania, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have the President's message rereferred to the 
Committee on Banking and Currency. The same day,(8) 
moreover, the proposed legislation (H.R. 11001), was similarly 
referred.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 5046, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Id. at p. 5072.
 9. H.R. 11001 was reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency on 
        June 8, 1960 (H. Rept. No. 1766).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to the Committee Reform Amendments 
of 1974, jurisdiction over international financial and monetary 
organizations was specifically conferred upon the committee.

Sec. 33.8 Under the rules in effect in the 87th Congress, the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency, and not the Committee on Public Works, had 
    jurisdiction of a proposal to authorize the Administrator of 
    General Services to acquire land in the District of Columbia for 
    transfer to the International Monetary Fund as a site for a new 
    office building for the fund.

    On May 1, 1962,(10) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, who 
proceeded to initiate the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 7428, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, after consultation between the Speaker and the 
    gentleman

[[Page 2844]]

    from Maryland [Mr. Fallon],(11) I ask unanimous consent 
    that Executive Communication No. 1994, which was referred to the 
    Committee on Public Works, be referred to the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, Charles A. Buckley 
        (N.Y.) was presumably unavailable for the consultation referred 
        to by Mr. Albert. Mr. George H. Fallon (Md.) was the next 
        ranking member of the majority party on the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: IS there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Executive Communication No. 1994 authorized 
the Administrator of General Services to acquire the land, subject to 
reimbursement by the fund.

Cash Bonuses for Veterans

Sec. 33.9 In the 82d Congress, the Committee on Banking and Currency 
    and not the Committee on Veterans' Affairs had jurisdiction of a 
    concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the 
    payment of cash bonuses to veterans is noninflationary, is an 
    appropriate recognition of their services and sacrifices, and that 
    federal agencies should encourage the purchase of state bonds 
    issued to provide for the payment of such bonuses.

    On Oct. 2, 1951,(12) John E. Rankin, of Mississippi 
Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
House Concurrent Resolution 150 and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Banking and Currency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 12494, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tin Smelting and Production

Sec. 33.10 The Committee on Banking and Currency and not the Committee 
    on Armed Services has jurisdiction of a concurrent resolution to 
    express the sense of the Congress on continuing the operation of a 
    tin smelter at Texas City, Texas, and to investigate the need of a 
    permanent domestic tin-smelting industry and the adequacy of our 
    strategic stockpile of tin.

    On June 7, 1954,(13) Dewey Short, of Missouri, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 100 Cong. Rec. 7766, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2845]]

to have his committee discharged from further consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 237 and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Banking and Currency.



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 34. Committee on the Budget

    The Committee on the Budget was established effective July 12, 
1974, by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (11 H.R. 
7130),(14) and its jurisdiction and composition provided as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 7130 was reported from the Committee on Rules on Nov. 20, 
        1973, H. Rept. No. 93-658. Pub. L. No. 93-344, Sec. 101. 
        Effective Jan. 14, 1975, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-32, 94th Cong. 1st 
        Sess. [H. Res. 5], the membership of the committee was 
        increased from 23 to 25, with 13 rather than 11 members to be 
        elected pursuant to Rule X clause 1(e)(1)(C). The language 
        cited from Rule X clause 1(e) also reflects amendments 
        contained in H. Res. 5, 96th Congress, Jan. 15, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (e)(1) Committee on the Budget, to consist of twenty-five 
    Members as follows:
        (A) five Members who are members of the Committee on 
    Appropriations;
        (B) five Members who are members of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means;
        (C) thirteen Members who are members of other standing 
    committees;
        (D) one Member from the leadership of the majority party; and
        (E) one Member from the leadership of the minority party.
    No member other than the representative from the leadership of the 
    majority party and the representative from the leadership of the 
    minority party, shall serve as a member of the Committee on the 
    Budget during more than three Congresses in any period of five 
    successive Congresses beginning after 1974 (disregarding for this 
    purpose any service performed as a member of such committee for 
    less than a full session in any Congress) except that an incumbent 
    chairman having served on the committee for three Congresses and 
    having served as chairman of the committee for not more than one 
    Congress shall be eligible for reelection to the committee as 
    chairman for one additional Congress. All selections of Members to 
    serve on the committee shall be made without regard to seniority.

        (2) All concurrent resolutions on the budget (as defined in 
    section 3(a)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) and other 
    matters required to be referred to the committee under titles III 
    and IV of that Act.
        (3) The committee shall have the duty--
        (A) to report the matters required to be reported by it under 
    titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974;
        (B) to make continuing studies of the effect on budget outlays 
    of relevant existing and proposed legislation and to report the 
    results of such studies to the House on a recurring basis;
        (C) to request and evaluate continuing studies of tax 
    expenditures, to

[[Page 2846]]

    devise methods of coordinating tax expenditures, policies, and 
    programs with direct budget outlays, and to report the results of 
    such studies to the House on a recurring basis; and
        (D) to review, on a continuing basis, the conduct by the 
    Congressional Budget Office of its functions and duties.
    Also effective on that date, Rule X clause 3(b) was added relative 
to the special oversight functions of the committee and as later 
perfected by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974,(15) 
reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Pub. L. No. 93-344, Sec. 101(c), incorporated into the rules as 
        Rule X clause 3(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1975), by 
        H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 
        8, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (b) The Committee on the Budget shall have the function of--
        (1) making continuing studies of the effect on budget outlays 
    of relevant existing and proposed legislation, and reporting the 
    results of such studies to the House on a recurring basis; and
        (2) requesting and evaluating continuing studies of tax 
    expenditures, devising methods of coordinating tax expenditures, 
    policies, and programs with direct budget outlays, and reporting 
    the results of such studies to the House on a recurring basis.

    Rule X clause 4(b), as added by the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 and as later perfected by the Committee Reform Amendments of of 
1974,(16) reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Pub. L. No. 93-344, Sec. 101(c), incorporated into the rules as 
        Rule X clause 4(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 695 (1975), 
        by H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Oct. 8, 1974. Paragraph (2), contained in Sec. 301 (d) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974, paragraph (3), paragraph (4), 
        contained in Sec. 606 of that act, and paragraph (5), contained 
        in Sec. 703 of that act, all were made part of the rules 
        effective Jan. 3, 1975, by H. Res. 988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (b) The Committee on the Budget shall have the duty--
        (1) to review on a continuing basis the conduct by the 
    Congressional Budget Office of its functions and duties;
        (2) to hold hearings, and receive testimony from Members of 
    Congress and such appropriate representatives of Federal 
    departments and agencies, the general public, and national 
    organizations as it deems desirable, in developing the first 
    concurrent resolution on the budget for each fiscal year;
        (3) to make all reports required of it by the Congressional 
    Budget Act of 1974, including the reporting of reconciliation bills 
    and resolutions when so required;
        (4) to study on a continuing basis those provisions of law 
    which exempt Federal agencies or any of their activities or outlays 
    from inclusion in the Budget of the United States Government, and 
    to report to the House from time to time its recommendations for 
    terminating or modifying such provisions; and
        (5) to study on a continuing basis proposals designed to 
    improve and facilitate methods of congressional budget-making, and 
    to report to the House from time to time the results of such

[[Page 2847]]

    study together with its recommendations.

    Pursuant to section 906 of the Congressional Budget Act, the House 
Committee on the Budget reported to the House its recommendations for 
implementation of the budget procedures for fisca] year 1976; 
(17) the House and Senate completed final action on the 
first concurrent resolution on the budget considered under the Act by 
adopting a conference report thereon on May 14, 1975.(18) On 
May 13, 1976, the House and Senate completed final action on the first 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1976, the first 
year of full implementation of the Budget Act 
procedures.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Rept. No. 94-25, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 3, 1975.
18. H. Con. Res. 218, H. Jour. 739-743, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. S. Con. Res. 109, H. Jour. 768, 769, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 35. Committee on the District of Columbia

    The Committee on the District of Columbia was created in 
1808,(20) at which time it was ``the duty of this committee 
to take into consideration all petitions and memorials relating to the 
affairs of the District of Columbia, and to report from time to time, 
by bill or otherwise.''(1) In 1880, this language was 
revised so that all subjects ``relating to the District of Columbia, 
other than appropriations therefor'' were referred to the 
committee.(2) Under the 1973 rules (3) the 
committee's jurisdiction read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4276.
 1. Gerald J. Grady, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 38.
 2. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4276.
 3. Rule XI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 685 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(f), House Rules and Manual Sec. 675 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) All measures relating to the municipal affairs of the 
    District of Columbia in general, other than appropriations 
    therefor, including--
        (b) Adulteration of foods and drugs;
        (c) Incorporation and organization of societies;
        (d) Insurance, executors, administrators, wills, and divorce;
        (e) Municipal code and amendments to the criminal and 
    corporation laws;
        (f) Municipal and juvenile courts;
        (g) Public health and safety, sanitation, and quarantine 
    regulations;
        (h) Regulation of sale of intoxicating liquors;
        (i) Taxes and tax sales.

    Among the general municipal affairs of the District have been 
subjects relating to (4) [enumeration added]:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 675 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2848]]

        1. Health, sanitary, and quarantine regulations;
        2. Holidays;
        3. Protection of fish and game;
        4. Regulation of sale of intoxicating liquors;
        5. Adulteration of food, drugs, etc.;
        6. Taxes and tax sales;
        7. Insurance;
        8. Bills for preserving public order at times of inaugurations;

        9. Harbor regulations and the bridge over the Eastern Branch;
        10. Executor, administrators, wills, and divorce;
        11. Police and juvenile courts and justices of the peace;
        12. Incorporation and organization of societies;
        13. Municipal code and amendments to the criminal and 
    corporation laws; and
        14. Exceptional as opposed to general jurisdiction affecting 
    the higher courts of the District.

    Another indication of the committee's jurisdiction may be obtained 
from an examination of one of its calendars. The committee's final 
calendar for the 92d Congress included bills pertaining to the 
following subjects [enumeration added]:

        1. Bus companies, authorization for the acquisition of four;
        2. Chanceries, location of;
        3. Consumer credit legislation;
        4. Criminal penalties for assaults on firemen;
        5. Dentistry;
        6. Employee conditions of work, pay, and fringe benefits;
        7. Incorporation of various organizations;
        8. Motor vehicle interstate agreements;
        9. Nelson Commission, extension of;
        10. Podiatry;
        11. Public conveyance of persons;
        12. Revenue legislation, including authorizing of federal 
    payment;
        13. School fare subsidy;
        14. Tax exemptions (i.e., the Daughters of the American 
    Revolution, the Reserve Officers Association, etc.);
        15. Unemployment compensation coverage; and
        16. Uniform Commercial Code, amendments to.

    As the precedents reveal, the jurisdiction of the committee has 
also extended to such subjects as coordinating the development of the 
District with other areas in the metropolitan region; (5) 
using federal land for government parking facilities (6) 
exchanging park lands for land suitable to parkway construction; 
(7) authorizing the construction of bridges which would 
cross over into Virginia; (8) authorizing the Surgeon 
General to make grants ultimately aiding George Washington University 
Hospital; (9) and affecting changes in the jurisdiction of 
courts-martial of the D.C. militia.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sec. 35.4, infra.
 6. Sec. 35.7, infra.
 7. Sec. 35.1, infra.
 8. Sec. 35.3, infra.
 9. Sec. 35.6, infra.
10. Sec. 35.9, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2849]]

    In terms of oversight duties, the committee's main concern is with 
the government of the District of Columbia. Inasmuch as the executive 
branch routinely interacts with that government, through appointments 
and budgeting, the committee's oversight jurisdiction extends to the 
Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare, Interior, and 
Transportation as well as the General Services Administration and the 
Office of Management and Budget.
    The 1973 subcommittees of the Committee on the District of Columbia 
consisted of:

        1. The Subcommittee on Business, Commerce and Taxation;
        2. The Subcommittee on Education;
        3. The Subcommittee on Government Operations;
        4. The Subcommittee on the Judiciary;
        5. The Subcommittee on Labor, Social Services and the 
    International Community; and
        6. The Subcommittee on Revenue and Financial Affairs.

    Considering the matter from a long-range perspective, the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on the District of Columbia is affected 
by three other major factors. First, since the city of Washington, 
D.C., has obtained home rule, the committee's jurisdiction has 
changed.(1) Second, the committee is obliged to constantly 
examine general legislation which applies to the states to ascertain 
whether or not the particular legislation embraces the District of 
Columbia or if it should. Third, the ultimate source of congressional 
oversight over the District is the U.S. Constitution, itself, which 
provides (2) that the Congress shall have power ``To 
exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such 
District . . . as may . . . become the Seat of Government of the United 
States. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Pub. L. No. 93-198, the District of Columbia Self-Government 
        and Governmental Reorganization Act, which provides procedures 
        for congressional disapproval of laws which the act authorized 
        the government of the District to enact; matters submitted to 
        Congress under that act, and resolutions approving or 
        disapproving actions of the District government, fall within 
        the jurisdiction of the Committee on the District of Columbia.
 2. U.S. Const. art I, Sec. 8, clause 
        17.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Use in the District

Sec. 35.1 In the 76th Congress, the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia and not the Committee on the Public Lands (now the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs) had jurisdiction of a 
    bill providing for the exchange of certain park lands at the

[[Page 2850]]

    northern boundary of Piney Branch Parkway, near Argyle Terrace, for 
    other lands more suitable for the use and development of Piney 
    Branch Parkway.

    On July 1, 1939,(3) Mr. Rene L. DeRouen, of Louisiana, 
obtained unanimous consent to have H.R. 6938 rereferred from the 
Committee on Public Lands [now the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs], to the Committee on the District of Columbia.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 8521, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. S. 2666, which was identical to H.R. 6938, was reported by the 
        Committee on the District of Columbia on June 30, 1939 (S. 
        Rept. No. 711).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.2 The Committee on the District of Columbia, and not the 
    Committee on House Administration, has exercised jurisdiction over 
    a resolution relating to the National Capitol Planning Commission's 
    providing a suitable site for erection of a statue by the State of 
    Maine.

    On Sept. 14, 1962,(5) Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, 
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, obtained unanimous 
consent to rerefer House Resolution 799 from his committee to the 
Committee on the District of Columbia.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 19454, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. H. Res. 799 was reported by the Committee on the District of 
        Columbia on Sept. 20, 1962 (H. Rept. No. 2445).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.3 The Committee on the District of Columbia and not the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has jurisdiction of a 
    proposal to amend the act entitled ``an act authorizing and 
    directing the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to 
    construct two four-lane bridges to replace the existing 14th Street 
    or Highway Bridge across the Potomac River, and for other 
    purposes.''

    On May 21, 1956,(7) J. Percy Priest, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of a letter from the president of the District of 
Columbia's Board of Commissioners (Exec. Comm. No. 1602), containing a 
draft of the proposed legislation described above and to have the 
letter rereferred to the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 102 Cong. Rec. 8582, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2851]]

Committee on the District of Columbia.

D.C. Metropolitan Development

Sec. 35.4 Under the rules in effect in the 86th Congress, the Committee 
    on the District of Columbia, and not the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce, had jurisdiction of regulations to establish 
    an objective for coordinating the development of the District of 
    Columbia with that of other areas in the Washington metropolitan 
    region.

    On Jan. 14, 1960,(8) Oren Harris, of Arkansas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, obtained unanimous 
consent to have Senate Joint Resolution 42 discharged from the 
consideration of his committee and rereferred to the Committee on the 
District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 106 Cong. Rec. 560, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The primary emphasis of Senate Joint 
Resolution 42 was on coordinating actions in the fields of health, 
traffic, and other areas.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. S.J. Res. 42 was reported by the Committee on the District of 
        Columbia on June 7, 1960 (H. Rept. No. 1759).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consolidation of Corporations

Sec. 35.5 In the 88th Congress, the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia, and not the Committee on the Judiciary, had jurisdiction 
    of a bill authorizing a corporation chartered under the laws of the 
    District of Columbia to consolidate with a corporation chartered 
    under the laws of a state [the resultant corporation to be subject 
    to the laws of the District].

    On May 6, 1963,(10) by direction of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, Mr. Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., of Maryland, obtained 
unanimous consent to have H.R. 5342 rereferred from that committee to 
the Committee on the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong Rec. 7812, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The primary emphasis of H.R. 5342 was to 
authorize the consolidation of the Association of Universalist Women 
with the Alliance of Unitarian Women.

George Washington University Hospital Facilities; Grants to Construct

Sec. 35.6 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on the District of

[[Page 2852]]

    Columbia, and not the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
    had jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the Surgeon General to make 
    grants to George Washington University to aid in planning and 
    constructing new facilities in the District at the George 
    Washington University Hospital.

    On Sept. 5, 1961,(11) Oren Harris, of Arkansas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce obtained unanimous 
consent to have H.R. 8916 rereferred from his committee to the 
Committee on the District of Columbia.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 107 Cong. Rec. 18132, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 8916 was reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia 
        on Mar. 9, 1962 (H. Rept. No. 1413).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parking Facilities on Federal Land

Sec. 35.7 In the 91st Congress, the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia, and not the Committee on Public Works, had jurisdiction 
    of a bill which (1) authorized the Commissioners of the District of 
    Columbia to construct, maintain, and operate parking facilities for 
    government employees and visitors, in the District and in 
    surrounding fringe areas on federal land, and (2) provided that the 
    proceeds from parking fees were to be applied to the District of 
    Columbia public schools.

    On Jan. 29, 1969,(13) George H. Fallon, of Maryland, 
Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 2194 and to have it rereferred to the Committee on the District of 
Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 2101, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 2194 was originally referred to the 
Committee on Public Works because of the provision which permitted the 
commissioners to construct ``fringe area parking lots,'' outside of the 
District of Columbia. However, the Committee on Public Works expressed 
its willingness to have the bill rereferred.

Public Employment Service

Sec. 35.8 The Committee on the District of Columbia and not the 
    Committee on Education and Labor has jurisdiction of a bill and an 
    executive communication relating thereto, ``to transfer to the 
    govern

[[Page 2853]]

    ment of the District of Columbia the Public Employment Service for 
    the District of Columbia.''

    On Mar. 28, 1957,(14) Graham A. Barden, of North 
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, obtained 
unanimous consent to have H.R. 5021 and accompanying Executive 
Communication No. 431 from the Assistant Secretary of Labor, rereferred 
from his committee to the Committee on the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 4664, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

District of Columbia Militia

Sec. 35.9 The Committee on the District of Columbia, and not the 
    Committee on Armed Services, has jurisdiction of a bill amending 
    the District of Columbia Code to provide that the jurisdiction of 
    courts-martial of the District of Columbia militia shall extend to 
    militia members not in active federal service.

    On May 4, 1972,(15) by direction of Chairman F. Edward 
Hebert, of Louisiana, of the Committee on Armed Services, Mr. G. V. 
(Sonny) Montgomery, of Mississippi, obtained unanimous consent to have 
H.R. 9807 rereferred from that committee to the Committee on the 
District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 15778, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 36. Committee on Education and Labor

    The first Committee on Education and Labor was created in 
1867,(16) divided into separate committees in 
1883,(l7) and recombined into its present form in 1947, on 
the effective date [Jan. 2, 1947], of the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4242.
17. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4242, 4244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor pursuant 
to the 1973 rules (18) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XI clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 687 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(g), House Rules and Manual Sec. 676 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Measures relating to education or labor generally.
        (b) Child labor.
        (c) Columbia Institution for the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind; Howard 
    University; Freedmen's Hospital; and Saint Elizabeths Hospital.
        (d) Convict labor and the entry of goods made by convicts into 
    interstate commerce.
        (e) Labor standards.
        (f) Labor statistics.

[[Page 2854]]

        (g) Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes.
        (h) Regulation or prevention of importation of foreign laborers 
    under contract.
        (i) School-lunch program.

        (j) United States Employees' Compensation Commission.
        (k) Vocational rehabilitation.
        (l) Wages and hours of labor.
        (m) Welfare of miners.

    The committee maintained eight subcommittees in 1973:

        (1) The General Subcommittee on Education;
        (2) The Select Subcommittee on Education;
        (3) The Special Subcommittee on Education;
        (4) The Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities;
        (5) The Subcommittee on Agricultural Labor;
        (6) The General Subcommittee on Labor;
        (7) The Select Subcommittee on Labor; and
        (8) The Special Subcommittee on Labor.

    As the precedents reveal, the jurisdiction of the committee and of 
its predecessors has extended to such subjects as benefits and rights 
under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act; (19) 
amendments to that statute; (20) disability and/or death 
benefits for Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees; (21) 
Forest Service employees; (22) and employees of U.S. 
contractors; (23) matters pertaining to the Longshoremen's 
and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act; (24) loan and grant 
making for the expansion of state public school facilities; 
(25) establishing mineral resource conservation institutes; 
(26) and assisting states and localities in programs dealing 
with human services; (27) juvenile delinquency; 
(1) and runaway youth.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 36.3-36.9, infra.
20. See Sec. Sec. 36.3-36.9, infra
21. Sec. 36.4, infra.
22. Sec. 36.6, infra.
23. Sec. 36.5, infra.
24. Sec. 36.15, infra.
25. Sec. 36.1, infra.
26. Sec. 36.16, infra.
27. Sec. 36.11, infra.
 1. Sec. 36.12, infra.
 2. Sec. 36.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective Jan. 3, 
1975,(3) the Committee on Education and Labor gained 
jurisdiction over food programs for children in schools (although the 
committee already had de facto jurisdiction over that subject), work 
incentive programs, and Indian education, and the committee lost 
jurisdiction over international education matters, a subject 
transferred to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

[[Page 2855]]

The Committee Reform Amendments also granted the Committee on Education 
and Labor special oversight jurisdiction over certain programs [see 
Rule X clause 3(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1979)]:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (c) The Committee on Education and Labor shall have the 
    function of reviewing, studying, and coordinating, on a continuing 
    basis, all laws, programs, and Government activities dealing with 
    or involving domestic educational programs and institutions and 
    programs of student assistance, which are within the jurisdiction 
    of other committees.                          -------------------

Educational Assistance Programs

Sec. 36.1 The Committee on Education and Labor and not the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency has jurisdiction of a bill to authorize the 
    making of grants and loans to the states to assist in providing 
    adequate public elementary and secondary school facilities.

    On Jan. 25, 1949,(4) Brent Spence, of Kentucky, Chairman 
of the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1551, 
and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Education and Labor. In 
so doing, Mr. Spence had noted that two similar bills, one in the 
previous session and the other in the current session, had been 
referred to the latter committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 95 Cong. Rec. 533, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 36.2 A message received from the President was rereferred from the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to the Committee on 
    Education and Labor, after examination by the Speaker, where the 
    first portion of the message called for increased appropriations 
    with respect to ongoing programs of the National Science 
    Foundation, and the second portion called for legislation 
    authorizing new educational programs.

    On Jan. 27, 1958,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid 
before the House a message (H. Doc. No. 318), from President Dwight D. 
Eisenhower, which was read, referred to the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce and ordered to be printed. The message consisted of 
two parts. The first segment called for a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 104 Cong. Rec. 1073, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2856]]

``fivefold increase in appropriations'' (6) for scientific 
education activities of the National Science Foundation including, 
among other things, the expansion of four ongoing programs of the 
Foundation. The second segment called for legislation authorizing new 
programs (7) in the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare to reduce the waste of talent, strengthen the teaching of 
science and mathematics, increase the supply of college teachers, 
improve foreign language teaching, and strengthen the Office of 
Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 1073.
 7. Id. at p. 1074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later in the day the Speaker made the following announcement: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 1112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        After further examination of the President's message and the 
    recommendations made therein, the Chair believes that the proper 
    committee to which to refer the President's message is the 
    Committee on Education and Labor instead of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, because on the Science Foundation 
    no new law is suggested, simply more appropriations. The other part 
    of the President's message deals with education. Therefore the 
    Chair is going to change the reference of the President's message 
    and whatever bills are introduced on that subject, to the Committee 
    on Education and Labor.

Federal Employee Disability or Death Benefits; Matters Relating to 
    Federal Employees Compensation Act

Sec. 36.3 The Committee on Education and Labor, and not the Committee 
    on the Judiciary has jurisdiction of bills to amend the U.S. 
    Employees' Compensation Act of Sept. 7, 1916.

    On Jan. 19, 1948,(9) Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, stated that a bill (H.R. 
3239), to amend section 4 of the United States Employees' Compensation 
Act, approved Sept. 7, 1916,(10) had been ``inadvertently 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.'' After noting that he had 
conferred with the Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, 
Fred A. Hartley, of New Jersey, the Member who introduced the measure, 
Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, and other interested parties, Mr. 
Michener sought and obtained
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 304, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. The Committee on Education and Labor has jurisdiction generally 
        over compensation for work injuries to federal employees. The 
        primary legislation governing this area, the Federal Employees' 
        Compensation Act, appears at 5 USC Sec. Sec. 8101 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2857]]

unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
    The next day, Jan. 20, 1948,(~11) Mr. Michener similarly 
requested unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be 
discharged from further consideration of certain bills (H.R. 790, H.R. 
970, H.R. 1872, H.R. 2047, H.R. 2048, H.R. 3480, H.R. 3673, and H.R. 
3927) amending or otherwise affecting the United States Employees' 
Compensation Act of Sept. 7, 1916, and that the bills be rereferred to 
the Committee on Education and Labor. In so doing, he noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 369, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I may state that I have consulted with the Parliamentarian and 
    am advised that these bills have been wrongly referred because the 
    jurisdiction of the committees has been changed under the 
    Reorganization Act. I have conferred with the author of each of the 
    bills and also with the chairman of the Committee on Education and 
    Labor, and there is no objection.

    The bills in question, were described, as follows:

        H.R. 790, a bill to amend the act of September 7, 1916, by 
    providing for a hearing of claims of employees of the United States 
    before the United States Employees' Compensation Commission.
        H.R. 970, a bill to increase the compensation for total 
    disability granted employees of the United States under the United 
    States Employees' Compensation Act of September 7, 1916.
        H.R. 1872, a bill to amend the act entitled ``An act to provide 
    compensation for employees of the United States suffering injuries 
    while in the performance of their duties, and for other purposes,'' 
    approved September 7, 1916, as amended.
        H.R. 2047, a bill to amend the act of September 7, 1916, 
    providing compensation for injuries to employees of the United 
    States.
        H.R. 2048, a bill to amend the act entitled ``An act to provide 
    compensation for employees of the United States suffering injuries 
    while in the performance of their duties, and for other purposes,'' 
    as amended.
        H.R. 3480, a bill to amend the United States Employees' 
    Compensation Act of September 7, 1916, so as to increase the 
    maximum and minimum monthly compensation. . . .
        H.R. 3673, a bill to extend the benefits of the United States 
    Employees' Compensation Act of September 7, 1916, to active-duty 
    members of the Civil Air Patrol, and for other purposes.
        H.R. 3927, a bill to amend the act of September 7, 1916, to 
    authorize certain expenditures from the employees' compensation 
    fund, and for other purposes.

    The rereferrals were then effected by unanimous 
consent.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For a similar rereferral in a later Congress, see 95 Cong. Rec. 
        1043, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 9, 1949.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2858]]

Sec. 36.4 The Committee on Education and Labor and not the Committee on 
    the Judiciary has jurisdiction of a bill providing that the monthly 
    compensation of totally disabled former Civilian Conservation Corps 
    enrollees shall continue so long as they remain totally disabled.

    On Mar. 15, 1948,(13) Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have that committee discharged from further consideration of several 
measures including H.R. 1431 and to have them rereferred to the 
Committee on Education and Labor In so doing, he had noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 2846, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Under the Reorganization Act the Committee on Education 
    and Labor is specifically given jurisdiction over these bills.
        I have conferred with the chairman of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor, all the authors of the bill have been 
    contacted, and there is no objection.

Sec. 36.5 The Committee on Education and Labor, and not the Committee 
    on the Judiciary has jurisdiction of a bill to amend the act of 
    Dec. 2, 1942, entitled ``An act to provide benefits for the injury, 
    disability, death, or enemy detention of employees of contractors 
    with the United States and for other purposes,'' to clarify the 
    eligibility for benefits of certain employees detained by the enemy 
    in the Philippines Islands.

    On Jan. 20, 1948,(14) Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on the Judiciary 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3596 among others, and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on Education and Labor. In so 
doing, he had noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 369, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I may state that I have consulted with the Parliamentarian and 
    am advised that these bills have been wrongly referred because the 
    jurisdiction of the committees has been changed under the 
    Reorganization Act. I have conferred with the author of each of the 
    bills and also with the chairman of the Committee on Education and 
    Labor, and there is no objection.

Sec. 36.6 The Committee on Education and Labor, and not the Committee 
    on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a bill to 
    provide a lump sum death payment to beneficiaries of Forest Service 
    employees killed while combating forest fires.

[[Page 2859]]

    On May 5, 1950,(15) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 8162 and to have it rereferred to the Committee 
on Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.  96 Cong. Rec. 6548, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 36.7 The Committee on Education and Labor, and not the Committee 
    on Post Office and Civil Service, has jurisdiction of proposals to 
    amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act Amendments of 1960.

    On Aug. 18, 1961,(1~6) Thomas J Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent that an executive communication (Exec. Comm. No. 
1214), the subject of which is specified above, be rereferred from his 
committee to the Committee on Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 16271, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 36.8 The Committee on Education and Labor and not the Committee on 
    Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a bill to permit 
    employees of the Canal Zone Government and the Panama Canal Company 
    to appeal decisions under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act 
    to the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board.

    On Sept. 24, 1951,(17) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of S. 1271 and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Education and Labor.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 11991, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
18. S. 1271 was reported by the Committee on Education and Labor on 
        July 1, 1952 (H. Rept. No. 2425).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 36.9 The Committee on Education and Labor and not the Committee on 
    Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a bill to amend 
    the Federal Employees' Compensation Act with respect to the 
    computation of disability payments in the case of certain seamen 
    and other persons.

    On May 19, 1952,(19) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unani
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 98 Cong. Rec. 5443, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2860]]

mous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 7621 and to have it rereferred to the Committee 
on Education and Labor.

Fair Employment Practices

Sec. 36.10 Bills providing for a Fair Employment Practices Commission 
    through amendment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, itself, 
    was referred to and reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, 
    were referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.

    On June 10, 1965,(20) Mr. James Roosevelt, of 
California, and Mr. Ogden R. Reid, of New York, each introduced a bill 
(H.R. 8998, H.R. 8999, respectively), the subject matter of which is 
specified above. Both bills were referred to the Committee on Education 
and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 13296, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human Services Programs

Sec. 36.11 Under the rules in effect in the 92d Congress, the Committee 
    on Education and Labor, and not the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    had jurisdiction of proposals to assist states and localities to 
    coordinate human services programs administered by the Department 
    of Health, Education, and Welfare.

    On June 21, 1972,(21) Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent 
to have House Document No. 92-296, and Executive Communication No. 
2006, rereferred from his committee to the Committee on Education and 
Labor where both communications contained the type of proposals 
specified above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 118 Cong. Rec. 21733, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Programs for human services administered by 
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare came within the 
jurisdictions of several committees of the House, including Ways and 
Means, Education and Labor, and Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The 
proposals had originally been referred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means because several of the services involved social security 
benefits.

Juvenile Delinquents and Runaways

Sec. 36.12 The Committee on Education and Labor, and not

[[Page 2861]]

    the Committee on the Judiciary, has jurisdiction of a bill to 
    assist state and local government programs for the control of 
    juvenile delinquency.

    On Jan. 22, 1959,(1) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of H.R. 772 
and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 105 Cong. Rec. 1027, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 36.13 The Committee on Education and Labor, and not the Committee 
    on the Judiciary, has jurisdiction of bills to strengthen 
    interstate reporting and interstate services for parents of runaway 
    children, to conduct research on the size of the runaway youth 
    population, and for temporary housing and counseling services for 
    transient youth.

    On July 12, 1973,(2) Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New 
Jersey, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous 
consent to have S. 645 rereferred from his committee to the Committee 
on Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 23633, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Sept. 10, 1973,(3) Mr. Rodino again obtained 
unanimous consent to have similar bills (H.R. 1807, H.R. 2316, H.R. 
3274), also rereferred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 28970, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the latter instance, the three bills had 
been originally referred to the Committee on the Judiciary due to the 
inclusion of title I authorizing Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration grants to law enforcement agencies to fund reporting 
services.

Labor Disputes in Defense Industries

Sec. 36.14 The House granted unanimous consent that a bill to diminish 
    the cause of labor disputes in defense industries be referred from 
    the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on Education and 
    Labor.

    On Nov. 19, 1941,(4) Speaker pro tempore Harry R. 
Sheppard, of California, recognized Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
who proceeded to make the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 87 Cong. Rec. 9017, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit a unanimous-consent request.

[[Page 2862]]

        I would like the attention of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Sumners], chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Michener]. On yesterday I introduced 
    H.R. 6066, having for its title to diminish the cause of labor 
    disputes in defense industries. That bill was referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary. After consultation with the chairman of 
    the Committee on Labor, I find that it is the purpose of that 
    committee to give consideration to that type of legislation during 
    the next week. The committee feels that it cannot give 
    consideration to that bill because the bill is not before the Labor 
    Committee.
        I therefore ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the 
    Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration 
    of the bill H.R. 6066, and that it be rereferred to the Committee 
    on Labor.

    At this juncture, Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, reserving the 
right to object, noted that ``the Judiciary Committee does not want to 
waive any of its parliamentary rights.'' He added, however, that in 
light of the presence of the chairman of that committee, and ``inasmuch 
as this bill is as stated by its author, a labor bill entirely,'' he 
would not object.
    Immediately thereafter, the Chair recognized Hatton W. Sumners, of 
Texas, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the following 
exchange ensued:

        Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I am not familiar 
    with the provisions of the bill, but I have no objection, with the 
    understanding that the waiver does not create any precedent.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I understand it does not waive any 
    rights. It is done under these special circumstances, because that 
    committee is going to consider that sort of legislation very 
    intensively.

    Shortly thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent to the 
rereferral.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act

Sec. 36.15 The Committee on Education and Labor and not the Committee 
    on the Judiciary has jurisdiction of bills to increase certain 
    benefits payable under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' 
    Compensation Act or otherwise amending that act.

    On Mar. 15, 1948,(5) Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have that committee discharged from consideration of several 
measures including those described above (H.R. 5653, H.R. 5739, H.R. 
1871, and H.R. 2719), and to have them rereferred to the Committee on 
Education and Labor. In so doing, he had noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 94 Cong. Rec. 2846, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Under the Reorganization Act the Committee on Education 
    and

[[Page 2863]]

    Labor is specifically given jurisdiction over these bills.
        I have conferred with the chairman of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor, all the authors of the bills have been 
    contacted, and there is no objection.

Mineral Resources Conservation Institutes

Sec. 36.16 The Committee on Education and Labor, whose legislative 
    domain under the rules includes ``education generally'' and the 
    ``welfare of miners,'' has jurisdiction of a proposal to amend the 
    Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish mineral resources 
    conservation institutes, although the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs under the rules has jurisdiction of ``mining 
    schools'' and ``mining interests generally.''

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(6) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
7248), to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other 
acts dealing with higher education. In the course of the bill's 
consideration, the Committee on Education and Labor offered an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute (7) which eventually 
prompted a jurisdictional point of order pursuant to a special rule 
permitting jurisdictional points of order against portions of that 
substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 117 Cong. Rec. 39248, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Id. at p. 39263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The controversy arose over title XI, pertaining to the improvement 
of mineral conservation education. Of particular pertinence were the 
following provisions in that title: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 39263, 39264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Title XI--Improvement of Mineral Conservation Education

        Sec. 1101. The Higher Education Act of 1965 adding after title 
    XII the following new title:

          ``Title XIII--Improvement of Mineral Conservation Education

        ``Sec. 1301. The Congress, in recognition of the profound 
    impact of mineral exploration and development on the health and 
    safety of persons working in the mineral industries and . . . in 
    recognition of the fact that the prosperity and future welfare of 
    the Nation is dependent, in large measure, on the sound 
    exploration, extraction, processing, and development of its 
    unrenewable mineral resources, declares that it is the purpose of 
    this title to assist in assuring the Nation, at all times, of an 
    adequate supply of mineral engineers and scientists (a) for the 
    mineral industries engaged in research, investigations, 
    experiments, demonstrations, exploration, extrac

[[Page 2864]]

    tion, processing, developing, and production of such resources in a 
    matter consistent with the need to protect and enhance the quality 
    of the total environment, and (b) for the public agencies concerned 
    with such mineral activities, with the health and safety of persons 
    employed in such industries, and with the protection and 
    enhancement of the total environment.
        ``Sec. 1302. (a) The Commissioner is authorized to make, in 
    accordance with the provisions of this title, grants each fiscal 
    year, for establishing and carrying out the work of a competent and 
    qualified mineral resources conservation institute, center, or 
    equivalent agency (hereinafter referred to as an 'institute'), to 
    such institutions of higher education as he may select, not to 
    exceed ten in the Nation, and selected so as to serve the needs of 
    a region, which shall be an institution of higher education 
    established in accordance with sections 1 through 5, 7, and 8, of 
    the act of July 2, 1862, as amended (7 U.S.C. 30-305, 307, and 
    308), or some other institution of higher education designated by 
    the Governor of the State with which the institution is located. 
    Institutions of higher education selected under this subsection are 
    encouraged to cooperate with other such institutions in 
    participating in the work of the institute. . . .
        ``Sec. 1303. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
    Commissioner for fiscal year 1972 and for each of the succeeding 
    fiscal years ending prior to July 1, 1976, not to exceed $5,000,000 
    annually. Such sums shall remain available until expended for 
    grants to institutes designated under this title where there is an 
    application approved under this title to match, on a dollar-for-
    dollar basis, funds made available to such institutes by State or 
    other non-Federal sources to pay the costs of conducting specific 
    mineral research and demonstration projects of industry-wide 
    application relating (1) to the conservation, exploration, 
    extraction, processing, development, or production of mineral 
    resources, including but not limited to, the recycling and reuse of 
    such resources and the products and wastes thereof, and (2) to the 
    protection or enhancement of health and safety of persons employed 
    in the minerals industries and of the environment in connection 
    with mineral operations. The Commissioner shall provide for an 
    equitable distribution of the sums appropriated among institutes 
    for which an application is approved under section 1302 of this 
    title. . . .
        ``Sec. 1304. There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
    Commissioner $10,000,000 for the fiscal year 1972, and increasing 
    $2,000,000, annually for four years, from which he may, in 
    consultation with the Secretary of the Interior make grants or 
    contracts with any educational institution to undertake mineral 
    research and demonstration projects consistent with the purposes 
    and applicable provisions of this table.''

    In the ensuing debate, Chairman pro tempore Edward P. Boland, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Edmond Edmondson, of Oklahoma, a member 
of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, who raised the 
following point of order:

        Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 661,(9) I 
    make a point of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 661, agreed to on Oct. 27, 1971 [117 Cong. Rec. 37769, 92d 
        Cong. 1st Sess.], prescribed the special rule by which H.R. 
        7248 was to be considered, and provided, among other things 
        [Id. at p. 37765], that ``all titles, parts, or sections of the 
        [amendment in the nature of a] substitute, the subject matter 
        of which is properly within the jurisdiction of any other 
        standing committee of the House of Representatives, shall be 
        subject to a point of order for such reason if such point of 
        order is properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 
        7248.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2865]]

    order against title XI of H.R. 7248 on the ground that the subject 
    matter of title XI is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interior and Insular Affairs.

        Under rule XI, clause 10, of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives,(10) the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs has jurisdiction over mining interests generally 
    and over mining schools and experimental stations specifically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Under this clause [See Rule XI clause 10, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 702 (1973)] the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 
        was accorded jurisdiction over ``mining interests generally 
        [clause 10(k)]'' and ``mining schools and experimental stations 
        [clause 10(l)],'' among other subjects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title XI of the bill authorizes grants to establish 10 mineral 
    resources conservation institutes. The purpose of these institutes 
    is to train mineral engineers and scientists, and to conduct 
    research and experiments of either a basic or practical nature. 
    These institutes clearly are mining schools and mining experimental 
    stations within the meaning of the rules of the House.
        Title XI of the bill also authorizes matching grants to these 
    10 new institutes for the purpose of conducting specific mineral 
    research and demonstration projects of industrywide application. 
    These are activities historically carried on by mining school and 
    experiment stations. These activities also relate to mining 
    interests generally. Both subjects are assigned to the Committee on 
    Interior and Insular Affairs.
        Title XI of the bill further authorizes grants to any 
    educational institution to undertake mineral research and 
    demonstration projects. Such projects can reasonably be expected to 
    be carried out through the mining school or the mining department 
    of the grantee. Moreover, the purpose of the research and 
    demonstration projects is to promote the interests of the mining 
    community generally.
        Finally, a separate bill, S. 635, which also authorizes grants 
    to establish mineral resources institutes, has been referred to the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and is now pending 
    before our committee. S. 635 and title XI of H.R. 7248 deal with 
    the same subject matter. Both provide for mining schools, or 
    institutes, which will engage in mining and mineral research, 
    demonstrations, and experiments. Both will train engineers, 
    scientists, and technicians in the minerals field. S. 635 was 
    properly referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 
    Title XI of H.R. 7248 deals with exactly the same subject, and it 
    also is within the jurisdiction of the Interior Committee. I make a 
    point of order against the retention of title XI in the bill.

    Responding to the point of order, Mr. John H. Dent, of 
Pennsylvania, noted:

[[Page 2866]]

        Mr. Chairman, at the outset I might say this particular section 
    in the act embodies the contents of H.R. 3942, a bill introduced by 
    myself and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Green) as the initial 
    and original proposal to create these mineral research schools. . . 
    . It was introduced on February 3, 1971, and it was sent to the 
    Committee on Education and Labor--and properly so, we thought, and 
    so think at this moment.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Aspinall) and 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Edmondson) contend that title XI 
    of the bill is subject matter not properly within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Education and Labor, but rather within that of 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. This is not the 
    case.
        The subject matter of title XI is higher education, as is the 
    subject matter of all of H.R. 7248. The subject matter of other 
    referred--to legislation under consideration by the Committee on 
    Interior and Insular Affairs is mineral research.
        The thrust and purpose of title XI, as stated in section 1301 
    of the bill, is to assure the Nation an adequate supply of mineral 
    engineers and scientists. The section also contains a congressional 
    declaration to that effect.
        The essence of all of title XI is to support the education of 
    such personnel, and the colleges and universities that train them. 
    It is not, in any way, an intrusion into the clear prerogative of 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in matters of 
    ``mining interests generally,'' as prescribed by rule XI--Powers 
    and Duties of Committees--of the rules of the House. Rather--and 
    rule XI is not silent on this point--it falls within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor pursuant to 
    its responsibility for ``measures relating to education--
    generally.''

    Mr. Dent further elaborated on his position by differentiating 
title XI from a ``minerals research'' bill (H.R. 10950),which he knew 
to be of interest to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 117 Cong. Rec. 39264, 39265, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title XI is in most respects complementary to, rather than in 
    conflict with, the bill on which the chairman of the Interior and 
    Insular Affairs Committee intends to hold hearings--H.R. 10950. 
    Whereas the emphasis of the Interior Committee bill is on research, 
    investigation, advancement of knowledge, and establishment of 
    development programs, the stated purpose of title XI is ``to assist 
    in assuring the Nation, at all times, of an adequate supply of 
    mineral engineers and scientists.'' To achieve this purpose the 
    title gives a high priority, for example, to the development and 
    support of appropriate 4-year undergraduate curriculums by 
    encouraging the employment of ``adequate and competent faculty 
    personnel,'' by recommending funds for equipment to be ``used 
    primarily for the education and training of individuals,'' and by 
    making provision for scholarship funds. In support of more advanced 
    education it provides for fellowships and postdoctoral fellowships. 
    Title XI also provides sums for

[[Page 2867]]

    the conduct of specific mineral research and demonstration projects 
    of industrywide application.
        . . . [O]ur Nation's position in the mineral resources area is 
    deteriorating dangerously. It is not so much the result of 
    exhaustion of the country's mineral resources as it is of our not 
    developing the needed technology for efficient processing and 
    utilization of the resources we have. Of paramount importance at 
    the present time is a strong governmental program directed at 
    developing the human resources involved--that is, personnel trained 
    in the fields of mineral sciences and technology--and a 
    simultaneous program to develop the knowledge needed for the useful 
    development of our solid, liquid, and gaseous mineral resources.
        Title XI will provide an important beginning in support of the 
    tremendous need for appropriate education in this critical area. In 
    this respect it will effectively complement the Interior Committee 
    bill which appropriately places emphasis on research and 
    development.

    Referring again to the original source of title XI, Mr. Dent 
continued:

        H.R. 4392 proposed a new title XIII--Improvement of Mineral 
    Conservation Education--to the Higher Education Act of 1965. It was 
    referred to the Committee on Education and Labor; and it was 
    included as title XI in the bill now before us, with none other 
    than a few minor technical changes. At that time, the decision was 
    made that the bill was properly within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor. Since the question before the 
    Chair does not involve language other than that contained in my 
    original bill, I do not see on what basis the point of order can be 
    sustained.

    Completing his rebuttal with a brief discussion of jurisdictional 
conflicts, in general, he noted:

        Moreover, it is apparent that the jurisdiction of some broad 
    subject matters--such as mining--is often divided among committees. 
    With respect to mining, it is obvious that ``mining interests 
    generally'' are within the province of the Committee on Interior 
    and Insular Affairs. Yet, insofar as health and safety legislation 
    for miners generally, that is within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor.
        The bill before us contains a similar example. Title X--
    Improvement of Graduate Programs--provides grants, for instance, to 
    medical schools. There is no challenge that this provision invades 
    the jurisdiction of any other committee. Yet, the subject matter is 
    medicine. With regard to the broad field of medicine: the Committee 
    on Interstate and Foreign Commerce is responsible for the Public 
    Health Service Act--including the Hill-Burton Act--and the Federal 
    Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; the Committee on Ways and Means is 
    responsible for medicare, which certainly relates to medicine; the 
    House recently approved the Veterans' Medical Care Act of 1971, 
    reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; the Committee on 
    Armed Services is considering legislation to provide medical 
    schools for the armed services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
    is

[[Page 2868]]

    considering legislation to create an international health agency. I 
    could go on and on, but I expect I have made my point.
        In the face of this, I respectfully suggest that the point of 
    order is not valid; that title XI of H.R. 7248 is quite properly 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor; 
    and that the point of order should not be sustained.

    At this juncture, the Chair announced that he was prepared to rule 
and stated his decision, as follows:

        The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Edmondson) has raised a point 
    of order against title XI, beginning on page 202, line 9 through 
    page 210, line 15, on the grounds that the subject matter of this 
    title is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs and not the Committee on Education and Labor.
        The Chair has listened to the arguments presented and has 
    examined the provisions of title XI, as well as the provisions of 
    the rule, House Resolution 661, which made consideration of this 
    bill in order. The rule provides that any title, part, or section 
    of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
    subject to a point of order if the subject matter thereof is 
    properly within the jurisdiction of another committee.
        Title XI would provide that the Commissioner of Education may 
    make grants for the establishment of not to exceed 10 ``mineral 
    resources conservation institutes'' within existing institutions of 
    higher education which he selects. Appropriations are authorized to 
    enable such institutes to conduct educational training programs, 
    not only in the areas of mineral resources exploration, extraction, 
    processing, development, and conservation, but also in the areas of 
    protection and enhancement of health and safety of persons employed 
    in the minerals industries.
        To be sure, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has 
    jurisdiction, under clauses 10 (k) and (l) of rule XI, over 
    measures relating to ``mining schools'' and ``mining interests.'' 
    It should also be noted, however, that the Committee on Education 
    and Labor,(12) under clauses 6(a) and 6(m) of rule XI, 
    has jurisdiction over measures relating to ``education 
    generally''--thus including institutions of higher education--and 
    over ``welfare of miners,'' which would include the health and 
    safety of miners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XI clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 687 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Where, as here, the jurisdiction of committees of the House is 
    essentially and basically involved, the Chair must refer for 
    guidance to the introduction and reference by the Speaker under 
    rule XI of bills touching on similar subject matter. The Chair 
    notes that on February 3, 1971, the Speaker referred H.R. 3492 to 
    the Committee on Education and Labor. That bill, as does title XI 
    of the committee substitute, proposes an amendment to the Higher 
    Education Act of 1965 and seeks to establish precisely the type of 
    mineral resources conservation institutes within existing 
    institutions of higher education sought to be established by title 
    XI.
        The Chair holds that title XI in the form in which proposed by 
    the Com

[[Page 2869]]

    mittee on Education and Labor is properly within the jurisdiction 
    of that committee, and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Safety Standards for Federal Recreational Campsites

Sec. 36.17 A proposition authorizing the establishment of safety 
    standards for federal recreational campsites on federal property in 
    national parks, reclamation projects, national forests, and Corps 
    of Engineers sites was held to be outside the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(13) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 7248), to 
amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts 
dealing with higher education. In the course of the bill's 
consideration pursuant to a special rule permitting jurisdictional 
points of order, a jurisdictional question arose over part of a 
proposed committee amendment to title XIX of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 39248, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The relevant provisions pertained to the establishment of safety 
standards for federal recreational campsites. Of particular pertinence 
was the following section:(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 39292, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Federal Recreational Camps

        Sec. 1914. (a) The Secretary [of Health, Education, and 
    Welfare] shall develop safety standards to govern the operation of 
    Federal recreational camps. The Secretary shall cooperate with 
    Federal officers and agencies operating Federal recreational camps 
    to assure that such camps are operated in compliance with the 
    Secretary's standards. The Secretary may make the services of 
    personnel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
    available, without reimbursement, to other Federal agencies to 
    assist them in carrying out this section.
        (b) For purposes of this section, a Federal recreational camp 
    is a camp or campground which is located on Federal property and is 
    operated by, or under contract with, a Federal agency to provide 
    opportunities for recreational camping to the public.

    With respect to this section, Mr. John P. Saylor, of Pennsylvania, 
raised the following point of order:

        Mr. Chairman,(15) pursuant to House Resolution 
    661,(16) I make a point of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
16. H. Res. 661, agreed to on Oct. 27, 1971 [117 Cong. Rec. 37769, 92d 
        Cong. 1st Sess.], prescribed the special rule by which H.R. 
        7248 was to be considered, and provided, among other things 
        [id. at p. 37765], that ``all titles, parts, or sections of the 
        [amendment in the nature of a] substitute, the subject matter 
        of which is properly within the jurisdiction of any other 
        standing committee of the House of Representatives, shall be 
        subject to a point of order for such reason if such point of 
        order is properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 
        7248.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2870]]

    order against section 1914 of H.R. 7248 on the ground that the 
    subject matter of the section is within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

        Section 1914 permits the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
    Welfare to develop safety standards that will govern the operation 
    of Federal recreational camps, which are defined as camps on 
    Federal property that provide recreational camping for the public. 
    This definition includes campgrounds open to the public in: First, 
    national parks; second, forest reserves created from the public 
    domain; third, irrigation and reclamation projects; and fourth, 
    public lands generally, which are usually called public domain. 
    More Federal recreational camps are located on the foregoing 
    categories of land than on any other Federal land.
        Jurisdiction over legislation governing the use of the 
    foregoing categories of Federal land is specifically assigned to 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs by rule XI, clause 
    10, of the rules of the House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. This clause, in pertinent part [see rule XI clause 10, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 702 (1973)] listed the following subjects as 
        being within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interior and 
        Insular Affairs: ``(a) Forest reserves and national parks 
        created from the public domain. . . . (e) Irrigation and 
        reclamation, including water supply for reclamation projects, 
        and easements of public lands for irrigation projects, and 
        acquisition of private lands when necessary to complete 
        irrigation projects. . . . (o) Public lands generally, 
        including entry, easements, and grazing thereon.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Edmond Edmondson, of Oklahoma, added:

        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the majority, and the chairman of 
    the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, I want to 
    support the point of order made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Saylor). It is a point of order that the entire committee 
    supports.

    Mr. Dominick V. Daniels, of New Jersey, rose in opposition to the 
point of order, noting that: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 117 Cong. Rec. 39292, 39293, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The essential question is whether section 1914 is, in the words 
    of the rule. and I quote:

            Properly within the jurisdiction of any other standing 
        Committee of the House of Representatives.

        The Education and Labor Committee clearly has jurisdiction over 
    the general question of setting safety standards in youth camps. 
    This is plain from the regular practice of referring bills dealing 
    only with this subject matter to that committee, such as H.R. 17131 
    and H.R. 17307 in the 90th Congress; H.R. 763 in the 91st Congress; 
    and H.R. 1264 and H.R. 11227 in the 92d Congress.

[[Page 2871]]

        It is, of course, true that the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs has jurisdiction over public lands, and the 
    question raised by the point of order is how to reconcile the 
    geographical jurisdiction of the Interior Committee over national 
    parks with the functional jurisdiction of the Education and Labor 
    Committee over child safety conditions.
        It seems clear to me that the two jurisdictions are not 
    mutually exclusive and that certain matters may be appropriately 
    considered one way or the other.
        The Education and Labor Committee had before it a bill dealing 
    with the subject of youth camp safety in general whose provisions 
    should also be applicable to youth camps in Federal parks. Under 
    those circumstances, the subject matter was properly before the 
    Education and Labor Committee without in any way infringing on the 
    Interior Committee's jurisdiction over national parks.

    Also speaking in opposition to the point of order, Mr. Peter A. 
Peyser, of New York, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, without having the parliamentary procedure or the 
    background on how the Chair is going to reach its final decision, I 
    believe that one thing that should be considered here is that the 
    area of the Federal lands that are involved in the national parks 
    and other areas that are used by camping associations and travel 
    camps are specific areas that should be included in this particular 
    act, and under this program. We gave instances that we can speak 
    of, and will show of fatalities that have occurred on Federal lands 
    where improper or no safety regulations that should have been 
    enforced were enforced. Where we are to position now, or certainly 
    are on our lands that are controlled by this Government, to 
    incorporate this in one bill and leave this most important section 
    as part of our Camp Safety Act.

    Announcing that he was ready to rule, the Chair explained his 
decision to sustain the point of order as follows:

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Saylor) has raised a point 
    of order against section 1914 of the pending measure on the ground 
    that it is not properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor.

        The section in question authorizes the Secretary of Health, 
    Education, and Welfare to develop safety standards to govern the 
    operation of Federal recreational camps.
        As the Chair understands the section, it pertains to camps and 
    campgrounds on Federal property--in national park reclamation 
    projects, national forests, at facilities operated by the Corps of 
    Engineers in connection with public works.
        The Chair does not feel that his reading of rule XI discloses 
    any clause which would place legislation with respect to safety 
    standards at such campsites within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor.
        The Chair feels that if a bill embodying the provisions of 
    section 1914 were introduced as a separate piece of legislation, it 
    would be referred to a committee other than the Committee on 
    Education and Labor.
        The Chair. therefore, sustains the point of order and the 
    language is

[[Page 2872]]

    stricken from the committee amendment.



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 37. Committee on Foreign Affairs

    The Committee on Foreign Affairs has been a standing committee of 
the House since 1822.(19) Its jurisdiction pursuant to the 
1973 rules (1) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4162. The name of the committee was 
        changed to the Committee on International Relations in the 94th 
        Congress [H. Res. 163, 121 Cong. Rec. 7343, 7344, 94th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Mar. 19, 1975], but was changed back to the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs in the 96th Congress [H. Res. 89, 
        125 Cong. Rec. --, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 5, 1979].
 1. Rule XI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 689 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(h), House Rules and Manual Sec. 677 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Relations of the United States with foreign nations 
    generally.
        (b) Acquisition of land and buildings for embassies and 
    legations in foreign countries.
        (c) Establishment of boundary lines between the United States 
    and foreign nations.
        (d) Foreign loans.
        (e) International conferences and congresses.
        (f) Intervention abroad and declarations of war.
        (g) Measures relating to the diplomatic service.
        (h) Measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign 
    nations and to safeguard American business interests abroad.
        (i) Neutrality.
        (j) Protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation.
        (k) The American National Red Cross.
        (l) United Nations Organization and international financial and 
    monetary organizations.

    The rules (2) also provide:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XXI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 845 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No bill for the payment or adjudication of any private claim 
    against the Government shall be referred, except by unanimous 
    consent, to any other than the following committees, namely: To the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs or to the Committee on the Judiciary.

    The 1973 subcommittee structure for the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs consisted of four subject matter subcommittees, five regional 
subcommittees, and one special subcommittee, as follows:

                          Subject Matter Subcommittees

        (1) Foreign Economic Policy;
        (2) International Organizations and Movements;
        (3) National Security Policy and Scientific Development; and
        (4) State Department Organization and Foreign Operations.

                             Regional Subcommittees

        (1) Africa;
        (2) Asian and Pacific Affairs;

[[Page 2873]]

        (3) Europe;
        (4) Inter-American Affairs; and
        (5) Near East and South Asia.

                              Special Subcommittee

        Special Subcommittee for Review of Foreign Aid Programs.

    The following list,(3) consisting of the major 
activities of nine of the subcommittees during the 92d Congress, offers 
an insight into their jurisdictional scope:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. This list was compiled by Roger H. Davidson for the use of the 
        Select Committee on Committees. See ``Monographs on the 
        Committees of the House of Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), committee print, pp. 52-54 [enumeration 
        added].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Subcommittee on Foreign Economic Policy

        (1) Coordinating U.S. foreign economic policy (hearings in full 
    Committee);
        (2) British entry into Common Market (hearings);
        (3) Economic policy toward Japan (hearings);
        (4) Foreign policy implications of energy crisis (hearings);
        (5) Italian war claims (hearing);
        (6) New economic policy (hearings);
        (7) Trade adjustment assistance (hearings);
        (8) United States-Canadian economic relations (hearings); and
        (9) U.S. foreign economic policy (hearings).

           Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements

        (1) Atlantic Union delegation (hearings; markup);
        (2) International health problems (hearings);
        (3) International organizations authorizations (hearings; 
    markups);

        (4) Law of international organizations;
        (5) Micronesian claims (hearing; markup);
        (6) Moratoriums on killing wildlife (hearings; markups);
        (7) Northwest Atlantic fisheries (hearing; markup);
        (8) Spokane International Exhibition on the Environment 
    (markup);
        (9) Study missions;
        (10) U.N. activities (hearings);
        (11) U.N. Development Program (study tour);
        (12) U.N. sanctions against Rhodesia (hearings); and
        (13) World environment problems (hearings).

            Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific 
                                  Developments

        (1) Indian Ocean (hearings);
        (2) Military assistance training (study);
        (3) National security policy and changing power alignment 
    (hearings-symposiums);
        (4) Prisoners of war (hearings);
        (5) Science, technology, and diplomacy (documents);
        (6) Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (briefings);
        (7) Transmittal of executive agreements to Congress (hearing; 
    markup); and
        (8) War powers (hearings; markup).

           Subcommittee on State Department Organization and Foreign 
                                   Operations

        (1) Diplomatic privileges (markup);

[[Page 2874]]

        (2) Passport legislation (hearing; markup);
        (3) Simas Kudirka case (hearings);
        (4) State Department authorizations (hearings; markups);
        (5) State Department grievance procedures (hearings);
        (6) USIA activities, authorizations (hearings);
        (7) USIA authorization (hearings; markups);
        (8) USIA coverage of Greece (hearing); and
        (9) USIA impact survey (study).

                             Subcommittee on Africa

        (1) North Africa (hearing with Near East Subcommittee);
        (2) Study missions to Africa (study tours);
        (3) U.N. and Africa (hearing with International Organizations 
    and Movements Subcommittee);
        (4) U.S. business involvement in Southern Africa (hearings); 
    and
        (5) U.S. investments in Southern Africa (study).

                   Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs

        (1) American-Korean relations (hearings);
        (2) China question (hearings; briefing);
        (3) East Pakistan crisis (hearings; study tour);
        (4) New China policy (hearings); and
        (5) Vietnam war legislation (hearing).

                             Subcommittee on Europe

        (1) Cold war (hearings);
        (2) Conference on European security (hearings);
        (3) European community and American interests (study tours with 
    International Organizations and Movements);
        (4) European developments (briefings);
        (5) European parliamentarians (study tour);
        (6) Greece, Spain, and NATO (hearings; study tour);
        (7) Homeporting in Greece (hearing);
        (8) International narcotics traffic (hearings);
        (9) Northern Ireland (hearings);
        (10) Soviet Jewry (hearings; markup); and
        (11) Soviet role in Middle East (hearings with Near East 
    Subcommittee).

                     Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs

        (1) Fishing rights (hearing);
        (2) Inter-American Development Bank (hearings);
        (3) Inter-American Foundation (hearing);
        (4) International Boundary and Water Commission (hearing; 
    markup);
        (5) Latin American development (hearings);
        (6) Latin American events (hearings; briefings);
        (7) Latin American Parliament (tours);
        (8) Mexican-American Boundary Treaty of 1972 (hearing; markup);
        (9) Mexican trade (hearing);
        (10) Panama Canal (hearings);
        (11) Soviet activities in Cuba (document); and
        (12) Tijuana River flood control (hearing).

                           Subcommittee on Near East

        (1) American schools and hospitals abroad (hearing);

[[Page 2875]]

        (2) Future of Jerusalem (hearing);
        (3) Homeporting in Greece (hearings with Europe Subcommittee);
        (4) Middle East issues (briefings);
        (5) Middle East policy (report and recommendations);
        (6) North Africa (hearings with Africa Subcommittee);
        (7) Peace in the Middle East (hearings);
        (8) Sino-Soviet conflict: impact in Middle East (hearing);
        (9) Soviet involvement in Middle East (hearings with Europe 
    Subcommittee);
        (10) U.N. Relief and Works Agency (hearing); and
        (11) U.S. policy toward Persian Gulf (hearings).

    Over the years, the committee's jurisdiction has included bills 
\(4)\ to regulate bridges and dams on international waters, to maintain 
treaty rights of American fishermen, to provide for extradition 
agreements with foreign nations, to arrange for international 
arbitration, and to incorporate the American National Red Cross and 
protect its insignia. The committee has dealt with legislation 
pertaining to extradition with foreign nations, international 
arbitration, violations of neutrality, affairs of the consular service, 
creation of U.S. courts in foreign countries, treaty regulations 
protecting fur seals, subjects of commercial treaties and reciprocal 
arrangements,\(5)\ and some claims of an international nature.\(6)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 690 (1973). See also Rule X clause 
        1(h), House Rules and Manual Sec. 677 (note) (1979).
 5. In the later practice, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
        considered such matters. House Rules and Manual Sec. 677 
        (1979).
 6. In the past, for example, the committee has reported bills 
        indemnifying governments for certain claims of their citizens; 
        see 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1882. It should be borne in mind 
        that prior to 1947, there existed a Committee on Claims, the 
        jurisdiction of which was then transferred to the Committee on 
        the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents reveal, the committee's jurisdiction has also 
extended to such subjects as celebrating Pan American Day in the 
House,\(7)\ giving effect to an international convention on the 
regulation of whaling,\(8)\ establishing a District of Columbia 
corporation to aid international communications by domestic 
groups,\(9)\ extending the time within which to build a bridge across 
the Rio Grande River,\(10)\ receiving the Secretary of State's response 
to a resolution of inquiry on troop commitments abroad,\(11)\ waiving 
Neu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sec. 37.9, infra.
 8. Sec. 37.6, infra.
 9. Sec. 37.4, infra.
10. Sec. 37.10, infra.
11. Sec. 37.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2876]]

trality Act restrictions on the President in the ``Lend-Lease'' 
bill,\(12)\ receiving memorials of sympathy from foreign legislative 
bodies,\(13)\ and entertaining private claims arising out of the 
Foreign Service.\(14)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sec. 37.7, infra.
13. Sec. 37.8, infra.
14. Sec. 37.5, infra; see also Rule XXI, clause 4, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 845 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 vested jurisdiction in the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs over international economic policy, export 
controls, international commodity agreements other than sugar, 
international education, and trading with the enemy, and transferred 
jurisdiction from the committee over international financial and 
monetary organizations (to the Committee on Banking and Currency) over 
international fishing agreements (to the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries). The Committee Reform Amendments also granted the 
committee special oversight jurisdiction (see Rule X clause 3(d), House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 693 [1979]): \(15)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (d) The Committee on International Relations shall have the 
    function of reviewing and studying, on a continuing basis, all 
    laws, programs and Government activities dealing with or involving 
    customs administration, intelligence activities relating to foreign 
    policy, international financial and monetary organizations, and 
    international fishing agreements.

    In the 95th Congress, the Committee on Foreign Affairs was given 
jurisdiction over nonproliferation of nuclear technology and hardware 
and over international agreements on nuclear exports, upon the 
abolition of the legislative jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on 
Atomic Energy.\(16)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4 
        1977.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appointments to U.S. Court for China

Sec. 37.1 The Committee on Foreign Affairs and not the Committee on the 
    Judiciary maintained jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the 
    appointment of a commissioner for the United States Court for China 
    and defining his duties.

    On Apr. 2, 1935,\(17)\ Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
recognized Emanuel Celler, of New York, Chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, who by direction
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 79 Cong. Rec. 4878, 4879, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2877]]

of that committee requested unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 
6547), be rereferred from the Committee on Foreign Affairs to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.

    As Mr. Celler explained:

        Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the chairman of the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs, and he stated he wanted some time to confer with 
    the Parliamentarian. I may say, however, that bills of this 
    character were heretofore referred to the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs because of an Executive order issued by the late President 
    Theodore Roosevelt back in 1906 which conferred jurisdiction over 
    that court to the State Department, but recently, on June 10, 1933, 
    by Executive order of Franklin D. Roosevelt, jurisdiction over the 
    United States Court for China, as well as insular courts, was 
    transferred to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice 
    now exercises jurisdiction which the Department of State heretofore 
    exercised. The Judiciary Committee feels that the reference of 
    these bills, conferring, taking away, or enlarging jurisdiction 
    over these courts, and setting up purely judicial functions, should 
    be to the Judiciary Committee and not to the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs.

    Shortly thereafter, objection having been voiced to the unanimous-
consent request, Mr. Celler moved that H.R. 6547 be rereferred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. The Chair explained that the motion was not 
debatable, and when the question was taken on a division vote (demanded 
by Mr. Celler) there were ayes 37, noes 84. So the motion was rejected.

Citizens' International Claims

Sec. 37.2 The Committee on Foreign Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce has jurisdiction of an executive 
    communication proposing a bill to amend the International Claims 
    Settlement Act of 1949.

    On Mar. 28, 1958,\(18)\ Oren Harris, of Arkansas, Chairman of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, obtained unanimous 
consent to have a letter (Exec. Comm. No. 1736), from the Chairman of 
the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, 
transmitting a draft of the proposed legislation described above 
rereferred from his committee to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 104 Cong. Rec. 5693, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 37.3 The Committee on Foreign Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Claims (now the Committee on the Judiciary) had jurisdiction of a 
    bill for the payment of awards and appraisals heretofore made

[[Page 2878]]

    in favor of citizens of the United States on claims presented under 
    the General Claims Convention of Sept. 8, 1923, between the United 
    States and Mexico.

    On May 23, 1938,\(19)\ Sam D. McReynolds, of Tennessee, Chairman of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, obtained unanimous consent to have 
the Committee on Claims (now the Committee on the Judiciary), 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 3104), and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. In so doing, 
Mr. McReynolds noted that there was no objection on the part of the 
Committee on Claims.\(20)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 83 Cong. Rec. 7273, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
20. S. 3104 was reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 26, 
        1938 (H. Rept. No. 2496).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.C. Corporation to Aid International Communications

Sec. 37.4 The Committee on Foreign Affairs, and not the Committee on 
    the District of Columbia, considered a measure providing for the 
    establishment of a District of Columbia corporation intended to 
    provide support for the activities of private American 
    organizations engaged in the field of communications with foreign 
    peoples.

    On June 21, 1971,\(21)\ John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, 
Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of an executive communication (Exec. Comm. No. 740), and 
to have it rereferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 117 Cong. Rec. 21062, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foreign or Diplomatic Service

Sec. 37.5 The Committee on Foreign Affairs has jurisdiction over 
    private claims arising out of the Foreign Service.

    On May 29, 1936,\(22)\ Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
recognized John J. O'Connor, of New York, Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who requested unanimous consent for the immediate consideration 
of the following resolution reported from that committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 80 Cong. Rec. 8352, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              House Resolution 498

        Resolved, That Rule XXI, clause 3, be, and is hereby, amended 
    to read as follows:
        ``3. No bill for the payment or adjudication of any private 
    claim against

[[Page 2879]]

    the Government shall be referred, except by unanimous consent; to 
    any other than the following-named committees, namely: To the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs, to the Committee on Invalid Pensions, 
    to the Committee on Pensions, to the Committee on Claims, to the 
    Committee on War Claims, to the Committee on the Public Lands, and 
    to the Committee on Accounts.''

    Reserving the right to object, Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, requested an explanation of the measure from Mr. 
O'Connor.
    Mr. O'Connor replied, as follows:

        Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment of the rules \(23)\ with 
    reference to the referring of private claims bills. For many years 
    the Committee on Foreign Affairs has been handling private claims 
    relating to the Consular Service. Some time ago a suggestion was 
    made that a point of order might lie against such claims. There are 
    some on the Consent Calendar, and to obviate the possibility of a 
    point of order being made against a long-established custom, an 
    amendment to this rule seems necessary, and the Committee on Rules 
    reported it out and it was thought that this would be the most 
    expeditious way of disposing of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. This clause (clause 3) did not then include the Committee on 
        Foreign Affairs [see H. Jour. 1280, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. 
        (1935)] and thus a point of order against referral of a bill to 
        the Committee on Foreign Affairs containing such private claims 
        or against a report of that committee placed on the Consent 
        Calendar, might have been sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent to consider 
the resolution, and it was agreed to.(24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. For a more recent version of the rule in question, see Rule XXI 
        clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 845 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Agreements

Sec. 37.6 The Committee on Foreign Affairs and not the Committee on the 
    Judiciary has jurisdiction of a bill to give effect to the 
    convention between the United States and certain other countries 
    for the regulation of whaling, concluded at Geneva, Sept. 24, 1931, 
    and signed on the part of the United States, Mar. 31, 1932.

    On Feb. 3, 1936,(25) Sam D. McReynolds, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs requested unanimous 
consent that the bill (S. 3413), be rereferred to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. Noting that the bill had been originally referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. McReynolds stated that he had 
``discussed it with the chairman of that committee, and it is satisfac
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 80 Cong. Rec. 1381, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2880]]

tory to him that it be rereferred to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.''

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous 
consent.(26)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. S. 3413 was reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on Mar. 
        12, 1936 (H. Rept. No. 2154).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Lend-Lease'' or ``Aid to Britain'' Bills

Sec. 37.7 The House determined that the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
    and not the Committee on Military Affairs (now the Committee on 
    Armed Services) had jurisdiction of the so-called ``Lend-Lease'' or 
    ``Aid to Britain'' bill, the major purpose of which was to waive 
    certain restrictions placed upon the President under the Neutrality 
    Act and to substitute therefor an affirmative grant of power, 
    enabling the President to negotiate with foreign governments 
    regarding the possible exchange of weaponry, vessels, ``defense 
    articles,'' and ``defense information.''

    On Jan. 10, 1941,(27) after noting that a bill (H.R. 
1776) had just been introduced to promote the defense of the United 
States and for other purposes, Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, Chairman of 
the Committee on Military Affairs, addressed a series of parliamentary 
inquiries to Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, regarding the reference of 
the bill and the procedure necessary to effect a rereferral. The 
discussion, in which Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, subsequently 
joined, encompassed several procedural matters, among them: the 
principle that a motion to rerefer is not in order until a bill has 
been initially referred to a committee and until the committee seeking 
jurisdiction has authorized its chairman to make such a motion; that 
the motion to rerefer is in order any time the House is in session, 
after approval of the Journal, until the bill is finally reported by 
the committee to which referred; that such a motion, when authorized by 
the committee seeking jurisdiction, is privileged and not debatable; 
and that the particular bill in question, H.R. 1776, had already been 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. 87 Cong. Rec. 100, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following these preliminary inquiries, the measure itself was 
printed in the Record by unanimous consent and read as follows: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2881]]

        Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as ``An act to 
    promote the defense of the United States.''
        Sec. 2. As used in this act--
        (a) The term ``defense article'' means--
        (1) Any weapon, munition, aircraft, vessel, or boat;
        (2) Any machinery, facility, tool, material, or supply 
    necessary for the manufacture, production, processing, repair, 
    servicing, or operation of any article described in this 
    subsection;
        (3) Any component material or part of or equipment for any 
    article described in this subsection;
        (4) Any other commodity or article for defense.
        Such term ``defense article'' includes any article described in 
    this subsection: Manufactured or procured pursuant to section 3, or 
    to which the United States or any foreign government has or 
    hereafter acquires title, possession, or control.
        (b) The term ``defense information'' means any plan, 
    specification, design, prototype, or information pertaining to any 
    defense article.
        Sec. 3. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, 
    the President may, from time to time, when he deems it in the 
    interest of national defense, authorize the Secretary of War, the 
    Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or 
    agency of the Government--

        (1) To manufacture in arsenals, factories, and shipyards under 
    their jurisdiction, or otherwise procure, any defense article for 
    the government of any country whose defense the President deems 
    vital to the defense of the United States.
        (2) To sell, transfer, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise 
    dispose of, to any such government any defense article.
        (3) To test, inspect, prove, repair, outfit, recondition, or 
    otherwise to place in good working order any defense article for 
    any such government.
        (4) To communicate to any such government any defense 
    information, pertaining to any defense article furnished to such 
    government under paragraph (2) of this subsection.
        (5) To release for export any defense article to any such 
    government.
        (b) The terms and conditions upon which any such foreign 
    government receives any aid authorized under subsection (a) shall 
    be those which the President deems satisfactory, and the benefit to 
    the United States may be payment or repayment in kind or property, 
    or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems 
    satisfactory.
        Sec. 4. All contracts or agreements made for the disposition of 
    any defense article or defense information pursuant to section 3 
    shall contain a clause by which the foreign government undertakes 
    that it will not, without the consent of the President, transfer 
    title to or possession of such defense article or defense 
    information by gift, sale, or otherwise, or permit its use by 
    anyone not an officer, employee, or agent of such foreign 
    government.
        Sec. 5. The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the 
    head of any other department or agency of the Government involved 
    shall, when any such defense article or defense information is 
    exported, immediately inform the department or agency designated by 
    the President to administer

[[Page 2882]]

    section 6 of the act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat. 714), of the 
    quantities, character, value, terms of disposition, and destination 
    of the article and information so exported.
        Sec. 6. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated from 
    time to time, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
    appropriated, such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the 
    provisions and accomplish the purposes of this act.
        (b) All money and all property which is converted into money 
    received under section 3 from any government shall, with the 
    approval of the Director of the Budget, revert to the respective 
    appropriation or appropriations out of which funds were expended 
    with respect to the defense article or defense information for 
    which such consideration is received, and shall be available for 
    expenditure for the purpose for which such expended funds were 
    appropriated by law, during the fiscal year in which such funds are 
    received and the ensuing fiscal year.
        Sec. 7. The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and 
    the head of the department or agency shall in all contracts or 
    agreements for the disposition of any defense article or defense 
    information fully protect the rights of all citizens of the United 
    States who have patent rights in and to any such article or 
    information which is hereby authorized to be disposed of and the 
    payments collected for royalties on such patents shall be paid to 
    the owners and holders of such patents.
        Sec. 8. The Secretaries of War and of the Navy are hereby 
    authorized to purchase or otherwise acquire arms, ammunition, and 
    implements of war produced within the jurisdiction of any country 
    to which section 3 is applicable, whenever the President deems such 
    purchase or acquisition to be necessary in the interests of the 
    defense of the United States.
        Sec. 9. The President may, from time to time, promulgate such 
    rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out 
    any of the provisions of this act; and he may exercise any power or 
    authority conferred on him by this act through such department, 
    agency, or officer as he shall direct.

    On Jan. 13, 1941,(2) Mr. May requested unanimous consent 
to address the House for 10 minutes. In the course of a brief exchange 
with Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, following the latter's reservation 
of objection, Mr. May stated that he had been directed by his committee 
[the Committee on Military Affairs] to move that H.R. 1776 be 
rereferred to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 87 Cong. Rec. 126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Speaker Rayburn recognized Mr. John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, and the following exchange took place:

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, does 
    the gentleman from Kentucky take the position that the Speaker made 
    an incorrect reference of this bill to a committee?

[[Page 2883]]

        Mr. May: It is my candid judgment, based upon a careful 
    consideration of all the precedents, a study of Cannon's Precedents 
    and the rules as discussed by him in his book, that this bill which 
    provides--and I quote the title--``Further to promote the defense 
    of the United States, and for other purposes,'' relates to matters 
    of national defense.
        Mr. McCormack: That, of course, has nothing to do with the 
    reference of the bill.
        Mr. May: Just a moment. The title is followed by expressions in 
    many sections of the bill which relate to national defense. It 
    clearly authorizes the sale, leasing, or giving of both Army and 
    Navy equipment. Under no conditions do I question either the 
    motives or good faith of our most distinguished Speaker, and I am 
    merely acting in accord with the resolution of my committee.

    Following an intervening point of order, Mr. McCormack continued 
the exchange (3) while still reserving objection, and 
inquired of Mr. May whether he would acknowledge the Committee on Naval 
Affairs and the Committee on Ways and Means as possessing 
jurisdictional rights over the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. May's response, in part, was, as follows:

        I will admit very frankly that there are provisions in this 
    bill that would, under certain circumstances justify the reference 
    of the bill to any one of two or three committees, but the general 
    rule is that when the major question involved is one relating to 
    national defense, it should be referred to the committee having 
    jurisdiction of the major issue.
        So far as we are concerned here, this can be carried on through 
    the War and Navy Department and not through the State Department, 
    which deals only with diplomatic matters. In the instant case the 
    major issue is the disposition of war materials. For this reason, 
    and for the additional reason that the bill abolishes without 
    consideration statute after statute enacted by this Congress, 
    ignoring them completely and putting them out of effect in order to 
    carry out the provisions of the bill--and they all relate to 
    national defense--I believe the bill should be referred to the 
    Committee on Military Affairs.

    Shortly thereafter, the regular order was demanded, after which Mr. 
May offered the privileged motion to rerefer H.R. 1776 from the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs to the Committee on Military Affairs.
    Following a parliamentary inquiry relative to procedures for 
referral,(4) the Speaker put the question on the 
preferential [and nondebatable] motion to rerefer offered by Mr. May, 
and the motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 127, 128. See also Sec. 28.3, supra, for discussion of 
        procedural questions involving motion to rerefer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memorials of Sympathy From Foreign Legislative Bodies

Sec. 37.8 Memorials of foreign legislative bodies, paying trib

[[Page 2884]]

    ute to the memory of the late President John F. Kennedy, were 
    referred by the Speaker to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

    On Dec. 19, 1963,(5~) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, referred the memorials described above, which emanated 
from more than 20 foreign legislative bodies, to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 109 Cong. Rec. 25251, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pan American Day

Sec. 37.9 A resolution designating a day for the celebration in the 
    House of Pan American Day was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs.

    On Mar. 3, 1966,(6) Mr. Armistead I. Selden, Jr., of 
Alabama, introduced the resolution (H. Res. 754), and it was referred 
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 4887, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Resolutions setting a date for the 
celebration of Pan American Day were normally submitted and called up 
by unanimous consent, without reference to a committee. In this case, 
the resolution was called up by unanimous consent, thus discharging the 
committee. The resolution has usually been submitted and called up by 
the Chairman, Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs, Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. The House considered such resolutions annually from 
1945 until 1973.

Rio Grande River Bridge Construction

Sec. 37.10 The Committee on Foreign Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce has jurisdiction of a bill to 
    extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of 
    a free bridge across the Rio Grande River at or near Del Rio, 
    Texas.

    On Apr. 2, 1951,(7) Mr. Dwight L. Rogers, of Florida, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3299), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 3126, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 3299 was reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on Aug. 
        14, 1951 (H. Rept. No. 867).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Troop Commitments Abroad

Sec. 37.11 The House having adopted a resolution of in

[[Page 2885]]

    quiry directing the Secretary of State to provide information on 
    any Presidential commitments requiring the sending of additional 
    American troops beyond U.S. continental limits, the Secretary's 
    reply was laid before the House, read, and referred to the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs which reported out the original 
    resolution.

    On Feb. 20, 1952,(9) James P. Richards, of South 
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, called up a 
privileged resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 514) which the House adopted, 
as follows: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 98 Cong. Rec. 1205, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Id. at p. 1216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Secretary of State, is directed to transmit 
    to the House of Representatives, at the earliest practicable date, 
    full and complete information with respect to any agreements, 
    commitments, or understandings which may have been entered into by 
    the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great 
    Britain in the course of their conversations during January 1952, 
    and which might require the shipment of additional members of the 
    Armed Forces of the United States beyond the continental limits of 
    the United States or involve United States forces in armed conflict 
    on foreign soil.

    On Mar. 5, 1952,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid 
before the House the following communication (H. Doc. No. 378) from the 
Secretary of State, which was read, referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 98 Cong. Rec. 1892, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Department of State,
                                  Washington, D.C., March 4, 1952.
                                          The Honorable Sam Rayburn,
                            Speaker of the House of Representatives.

            My Dear Mr. Speaker: I have been directed by the President 
        to acknowledge receipt of House Resolution 514 and to call 
        attention to his statement of February 20, when, at his press 
        conference, he responded to the question, ``Have any 
        commitments been made to Great Britain on sending troops 
        anywhere?'' by a categorical ``No.''
              Sincerely yours,
                                                     Dean Acheson.


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 38. Committee on Government Operations

    The Committee on Government Operations came into being on July 3, 
1952,(12) when the Committee on Expenditures in the 
Executive Departments was renamed. The latter had become a standing 
committee, itself, in 1927,(13) at which time it assumed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 98 Cong. Rec. 9217, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
13. 69 Cong. Rec. 11, 70th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 5, 1927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2886]]

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Buildings as well as the 
jurisdiction of nine separate committees (14) on 
expenditures in the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Labor, 
Interior, Justice, Navy, Post Office, State, Treasury, and War.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973, the committee maintained seven subcommittees. In 
alphabetical order, these were the Subcommittees on Conservation and 
Natural Resources, Foreign Operations and Government Information, 
Government Activities, Intergovernmental Relations, Legal and Monetary 
Affairs, Legislation and Military Operations, and Special Studies.
    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations pursuant 
to the 1973 rules (15) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XI clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 691 (1973). See also 
        Rule X clause 1(i), House Rules and Manual Sec. 678 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Budget and accounting measures, other than appropriations.
        (b) Reorganizations in the executive branch of the Government.
        (c) Such committee shall have the duty of--
        (1) receiving and examining reports of the Comptroller General 
    of the United States and of submitting such recommendations to the 
    House as it deems necessary or desirable in connection with the 
    subject matter of such reports;
        (2) studying the operation of Government activities at all 
    levels with a view to determining its economy and efficiency;
        (3) evaluating the effects of laws enacted to reorganize the 
    legislative and executive branches of the Government;
        (4) studying intergovernmental relationships between the United 
    States and the States and municipalities, and between the United 
    States and international organizations of which the United States 
    is a member.
        (d) For the purpose of performing such duties the committee, or 
    any subcommittee thereof when authorized by the committee, is 
    authorized to sit, hold hearings, and act at such times and places 
    within the United States, whether or not the House is in session, 
    is in recess, or has adjourned, to require by subpena or otherwise 
    the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such papers, 
    documents, and books, and to take such testimony as it deems 
    necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the 
    chairman of the committee or of any subcommittee, or by any member 
    designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person 
    designated by any such chairman or member.

    As the precedents reveal, the jurisdiction of the committee and of 
its predecessor, has also extended to such subjects as conserving 
public lands and natural resources through the coordination of 
executive agencies,(16) eliminating the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sec. 38.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2887]]

necessity of surety bonds for certain federal 
employees,(~17) establishing a commission to study 
population trends and their resultant influence on government and the 
economy,(18) and amending certain laws relating to 
government records.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sec. 38.1, infra.
18. Sec. 38.2, infra.
19. Sec. 38.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to oversight responsibilities, the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Government Operations may be said to overlap with that of 
most other standing committees. Such overlapping jurisdiction 
necessarily arises from the broad oversight functions assigned to the 
committee by the rules. In addition to giving each standing committee 
(with certain exceptions) general oversight responsibilities as to the 
application and operation of laws within its jurisdiction, Rule X 
clause 2(b) [House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 692(a) and (b) (1979)] 
states that, ``The Committee on Government Operations shall review and 
study, on a continuing basis, the operation of Government activities at 
all levels with a view to determining their economy and efficiency.'' 
Furthermore, Rule X clause 4(c)(2) [House Rules and Manual Sec. 696 
(1979)] states:

        In addition to its duties under subparagraph (1), the Committee 
    on Government Operations may at any time conduct investigations of 
    any matter without regard to the provisions of clause 1, 2, or 3 
    (or this clause) conferring jurisdiction over such matter upon 
    another standing committee. The committee's findings and 
    recommendations in any such investigation shall be made available 
    to the other standing committee or committees having jurisdiction 
    over the matter involved (and included in the report of any such 
    other committee when required by clause 2(1)(3) of Rule XI).

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 added the following subject 
areas to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations: 
the overall economy and efficiency of government operations and 
activities, including federal procurement; intergovernmental 
relationships between the United States and municipalities, and general 
revenue sharing; and the national archives.(20) The 
Committee Reform Amendments also eliminated the specific conferral of 
subpena authority contained in clause 8(d) of Rule XI in 1973 and made 
the committee subject to the general conferral of subpena authority on 
all committees contained in Rule XI clause 2(m) and provided additional 
functions for the committee [Rule X clause 2(c), House Rules and Man
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 3444-770, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 
        8,1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2888]]

ual Sec. 692(c) (1979); Rule X clause 4(c), House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 696 (1979)]:

        2(c) At the beginning of each Congress, an appropriate 
    representative of the Committee on Government Operations shall meet 
    with appropriate representatives of each of the other committees of 
    the House to discuss the oversight plans of such committees and to 
    assist in coordinating all of the oversight activities of the House 
    during such Congress. Within 60 days after the Congress convenes, 
    the Committee on Government Operations shall report to the House 
    the results of such meetings and discussions, and any 
    recommendations which it may have to assure the most effective 
    coordination of such activities and otherwise achieve the 
    objectives of this clause.
        4(c)(1) The Committee on Government Operations shall have the 
    general function of--

            (A) receiving and examining reports of the Comptroller 
        General of the United States and of submitting such 
        recommendations to the House as it deems necessary or desirable 
        in connection with the subject matter of such reports;
            (B) evaluating the effects of laws enacted to reorganize 
        the legislative and executive branches of the Government; and
            (C) studying intergovernmental relationships between the 
        United States and the States and municipalities, and between 
        the United States and international organizations of which the 
        United States is a member.

        (2) In addition to its duties under subparagraph (1), the 
    Committee on Government Operations may at any time conduct 
    investigations of any matter without regard to the provisions of 
    clause 1, 2, or 3 (or this clause) conferring jurisdiction over 
    such matter upon another standing committee. The committee's 
    findings and recommendations in any such investigation shall be 
    made available to the other standing committee or committees having 
    jurisdiction over the matter involved (and included in the report 
    of any such other committee when required by clause 2(1) (3) of 
    Rule XI).                          -------------------

Creating Boards, Committees, and Commissions in the Executive Branch

Sec. 38.1 The Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments 
    (now the Committee on Government Operations) and not the Committee 
    on Post Office and Civil Service had jurisdiction of a bill to 
    establish and maintain a fidelity trust fund and a Federal Surety 
    Board to operate a procedure in lieu of surety bonds for all 
    federal employees required by law or regulation to furnish such 
    bonds.

    On Apr. 3, 1950,(2~1) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his com

[[Page 2889]]

mittee discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 7913), 
and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Expenditures in the 
Executive Departments [now the Committee on Government Operations].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 96 Cong. Rec. 4608, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.2 The Committee on Government Operations, and not the Committee 
    on Ways and Means, has jurisdiction of measures establishing a 
    Commission on Population Growth to study population trends and 
    their influences on government and the economy.

    On Sept. 23, 1969,(22) Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent 
to have the bills (H.R. 9586, H.R. 10515, H.R. 13337, H.R. 13523), and 
a communication (Exec. Comm. No. 1000) from the executive branch 
outlining similar proposals, rereferred from the Committee on Ways and 
Means to the Committee on Government Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 115 Cong. Rec. 26568, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.3 The Committee on Government Operations and not the Committee 
    on Foreign Affairs, considered and reported a bill to establish a 
    Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-Speaking People.

    On Nov. 24, 1969,(23~) Thomas E. Morgan, of 
Pennsylvania, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of a bill (S. 740) to establish a Cabinet Committee on 
Opportunities for Spanish-Speaking People, and for other purposes, and 
to have it rereferred to the Committee on Government Operations. Mr. 
Morgan additionally obtained unanimous consent to effect a similar 
rereferral of numerous House bills and executive communications to 
establish an Interagency Committee on Mexican-American Affairs, and for 
other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 115 Cong. Rec. 35509, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: When S. 740 was reported by the Senate's 
Committee on Government Operations,(24~) it was entitled, 
``A bill to establish the Interagency Committee on Mexican-American 
Affairs, and for other purposes.'' As amended and passed by the 
Senate,(25~) S. 740 became ``A bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 115 Cong. Rec. 26684, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 23, 1969.
25. 115 Cong. Rec. 27121, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 25, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2890]]

to establish the Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-
Speaking People, and for other purposes.'' Thus, the simultaneous 
rereferrals in the House of the companion bills (i.e., to establish an 
Interagency Committee on Mexican-American Affairs) were appropriate.

    When the House ``Interagency'' bills were initially introduced in 
the 91st Congress, the problem of committee jurisdiction was 
recognized. Consideration was given to both the Committee on Education 
and Labor and the Committee on Foreign Affairs inasmuch as all the 
bills dealt with the special problems of Spanish-speaking Americans and 
yet each measure, as drafted, could have applied to non-Americans of 
Mexican or other Spanish descent who were temporarily in this country 
(such as Mexican migrant workers) .
    Since S. 740, as amended by the Senate committee and passed by the 
Senate, sought to create a cabinet level committee on the problems of 
Spanish-Americans, the possibility of House consideration by the 
Committee on Government Operations became apparent in light of that 
committee's jurisdiction over ``reorganization in the executive branch 
of the Government.'' (26)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. See Rule XI clause 8(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 691 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 4, 1969,(27) the Committee on Government 
Operations reported S. 740 with amendments (H. Rept. No. 91-699), and 
the Speaker referred the bill to the Union Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. 115 Cong. Rec. 36941, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Agencies' Coordination

Sec. 38.4 The Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments 
    (now the Committee on Government Operations) and not the Committee 
    on Public Lands (now the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs) 
    had jurisdiction of a bill to facilitate the conservation of public 
    lands and other natural resources by coordinating the executive 
    agencies of the government exercising functions in connection 
    therewith.

    On Feb. 18, 1936,(28) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the bill (H.R. 11046) referred to 
the Committee on Expenditures (now the Committee on Government 
Operations). The measure had been originally referred (29) 
to the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. 80 Cong. Rec. 2337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
29. 80 Cong. Rec. 1760, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 10, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2891]]

Committee on Public Lands (now the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs). In so doing, Mr. Cochran noted that he had discussed the 
matter with the Parliamentarian, the Chairman of the Committee on 
Public Lands, as well as the author of the bill, Mr. J. W. Robinson, of 
Utah, and it was ``agreeable that this be done.(30)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. 80 Cong. Rec. 2337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 18, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Agency Reorganization

Sec. 38.5 The Committee on Government Operations, and not the Committee 
    on Agriculture, has jurisdiction of bills establishing the Rural 
    Electrification Administration as an independent agency and 
    restoring to the agency those functions transferred to the 
    Secretary of Agriculture under Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.

    On Mar. 19, 1959,(31) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, obtained unanimous consent to have the bills (H.R. 4147, 
H.R. 5746), rereferred from the Committee on Agriculture to the 
Committee on Government Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. 105 Cong. Rec. 4692, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government Records and Archives

Sec. 38.6 The Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments 
    (now the Committee on Government Operations) and not the Committee 
    on House Administration had jurisdiction of an executive 
    communication proposing a bill to amend or repeal a multiplicity of 
    laws relating to government records including laws related to 
    recordkeeping requirements of various governmental agencies and 
    functions.

    On July 9, 1951,(1) Mr. Thomas B. Stanley, of Virginia, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on House 
Administration discharged from further consideration of a communication 
(Exec. Comm. No. 568), from the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration transmitting a proposed bill and to have the 
communication referred to the Committee on Expenditures in the 
Executive Departments (now the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 97 Cong. Rec. 7829, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2892]]

Committee on Government Operations).

Land Used for Federal Purposes; Intergovernmental Relationships with 
    States

Sec. 38.7 The Committee on Government Operations and not the Committee 
    on Public Works has jurisdiction of a bill to provide for the 
    adjustment of the legislative jurisdiction exercised by the United 
    States over land in several states used for federal purposes.

    On Mar. 10, 1958,(2) Mr. George H. Fallon, of Maryland, 
a member of the Committee on Public Works, obtained unanimous consent 
to have that committee discharged from further consideration of S. 
1538, and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Government 
Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 104 Cong. Rec. 3785, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Death or Incapacity of Military Disbursing Officer

Sec. 38.8 The Committee on Government Operations and not the Committee 
    on Armed Services has jurisdiction of bills to provide for the 
    orderly transaction of the public business in the event of the 
    death, incapacity, or separation from office of a disbursing 
    officer of the military departments.

    On July 9, 1953,(3) Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, obtained unanimous 
consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further 
consideration of the identical bills (H.R. 6117, S. 2078), and, 
additionally, to have the bills referred to the Committee on Government 
Operations.(~4~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 99 Cong. Rec. 8359, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. H.R. 6117 was reported by the Committee on Government Operations on 
        July 15, 1953 (H. Rept. No. 845).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collecting and Accounting for Debts Owed to United States by Government 
    Employees

Sec. 38.9 The Committee on Government Operations and not the Committee 
    on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    communication proposing a bill to provide for collection from 
    military and civilian personnel of amounts due the United States 
    and for accounting procedures with respect thereto.

[[Page 2893]]

    On Jan. 14, 1954,(5) Edward H. Rees, of Kansas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Navy (Exec. Comm. No. 1106), 
proposing the legislation described above and to have it rereferred to 
the Committee on Government Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 100 Cong. Rec. 257, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Travel Costs for Federal Job Applicants

Sec. 38.10 The Committee on Government Operations, and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, has jurisdiction of 
    proposals to amend the Administrative Expenses Act to provide for 
    the payment of certain travel costs for applicants invited by a 
    federal agency to visit it for purposes of employment.

    On Feb. 15, 1967,(6) Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of an executive communication (Exec. Comm. No. 353), 
outlining the proposals specified above and to have that communication 
rereferred to the Committee on Government Operations.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 3466, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. See also H.R. 9020, 111 Cong. Rec. 18998, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Aug. 2, 1965, for a similar proposal which was referred to and 
        reported by the Committee on Government Operations (H. Rept. 
        No. 710).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 39. Committee on House Administration

    Owing its creation to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946,(8) the Committee on House Administration was assigned 
jurisdiction formerly accorded the six standing Committees on 
Elections,(9) Accounts, and Memorials,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 60 Stat. 812.
 9. At one time, there were four standing Committees on Elections. The 
        original Committee on Elections was established in the early 
        days of the first Congress and subsequently divided into three 
        committees about a century later [4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 4019], because of a demanding workload; concerned 
        exclusively with matters pertaining to the election of Members, 
        the three committees historically dealt with the adjudication 
        of election contests. The Committee on Election of [The] 
        President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress 
        became a standing committee in 1893 [id. at Sec. 4299], and 
        reported bills on such subjects as the direct election of 
        Senators [id. at Sec. 4300], the necessary and proper expenses 
        of candidates for the House and the Senate [id. at Sec. 4301], 
        and the time and manner of holding federal elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2894]]

as well as the four Joint Committees on the Library, Printing, Enrolled 
Bills, and the Disposition of Executive Papers.

    In 1973, the committee maintained eight subcommittees of which the 
principal four were the Subcommittees on Accounts, Elections, Library 
and Memorials, and Printing. The remaining four Subcommittees on 
Electrical and Mechanical Office Equipment, Contracts, Police, and 
Personnel were regarded as special (10) subcommittees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The ``special'' subcommittees were largely nonlegislative, met 
        infrequently, and were concerned principally with the 
        administrative functions assigned to the Committee on House 
        Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration pursuant 
to the 1973 rules (11) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XI clause 9, House Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(j), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Appropriations from the contingent fund.
        (b) Auditing and settling of all accounts which may be charged 
    to the contingent fund.
        (c) Employment of persons by the House, including clerks for 
    Members and committees, and reporters of debates.
        (d) Except as provided in clause 16(d),(12) matters 
    relating to the Library of Congress and the House Library; statuary 
    and pictures; acceptance or purchase of works of art for the 
    Capitol; the Botanic Garden; management of the Library of Congress; 
    purchase of books and manuscripts; erection of monuments to the 
    memory of individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In 1973, Rule XI clause 16(d) [Rule X clause 1(p)(4), House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 685 (1979)] referred to the jurisdiction of the 
        Committee on Public Works as consisting of ``measures relating 
        to the construction or reconstruction, maintenance, and care of 
        the buildings and grounds of the Botanic Gardens, the Library 
        of Congress, and the Smithsonian Institute.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (e) Except as provided in clause 16(d), matters relating to the 
    Smithsonian Institution and the incorporation of similar 
    institutions.
        (f) Expenditure of contingent fund of the House.
        (g) Matters relating to printing and correction of the 
    Congressional Record.
        (h) Measures relating to accounts of the House generally.
        (i) Measures relating to assignment of office space for Members 
    and committees.
        (j) Measures relating to the disposition of useless executive 
    papers.
        (k) Measures relating to the election of the President, Vice 
    President, or Members of Congress; corrupt prac

[[Page 2895]]

    tices; contested elections; credentials and qualifications; and 
    Federal elections generally.
        (l) Measures relating to services to the House, including the 
    House Restaurant and administration of the House Office Buildings 
    and of the House wing of the Capitol.
        (m) Measures relating to the travel of Members of the House.
        (n) Such committee shall also have the duty of--
        (1) arranging a suitable program for each day observed by the 
    House of Representatives as a memorial day in memory of Members of 
    the Senate and House of Representatives who have died during the 
    preceding period, and to arrange for the publication of the 
    proceedings thereof;
        (2) examining all bills, amendments, and joint resolutions 
    after passage by the House; and in cooperation with the Senate, of 
    examining all bills and joint resolutions which shall have passed 
    both Houses, to see that they are correctly enrolled; 
    (13) and when signed by the Speaker of the House and the 
    President of the Senate, shall forthwith present the same, when 
    they shall have originated in the House, to the President of the 
    United States in person, and report the fact and date of such 
    presentation to the House;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Enrollment is the procedure by which a bill passed in identical 
        form by both houses is printed on parchment, and certified to 
        by the appropriate officer of the body of origin (i.e., the 
        Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate). The 
        enrolled bill is signed first by the Speaker of the House, then 
        by the President of the Senate, and into law by the President 
        of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (3) reporting to the Sergeant at Arms of the House the travel 
    of Members of the House.

    As the precedents reveal, the jurisdiction of the committee and of 
its predecessors has also extended to such subjects as the printing of 
pamphlets explaining House operations,(14) the announcement 
of personnel policies affecting House employees,(15) the 
fixing of pay rates for employees of the Government Printing 
Office,(16) the provision of wiretap checks on Members' 
telephones,(17) and the designation of a national 
flower.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sec. 39.8, infra.
15. Sec. 39.7, infra.
16. Sec. 39.6, infra.
17. Sec. 39.9, infra.
18. Sec. 39.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, the Committee on 
House Administration obtained jurisdiction over parking facilities of 
the House, and the additional duty of providing through the House 
Information Systems a scheduling service to eliminate committee 
scheduling conflicts (Rule X clause 4(d)(3), House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 697 (1979),(19) but was relieved of the duty to arrange 
memorial services for Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 94th Congress, the committee also obtained jurisdiction

[[Page 2896]]

over campaign contributions to candidates for the House (formerly 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct), and over compensation, retirement, and other benefits of 
Members, officers, and employees of Congress, a subject area shared 
with the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service (1) 
under Rule X clause 1(o)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-22, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 
        1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 92d Congress, the provisions of House Resolution 457 of that 
Congress, authorizing the Committee on House Administration to adjust 
allowances of Members and committees without further action by the 
House, were enacted into permanent law (85 Stat. 636; 2 USC Sec. 57), 
but the 94th Congress enacted into permanent law House Resolution 1372 
of that subsequent Congress, stripping the Committee on House 
Administration of that authority and requiring House approval of the 
committee's recommendations, except in cases made necessary by price 
changes in materials and supplies, technological advances in office 
equipment, and cost-of-living increases (90 Stat. 1448; 2 USC 
Sec. 57a). The Committee on House Administration retains authority 
under 2 USC Sec. 57 to independently adjust amounts within total 
allowances (123 Cong. Rec. 8227, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 21, 
1977).                          -------------------

Contingent Fund of the House

Sec. 39.1 Language in a Rules Committee amendment to a resolution 
    creating a special committee, reported as privileged from that 
    committee, pertaining to the employment of assistants on behalf of 
    an investigating committee and to the payment of expenses from the 
    contingent fund for such investigation was held not germane as 
    properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Accounts [now 
    the Committee on House Administration], and not the Committee on 
    Rules.

    On June 21, 1944,(2) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Joe B. Bates, of Kentucky, who called up a resolution 
(H. Res. 551), reported from the Committee on Rules and asked for its 
immediate consideration. The resolution called for the Speaker to 
appoint a special committee of seven members to investigate and report 
to the House on campaign
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 90 Cong. Rec. 6393, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2897]]

expenditures of all House candidates and on possible violations of 
state or federal law, among other things. The Clerk having previously 
read the resolution, itself,(3) the Chair directed him to 
read the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 6392.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 7 of the amendment contained the following language, in 
part: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 6393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the purpose of this resolution, the committee, or any duly 
    authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold such public 
    hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the 
    sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Seventy-eighth 
    Congress, to employ such attorneys, experts, clerical, and other 
    assistants, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of 
    such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, 
    papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, to take such 
    testimony, and to make such expenditures, as it deems advisable. 
    The cost of stenographic services to report such hearings shall not 
    be in excess of 25 cents per hundred words. The expenses of the 
    committee shall be paid from the contingent fund of the House of 
    Representatives upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the 
    committee or the chairman of any duly authorized subcommittee 
    thereof and approved by the Committee on Accounts.

    The amendment having been read in its entirety, Mr. John J. 
Cochran, of Missouri, rose to a point of order and initiated the 
ensuing exchange: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 6393, 6394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the amendment on 
    the ground that the Rules Committee has exceeded its authority, and 
    I respectfully request to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, I invite your special attention to 
    the language on page 6, beginning in line 15.

            The expenses of the committee shall be paid from the 
        contingent fund of the House of Representatives upon vouchers 
        approved by the chairman of the committee and the chairman of 
        any duly authorized subcommittee thereof and approved by the 
        Committee on Accounts.

        Also to the words on page 6, lines 12 and 13, ``and to make 
    such expenditures.''
        Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Accounts was set up by this House 
    in 1803; long before the Rules Committee was ever heard of. This 
    all-powerful Rules Committee takes it upon itself to assume 
    jurisdiction over the contingent fund of the House. Not only do the 
    rules of the House place that jurisdiction in the Committee on 
    Accounts,(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. At the time, Rule XI clause 36, provided that the jurisdiction of 
        the Committee on Accounts extended to subjects ``Touching the 
        expenditure of the contingent fund of the House, the auditing 
        and settling of all accounts which may be charged therein by 
        order of the House, the ascertaining of the travel of Members 
        of the House and the reporting the same to the Sergeant at Arms 
        [H. Jour. 699, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (1944)].'' Presently such 
        jurisdiction is vested in the Committee on House Administration 
        [see Rule X clause 1(j), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 
        (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2898]]

    but your Committee on Accounts is subject to several statutes, 
    specifically referring to the activities of the Committee on 
    Accounts, and the contingent fund. . . .

        If this precedent that the Rules Committee seeks to establish 
    is adopted by the House, the House will lose control over its 
    contingent fund. The language that I have read places absolutely no 
    limitation upon the amount this select committee can spend. 
    Vouchers are to be signed by the chairman of the select committee 
    or any subcommittee thereof, and the only jurisdiction the 
    Committee on Accounts has is to put its signature on the voucher 
    and pass it along for payment.
        Now, if you can do that with this select committee, you can do 
    it with every select committee and every special committee that 
    this House sets up. . . .
        . . . This is not the first time that the Committee on Rules 
    tried to assume the jurisdiction of the Committee on Accounts.
        The House rules provide that the Committee on Accounts shall 
    control resolutions providing for expenditures from the contingent 
    fund.
        The Committee on Accounts looks at these questions from the 
    standpoint of the committee being the agent of the House. When the 
    House passes a resolution setting up a select committee, regardless 
    of whether the members of the Committee on Accounts are for that 
    resolution or not, the members take it that it is their duty to 
    provide money to carry out the purposes of the resolution. . . .
        The practice has always been for the Accounts Committee to hold 
    hearings and require the select or special committee to state its 
    needs and justify its request. . . .
        I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Rules having taken 
    jurisdiction which did not belong to it, the language I object to 
    is subject to a point of order; and I hope the Chair will so hold.

    During debate, Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, a member of the 
Committee on Rules, stated:

        I realize there is much truth in what the gentleman from 
    Missouri says. This amendment would bypass the Committee on 
    Accounts. To my knowledge that has never been done in the setting 
    up of an investigating committee. The Rules Committee has 
    jurisdiction over investigating committee resolutions, but the 
    Accounts Committee has jurisdiction over the funds with which the 
    committee operates. I have often said it is a good bit like when my 
    little boy used to ask his mother for a new football. She would 
    say: ``Yes, John, you may have the football, but you must go to 
    daddy and get the money.'' That is the way these investigations are 
    controlled; and, personally, I could not speak in opposition to the 
    point of order.

    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker announced his decision, as follows:

        The Chair has before it a case exactly in point, and the 
    interesting

[[Page 2899]]

    thing about it is that it begins with the statement: On May 3, 
    1933, Mr. Howard W. Smith of Virginia, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, and so forth, presented a rule.
        A point of order was made against the rule and the Chair held 
    as follows--and it is exactly on all fours with the instant case:

            The Chair thinks that the provision incorporated in section 
        5 of the resolution authorizing the committee to employ 
        suitable counsel, assistants, and investigators in the aid of 
        its investigation, and also the provision authorizing all 
        necessary expenses of the investigation to be paid on vouchers 
        approved by the chairman of the committee, is a matter properly 
        within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Accounts.

        That is exactly the proposition that is before the Chair at 
    this time. The Chair could cite other precedents.
        The point of order, therefore, is sustained as against the 
    committee amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This point of order against the amendment 
did not destroy the privilege of the resolution. This was a germaneness 
ruling against the amendment. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, then 
offered another substitute the same as the original amendment but 
without the language about the contingent fund. Compare this situation 
with those contained in 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4623, where it was 
held that a bill containing nonprivileged matter in the original text 
cannot be considered as privileged merely based on a committee 
amendment removing the nonprivileged matter, and in 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 2300, where a funding resolution reported from the 
Committee on Accounts and also containing legislative provisions within 
the jurisdiction of other committees was held not to be privileged.

Employment of Persons by the House

Sec. 39.2 The Committee on House Administration, and not the Committee 
    on Rules, has jurisdiction of propositions authorizing committees 
    of the House to employ additional professional and clerical 
    personnel.

    On Feb. 7, 1966,(7) Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, stated that House Resolution 640, 
relating to the employment of House personnel, had been referred to his 
committee inadvertently; accordingly, he sought and obtained unanimous 
consent to have the measure rereferred to the Committee on House 
Administration.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 2373, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
            For discussion of House employees generally, see Ch. 6, 
        supra.
 8. The jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration expressly 
        [see Rule X clause 1(j)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 
        (1979)] includes the following: ``Employment of persons by the 
        House, including clerks for Members and committees, and 
        reporters of debates.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2900]]

Sec. 39.3 To a bill amending the rules of the House being considered 
    pursuant to a resolution prohibiting amendments to the bill ``which 
    would have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee 
    of the House listed in Rule XI,'' an amendment directing the 
    Committee on House Administration to prepare and implement a plan 
    to eliminate the political patronage employment system in the House 
    was ruled out of order as an attempt to change the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on House Administration.

    On Sept. 16, 1970,(9) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
17654), to improve the operation of the legislative branch of the 
federal government, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 32204, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Joel T. Broyhill, of 
Virginia, offered the following amendment: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 32216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Broyhill of Virginia: On page 126, 
    after line 14 and before line 15, insert the following:

            Part--Limitations on Employment in the House Under the 
                           Political Patronage System

        ``limitations on employment on the basis of political patronage 
                        in the house of representatives

        ``Sec. 463. (a) The Committee on House Administration of the 
    House of Representatives is authorized and directed to--
        ``(1) review the application, operation, and administration of 
    the system of appointment, employment, and removal, on the basis of 
    political patronage, of employee of the House of Representatives, 
    including pages of the House of Representatives and employees under 
    the Architect of the Capitol performing services for the House, but 
    excluding employees paid out of the clerk hire allowances of 
    Representatives and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, 
    employees on the professional and clerical staffs of the standing 
    committees of the House, and officers and employees of the House 
    whose positions, in the Judgment of the Committee on House 
    Administration, should be filled with regard to political 
    affiliation because of the nature and implications of their duties 
    and responsibilities or of their employment generally; and
        ``(2) prepare a plan to eliminate such political patronage 
    system in the House of Representatives.
        ``(b) Such plan shall include--
        ``(1) a procedure for the appointment and employment, on and 
    after the date such plan becomes effective, without

[[Page 2901]]

    regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness 
    to perform the duties concerned, of persons to fill vacancies in 
    positions within the purview of such political patronage system on 
    the date of enactment of this Act, subject to the exceptions 
    contained in subparagraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section;
        ``(2) a provision extending the appointment and employment 
    procedure referred to in subparagraph (1) of this subsection to 
    positions in categories similar to those included in subparagraph 
    (1) of subsection (a) of this section which are created on or after 
    the date of enactment of this Act; and
        ``(3) a provision for periodic review by appropriate authority 
    of the application, operation, and administration, of such plan.
        ``(c) The Committee on House Administration is authorized and 
    directed to submit such plan to the appropriate authority or 
    authorities in the House of Representatives and place such plan in 
    effect at the earliest practicable date not later than the 
    beginning of the second session of the Ninety-second Congress.''

    Shortly thereafter, Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, 
recognized Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, who had reserved a point of 
order as to Mr. Broyhill's amendment when it was initially offered. Mr. 
Sisk pressed his point of order and argued, as follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 32217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he amendment is obviously in contravention of the rule 
    under which we are operating and which rule, adopted back at the 
    beginning of the debate, said on line 11 no amendment to this bill 
    shall be in order which would have the effect of changing the 
    jurisdiction of any committee of the House listed in rule 
    XI.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Res. 1093, agreed to on July 13, 1970 [116 Cong. Rec. 23901, 
        23902, 91st Cong. 211 Sess.], prescribed the special rule under 
        which H.R. 17654 was to be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the very beginning of the proposed amendment it starts out 
    with the House Committee on House Administration, and goes into a 
    considerable amount of detail as to the jurisdiction and 
    responsibilities of the committee, and, therefore, would be in 
    violation of the rule under which this bill is being considered.

    The Chairman then inquired as to whether Mr. Broyhill desired to be 
heard on the point of order, and the gentleman from Virginia responded:

        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Chair has 
    sustained a similar point of order on the bill prior to this, but I 
    would say that the amendment does not change the jurisdiction of 
    the House Committee on House Administration, but merely instructs 
    the House Committee on House Administration to change the patronage 
    procedures.
        This is a committee that we organized in the House of 
    Representatives, and this merely seeks to do just that.

    Announcing that he was prepared to rule, the Chairman stated:

[[Page 2902]]

        House Resolution 1093, adopted on July 13, 1970, as the Members 
    of the Committee will remember, provides in part as follows:

            No amendment to the bill shall be in order which would have 
        the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee of the 
        House listed in rule XI.

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Broyhill) affects the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on House Administration, and, therefore, the point 
    of order must be sustained.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Federal Elections

Sec. 39.4 A Presidential communication proposing a comprehensive 
    amendment of the federal election laws, including amendments to the 
    Federal Corrupt Practices Act (Title 18, United States Code), and 
    the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26, United States Code), was 
    referred to the Committee on House Administration.

    On May 26, 1966,(13) pursuant to the 
rules,(14) House Document No. 444, a Presidential 
communication, was taken from the Speaker's table and referred to the 
Committee on House Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 11686, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. The applicable provision, in pertinent part, reads [Rule XXIV 
        clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1973)] as follows: 
        ``2. Business on the Speaker's table shall be disposed of as 
        follows: Messages from the President shall be referred to the 
        appropriate committees without debate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The draft bill accompanying the President's 
letter was discussed by the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means 
and the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration. Title VII of 
the bill, pertaining to income tax deductions for political 
contributions, amended the Internal Revenue Code and was clearly within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. It was agreed that 
while the communication would be referred to the Committee on House 
Administration, that committee would delete title VII before 
introducing the bill. The Committee on Ways and Means would then 
consider title VII as a separate proposition.

National Flower

Sec. 39.5 The Committee on House Administration and not the Committee 
    on the Judiciary has jurisdiction of a joint resolution designating

[[Page 2903]]

    the rose as the national flower of the United States.

    On Feb. 26, 1958,(1) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 465 and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
House Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 104 Cong. Rec. 2925, 2926 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Following adoption of the Committee Reform 
Amendments of 1974, which conferred jurisdiction upon the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service over holidays and celebrations, bills 
such as this designating national symbols have consistently been 
referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. See, for 
example, rereferrals of resolutions proposing national songs and dances 
from the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on Post Office and 
Civil Service. 121 Cong. Rec. 10345, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 16, 
1975.

Pay Rates for GPO Employees

Sec. 39.6 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on House Administration, 
    and not the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, had 
    jurisdiction of bills amending the act to regulate and fix rates of 
    pay for employees of the Government Printing Office.

    On Apr. 19, 1961,(2) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 919 and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
House Administration.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 6284, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. See 44 USC Sec. 305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personnel Policies

Sec. 39.7 The Committee on House Administration, pursuant to its 
    jurisdiction, occasionally announces personnel policies or general 
    information affecting House employees.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(4) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, who, acting in his 
capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Accounts, Committee on 
House Administration, obtained unanimous consent to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 112 Cong. Rec. 27653, 89th Cong 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2904]]

make the following announcements:
        Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement which I think will be of 
    general interest to all Members, and of special interest to some:
        Today the House Committee on Administration passed unanimously 
    a motion ordering and directing the chairman to notify all Members 
    that, as of the 15th of November, any employee put on a Member's 
    payroll, or a committee payroll, shall not be put on for a period 
    of less than 1 month, except that if the person put on does not 
    work out, and they desire to terminate his employment in less than 
    a month, he may not reappear on the Member's payroll for a period 
    of 6 months.
        Mr. Speaker, this is done to prevent what has happened to 
    excess in some committees, and I must say in some Members' offices 
    of having people on the payroll for a day or two at a time.
        This has caused an impossible situation in the Clerk's office 
    with regard to writing payroll checks. There was no desire to work 
    a hardship, and the membership now knows that this will be in 
    effect as of the 15th of November.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rules provide that the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on House Administration extends to ``employment of 
persons by the House, including clerks for Members and committees, and 
reporters of debates,'' (5) as well as ``expenditure of 
[the] contingent fund of the House,'' (6) among other 
matters. Accordingly, members of this committee occasionally take the 
floor to make brief announcements pertaining to personnel 
matters.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Rule X clause 1(j)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 (1979).
 6. See Rule X clause 1(j)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 (1979).
 7. See, for example, 112 Cong. Rec. 1399, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 
        27, 1966, where Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, who chaired the 
        committee, was granted unanimous consent to extend his remarks 
        and to insert tables in the Record depicting salary levels of 
        the House employee schedule. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 15501, 
        15502, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 1, 1965, where Mr. Hays, by 
        direction of the committee, called up a resolution (H. Res. 
        261), directing the Clerk of the House to furnish 
        identification cards to certain House employees; the measure 
        provided that the expenses of carrying out the resolution were 
        to be paid out of the contingent fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pamphlets Explaining House Operations

Sec. 39.8 The Committee on Printing [now the Committee on House 
    Administration], had jurisdiction of a resolution directing the 
    Sergeant at Arms to have printed for occupants of the galleries of 
    the House pamphlets explaining how the House conducts its business.

    On June 3, 1935,(8) after Mr. Thomas O'Malley, of 
Wisconsin,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 8604, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2905]]

introduced House Resolution 238, it was referred to the Committee on 
Printing [now the Committee on House Administration].

Services Relating to House Telephone; Wiretap Checks

Sec. 39.9 The Chairman of the Committee on House Administration 
    announced to the House his intention to contract with an 
    appropriate firm to determine, on a Member's request, whether that 
    Member's phone was being tapped.

    On Apr. 7, 1971,(9) as the House met in the Committee of 
the Whole, Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, recognized Wayne L. 
Hays, of Ohio, Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, who 
obtained unanimous consent to speak out of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 117 Cong. Rec. 10097, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on 
    House Administration and after consultation with the Speaker, I am 
    going to enter into a contract with a reputable electronics firm to 
    provide a check on any committee phone or any Member's phone who 
    may request it to find out if there is any electronic surveillance 
    on their phone lines. I am sure, if there is any, by the FBI or by 
    anybody else, they will take them off so that when the check is 
    made none will be found, but I propose to keep this service on an 
    irregular basis at any time in the future that any Member may 
    request it. . . .
        And, if any Member feels his phone is being tapped, if he will 
    let the Committee on House Administration know within a few days we 
    will provide the service with which to find out whether his phone 
    is, in fact, bugged.


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 40. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

    The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs came into being on 
Feb. 2, 1951, when the Committee on Public Lands was renamed. Four 
years earlier, on the effective date [Jan. 2, 1947] of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946,(10) the Committee on Public 
Lands had assumed the jurisdiction of the former Committees on Indian 
Affairs, Insular Affairs, Irrigation and Reclamation, Mines and Mining, 
and Territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 60 Stat. 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 
pursuant to the 1973 rules (11) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XI clause 10, House Rules and Manual Sec. 702 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(k), House Rules and Manual Sec. 680 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Forest reserves and national parks created from the public 
    domain.

[[Page 2906]]

        (b) Forfeiture of land grants and alien ownership, including 
    alien ownership of mineral lands.
        (c) Geological Survey.
        (d) Interstate compacts relating to apportionment of waters for 
    irrigation purposes.
        (e) Irrigation and reclamation, including water supply for 
    reclamation projects, and easements of public lands for irrigation 
    projects, and acquisition of private lands when necessary to 
    complete irrigation projects.
        (f) Measures relating to the care, education, and management of 
    Indians, including the care and allotment of Indian lands and 
    general and special measures relating to claims which are paid out 
    of Indian funds.
        (g) Measures relating generally to Hawaii, Alaska, and the 
    insular possessions of the United States, except those affecting 
    the revenue and appropriations.
        (h) Military parks and battlefields; national cemeteries 
    administered by the Secretary of the Interior.
        (i) Mineral land laws and claims and entries thereunder.
        (j) Mineral resources of the public lands.
        (k) Mining interests generally.
        (l) Mining schools and experimental stations.
        (m) Petroleum conservation on the public lands and conservation 
    of the radium supply in the United States.
        (n) Preservation of prehistoric ruins and objects of interest 
    on the public domain.
        (o) Public lands generally, including entry, easements, and 
    grazing thereon.
        (p) Relations of the United States with the Indian and the 
    Indian tribes.

    The committee's jurisdiction in 1973 also extended to several 
subject areas not expressly listed in the rules. These subjects 
(12) include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. This list and other information noted, infra, was prepared by 
        Robert C. Ketcham for the use of the Select Committee on 
        Committees. See ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        1. Admission of states to the Union.
        2. Energy (mineral) research and development.
        3. Jurisdiction over acquired lands.
        4. Outdoor recreation.
        5. The reservation at Arkansas Hot Springs.
        6. Saline water.
        7. Water research.
        8. Water resources planning.

    In 1973, the committee maintained seven subcommittees each of whose 
jurisdiction was expressly delineated, as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Robert C. Ketcham, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Subcommittee on the Environment

        Environmental impacts of any laws or programs under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee.

                     Subcommittee on Indian Affairs

        Relations of the United States with the Indians and Indian 
    tribes, and other Indian matters.

[[Page 2907]]

                        Subcommittee on Mines and Mining

        (a) Mining interests generally; Mineral resources of the public 
    lands; Mineral land laws, and claims and entries thereunder.
        (b) Geological survey; Mining schools and experimental 
    stations.
        (c) Petroleum conservation on the public and other Federal 
    lands and conservation of the radium supply in the United States.
        (d) Proposed long-range domestic minerals and energy programs, 
    including availability of domestic minerals and energy to fulfill 
    all domestic requirements.

                 Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation

        The national park system, its units, and related units which 
    are established for the protection, conservation, preservation, or 
    recreational development of nationally significant areas.

                          Subcommittee on Public Lands

        (a) Public lands generally, including entry, easements, 
    withdrawals, and grazing.
        (b) Forfeiture of land grants and alien ownership, including 
    alien ownership of mineral lands.
        (c) Forest reserves created from the public domain.
        (d) National Wilderness Preservation System.

                Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Affairs

        Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, 
    Antarctica, and Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the 
    insular possessions of the United States, except matters affecting 
    revenue and appropriations.

                   Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources

        (a) Irrigation and reclamation projects and other water 
    resources development programs, including policies and procedures 
    relating thereto.
        (b) Compacts relating to the use and apportionment of 
    interstate waters.
        (c) Water rights.
        (d) Saline water research and development program and water 
    resources research program.
        (e) Water resources planning conducted pursuant to the Water 
    Resources Planning Act.
        (f) Activities of the National Water Commission.
        (g) Legislation affecting the use of geothermal resources for 
    the production of water and power.

    The jurisdiction of the committee and of its predecessors has also 
extended to such subjects as the financing and marketing of power on 
public lands,(14~) the seaward boundaries of inland 
waters,(15~) the disposition of proceeds from the sale of 
oil shale lands,(16) the establishment of a Pennsylvania 
Avenue historic site commission,(17)~ the renaming of 
certain reservoirs,18~ the reestablishment of a Civilian 
Conservation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sec. 40.3, infra.
15. Sec. Sec. 40.7, 40.8, infra.
16. Sec. 40.12, infra.
17. Sec. 40.21, infra.
18. Sec. 40.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2908]]

Corps,(19) and matters pertaining to certain employees of 
the Bureau of Land Management.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 40.1, infra.
20. Sec. 40.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 deleted from the 
committee's jurisdiction the subject of Indian education, removed 
specific references to Hawaii and Alaska, and granted the committee 
jurisdiction over parks within the District of Columbia. The amendments 
also vested in the committee specific oversight jurisdiction over all 
government activities dealing with Indians. [Rule X clause 3(e), House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1979).] (21) In the 95th 
Congress, the committee was given legislative jurisdiction over 
regulation of the domestic nuclear industry, including regulation of 
research and development reactors and nuclear regulatory research, and 
oversight jurisdiction over nonmilitary nuclear research and 
development in eluding the disposal of nuclear waste, when the 
legislative jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was 
abolished.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
22. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 53-55, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
        1977.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civilian Conservation Corps

Sec. 40.1 The Committee on Public Lands (now the Committee on Interior 
    and Insular Affairs), and not the Committee on Education and Labor 
    had jurisdiction of bills to provide for the reestablishment of a 
    Civilian Conservation Corps, an agency which would provide for the 
    conservation of natural resources and the development of human 
    resources through the employment of youthful citizens in the 
    performance of useful work on public lands or on private lands only 
    if related to irrigation or resource improvements.

    On Mar. 15, 1950,(23) John Lesinski, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, acting by direction 
of the committee, obtained unanimous consent to have it discharged from 
further consideration of three identical bills (H.R. 7462, H.R. 7463, 
and H.R. 7523), and to have the bills rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Lands (now the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 96 Cong. Rec. 3420, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2909]]

Bureau of Land Management--Employees' Activities

Sec. 40.2 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and not the 
    Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction of a bill relating to 
    the activities of temporary and certain other employees of the 
    Bureau of Land Management.

    On May 1, 1951,(24) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2976), and to have it rerefered to the Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs.(25)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 97 Cong. Rec. 4614, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
25. H.R. 2976 was reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
        Affairs on July 10, 1951 (H. Rept. No. 689).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Financing and Marketing of Power

Sec. 40.3 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs, and not the Committee on Public Works, had jurisdiction of 
    matters relating to the financing of the Bonneville Power 
    Administration and the marketing of power.

    On Mar. 13, 1961,(1) Mr. John A. Blatnik, of Minnesota, 
a member of the Committee on Public Works, requested unanimous consent 
to have that committee discharged from further consideration of a 
letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior (Exec. Comm. No. 
472), transmitting a draft of proposed legislations entitled ``A bill 
to amend the Bonneville Project Act as amended.'' Mr. Blatnik 
simultaneously requested that the communication be rereferred to the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 3799, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, inquired as to whether there was any 
objection, Mr. Frederick D. Schwengel, of Iowa, reserved the right to 
object and requested a further explanation from Mr. Blatnik.
    The following exchange then took place:

        Mr. Blatnik: This is merely a request to transfer an executive 
    communication from the Department of the Interior, which was 
    submitted to our Committee on Public Works. It deals with the 
    Bonneville Power Administration, and the subject matter deals 
    entirely with financing; a revolving fund. In consulting with the 
    minority and with the chairman of the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs, the gentleman from New York [Charles A.

[[Page 2910]]

    Buckley, Chairman of the Committee on Public Works] agreed that the 
    Committee on Public Works was interested in the construction phase 
    but not financing, which very properly belonged under Interior and 
    Insular Affairs.
        Mr. [Wayne N.] Aspinall [of Colorado, Chairman of the Committee 
    on Interior and Insular Affairs]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Blatnik: I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
        Mr. Aspnall: Three of these executive communications came up 
    from downtown at the same time. Two of them came to our committee, 
    and this one went to the other committee. It so happens that the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has jurisdiction of 
    marketing procedures. That is the difference. It is merely a 
    formality.

    When the Speaker renewed his inquiry as to whether there was any 
objection to Mr. Blatnik's request, none was heard, and the 
communication was rereferred by unanimous consent.

Forest and Wilderness Areas

Sec. 40.4 The Committee on Public Lands (now the Committee on Interior 
    and Insular Affairs), and not the Committee on Agriculture had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to add certain lands to the Cleveland 
    National Forest in Orange County, California, created from the 
    public domain.

    On Feb. 14, 1939,(2) Mr. Harry R. Sheppard, of 
California, obtained unanimous consent to have the bill (H.R. 2728), 
discharged from the Committee on Agriculture and rereferred to the 
Committee on Public Lands (now the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs). In so doing, he noted that he had ``the consent of the 
chairmen of both of those committees in making this request.'' 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 1400, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 2728 was reported by the Committee on Public Lands on June 27, 
        1939 (H. Rept. No. 950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 40.5 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and not the 
    Committee on Agriculture, has jurisdiction of bills designating and 
    setting aside certain national forest lands, created from the 
    public domain, as wilderness areas as defined by law [act of Sept. 
    3, 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-577].

    On May 6, 1969,(4) William R. Poage, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Agriculture, obtained unanimous consent that his 
committee be discharged from further consideration of the bills (H.R. 
393, H.R. 3682), and that they be rereferred to the Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 11459, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2911]]

mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs. These bills authorized the 
Secretary of Agriculture to classify as wilderness, national forest 
lands in the Lincoln Back Country, and parts of the Lewis and Clark and 
Lolo National Forests in Montana.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs has jurisdiction, under Rule X clause 1(k) [House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 680 (1979)] over forest reserves and national parks created 
from the public domain, while the Committee on Agriculture has 
jurisdiction, under Rule X clause 1(a) [House Rules and Manual Sec. 670 
(1979)] over forestry in general and forest reserves other than those 
created from the public domain. See also 123 Cong. Rec. 23434, 95th 
Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1977 [H.R. 8223], indicating that the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had jurisdiction over a bill 
amending section 1862 of title 18 to limit the application of a 
criminal trespass provision applying in a reserve in a national forest 
created from the public domain. (The bill in this instance had been 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary because it solely addressed 
a federal criminal statute, but that committee later agreed that the 
measure should be properly considered by the Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs along with the other legislation affecting the 
reserve.)

Sec. 40.6 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and not the 
    Committee on Agriculture, has jurisdiction of a bill directing the 
    Secretary of Agriculture to set aside for recreational use certain 
    lands which have been established as wilderness areas pursuant to 
    the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 890).

    On Apr. 5, 1965,(5) Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, 
Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture obtained unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 6891),(6) and to have it rereferred to the Committee 
on Interior and Insular Affairs.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 6822, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. H.R. 6891 provided for the winter recreational use of a portion of 
        the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area, San Bernardino National 
        Forest, California, without reducing the area set aside for 
        wilderness preservation.
 7. See the Parliamentarian's Note in Sec. 40.5, supra, for additional 
        information as to the nature of this jurisdiction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2912]]

Inland Waters, Boundaries of

Sec. 40.7 In the 82d Congress, the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs and not the Committee on the Judiciary had jurisdiction of 
    a resolution relative to establishment of seaward boundaries of 
    inland waters.

    On June 26, 1952,(8) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the 
resolution (H. Res. 684), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 98 Cong. Rec. 8244, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 40.8 In the 82d Congress, the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs and not the Committee on the Judiciary had jurisdiction of 
    a joint resolution declaring the boundaries of the inland or 
    internal waters of the United States to be as far seaward as is 
    permissible under international law, and providing for a survey of 
    such boundaries to be made by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.

    On May 26, 1952,(9) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 373), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 98 Cong. Rec. 5968, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Irrigation and Reclamation Matters

Sec. 40.9 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and not the 
    Committee on Public Works has jurisdiction of a bill to provide the 
    basis for authorization of irrigation works in connection with 
    Chief Joseph Dam, to provide for financial assistance thereto from 
    power revenues.

    On May 7, 1952,(10) Mr. Thaddeus M. Machrowicz, of 
Michigan, obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Public 
Works discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 6163), 
and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 98 Cong. Rec. 4895, 4896, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.R. 6163 was reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
        Affairs on June 27, 1952 (H. Rept. No. 2327).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2913]]

Sec. 40.10 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and not the 
    Committee on Public Works has jurisdiction of a bill to amend the 
    act of June 28, 1946, authorizing the performance of necessary 
    reclamation protection work between the Yuma project and Boulder 
    Dam by the Bureau of Reclamation.

    On June 24, 1957,(12) Mr. Clifford Davis, of Tennessee, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Public Works 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 7534), and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 10124, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indian Lands

Sec. 40.11 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and not the 
    Committee on Appropriations has jurisdiction of a bill to authorize 
    a $100 per capita payment to members of the Red Lake Band of 
    Chippewa Indians from the proceeds of the sale of timber and lumber 
    on the Red Lake Reservation.

    On Apr. 21, 1955,(13) Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5478), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 101 Cong. Rec. 4896, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 5478 was reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
        Affairs on Mar. 26, 1956 (H. Rept. No. 1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oil Shale Lands--Proceeds From Disposal Of

Sec. 40.12 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and not the 
    Committee on Armed Services, has jurisdiction of bills providing 
    that proceeds from the disposal of oil shale lands [other than 
    naval oil shale reserves] shall go to a special Treasury account, 
    available for disbursement by the Secretary of the Treasury for 
    educational purposes.

    On Aug. 3, 1967,(15) L. Mendel Rivers, of South 
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee dis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 21179, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2914]]

charged from consideration of the bill (H.R. 10531), and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Land Claims of United States Based on Accretion or Avulsion

Sec. 40.13 A bill relating to claims by the United States to lands 
    along the Colorado River, where it forms the boundary between 
    states and where the government's claim is founded upon accretion 
    or avulsion, is referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs, not the Committee on the Judiciary.

    On June 28, 1967,(16) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 10256), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Interior 
and Insular Affairs.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 17738, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 10256 was reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
        Affairs on Sept. 4, 1968 (H. Rept. No. 1859).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Acquisition by the Navy

Sec. 40.14 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and not the 
    Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction of bills to authorize 
    the Secretary of the Navy to acquire certain land on the Island of 
    Guam.

    On May 5, 1958,(18) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged 
from further consideration of three identical bills (H.R. 12018, H.R. 
12055, and H.R. 12129), and that the bills be referred to his 
committee. In so doing, Mr. Aspinall observed that, ``It is the sense 
of the Committee on Armed Services that these bills properly come 
within the scope and jurisdiction of the Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 104 Cong. Rec. 7999, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outer Continental Shelf--Reserving Areas for Department of Defense

Sec. 40.15 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and not the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, has jurisdiction of proposals to 
    reserve for the use of the Department of Defense certain areas in 
    the Outer Continental Shelf, and

[[Page 2915]]

    to exclude them from the mineral leasing provisions of the Outer 
    Continental Shelf Lands Act.

    On May 16, 1963,(19) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, a member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, who made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 8777, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I 
    ask unanimous consent to rerefer Executive Communication 761, by 
    the Department of the Navy, containing a draft of proposed 
    legislation to provide for the restriction of certain areas in the 
    Outer Continental Shelf, known as the Corpus Christi Offshore 
    Warning Area, for defense purposes and for other purposes, to the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Rogers' request was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The bill, H.R. 6417, on this subject was 
referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs upon 
introduction on May 20, 1963.

Military Parks

Sec. 40.16 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has 
    jurisdiction of military parks (including the cemeteries therein), 
    administered by the Secretary of the Interior and the National Park 
    Service.

    On Oct. 20, 1967,(1) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, called up a resolution (H. 
Res. 241), and asked for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read 
the resolution; a quorum call followed, after which the House 
considered and agreed to the committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 29560, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution, with committee amendments, reads as follows:

        Resolved, That clause 10 of rule XI of the Rules of the House 
    of Representatives is amended by striking out paragraph (h) 
    (2) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XI clause 10 prescribed the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
        Interior and Insular Affairs; paragraph (h) read [H. Jour. 
        1482, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966)] thusly: ``Military parks and 
        battlefields and national cemeteries.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``(h) Military parks and battlefields.''
        Sec. 2. Clause 19 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives (3) is amended by inserting a new 
    subsection (b), as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. At the time, clause 19 [H. Jour. 1483, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966)] 
        prescribed the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' 
        Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            ``(b) Cemeteries of the United States in which veterans of 
        any war

[[Page 2916]]

        or conflict are or may be buried whether in the United States 
        or abroad, except cemeteries administered by the Secretary of 
        the Interior''.

    In the course of the ensuing discussion, Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. James H. Quillen, of Tennessee, who 
offered the following explanation for the proposal:(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 29562, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, as the able gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bolling] 
    has ably stated, House Resolution 241 as amended and reported by 
    the Committee on Rules attempts to achieve a more orderly 
    jurisdictional division in the matter of national cemeteries. At 
    the present time there is a bit of a problem because the Rules of 
    the House basically divide the jurisdiction between the Committee 
    on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs. Additionally the Committee on Foreign Affairs has some 
    interest in overseas cemeteries. For some time it has been clear to 
    members of the interested committees that the problem could be 
    broken down into two rather clearly distinguished types of 
    cemeteries; those which are being actively used as national 
    cemeteries in which our military veterans are being buried, and 
    those which are not active cemeteries. This latter group of 
    cemeteries primarily associated with major battlefields of the 
    Civil War is, as a general rule closed to present and future 
    burials. They have become, along with these battlefield sites, 
    military parks of an historical significance, regularly bringing 
    Americans from all over the country to view and visit them.
        This second group of cemeteries has long been administered by 
    the Secretary of the Interior. Those cemeteries still open and 
    available for the burial of our service men ought uniformly to be 
    under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. This 
    committee is charged with the overall direction and formulation of 
    our national policy with regard to our service veterans. The 
    committee also deals on a regular and day to day basis with the 
    Veterans' Administration, the agency which handles the matter of 
    veteran burials.
        House Resolution 241 has been before the Committee on Rules for 
    some 6 months. . . . If the resolution is adopted and the rules 
    amended, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs will retain 
    jurisdiction over ``national cemeteries administered by the 
    Secretary of the Interior''--in other words, those cemeteries which 
    are part of military parks and battlefield monuments. The Committee 
    on Veterans' Affairs will have jurisdiction over national 
    cemeteries ``in which veterans of any war or conflict are or may be 
    buried whether in the United States or abroad, except cemeteries 
    administered by the Secretary of the Interior.''
        As I have indicated, all interested committees have been 
    consulted and agree with the resolution. The intention of the 
    Committee on Rules is to assist these committees by adjusting the 
    jurisdictional lines to more accurately reflect the interests of 
    the committees and protect our veterans.

    Shortly thereafter, the House agreed to the resolution, as

[[Page 2917]]

amended, by a unanimous roll call vote.(5) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 29566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of this jurisdictional change, Wayne N. Aspinall, of 
Colorado, Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 
subsequently obtained unanimous consent to have 66 bills and two 
resolutions rereferred from that committee to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 29567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 40.17 The Committee on Public Lands (now the Committee on Interior 
    and Insular Affairs), and not the Committee on Military Affairs 
    (now the Committee on Armed Services), had jurisdiction of a bill 
    to revise the boundaries of the Chickamauga-Chattanooga National 
    Military Park in the States of Georgia and Tennessee.

    On Jan. 9, 1942,(7) Mr. Estes Kefauver, of Tennessee, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Military Affairs 
(now the Committee on Armed Services), discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 6332), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Public Lands (now the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs).(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 88 Cong. Rec. 207, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. H.R. 6332 was reported by the Committee on Public Lands on Jan. 26, 
        1942 (H. Rept. No. 1684).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mineral Leases of United States

Sec. 40.18 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and not the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, has exercised jurisdiction of a private 
    bill providing for the reinstatement and validation of a U.S. oil 
    and gas lease.

    On Aug. 5, 1959,(9) Mr. Walter E. Rogers, of Texas, a 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary obtained unanimous consent to 
have that committee discharged from further consideration of the 
private bill (H.R. 8437), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 105 Cong. Rec. 15190, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H.R. 8437 was reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
        Affairs on Aug. 24, 1959 (H. Rept. No. 962).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Missouri River Basin Project

Sec. 40.19 Under the rule in effect in the 86th Congress, the Committee 
    on Interior and

[[Page 2918]]

    Insular Affairs, and not the Committee on Public Works, had 
    jurisdiction of bills to provide for the inclusion of the Nebraska 
    Mid-State unit in the Missouri River Basin reclamation project.

    On Sept. 8, 1959,(11) Mr. Frank E. Smith, of 
Mississippi, obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Public 
Works discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 8985) and 
to have it rereferred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 18587, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 40.20 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and not the 
    Committee on Public Works has jurisdiction of a bill to make 
    certain provisions in connection with the construction of the 
    Garrison Diversion Unit, Missouri River Basin reclamation project, 
    by the Secretary of the Interior.

    On May 20, 1957,(12) Mr. Clifford Davis, of Tennessee, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Public Works 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H. R. 7068), and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 7257, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pennsylvania Avenue as Historic Site

Sec. 40.21 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and not the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction of 
    proposals to establish a Commission on Pennsylvania Avenue to 
    initiate plans for the further development of the avenue as a 
    national historic site.

    On Oct. 21, 1965,(13) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, Chairman 
of the Committee on the District of Columbia, who proceeded to make the 
following requests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 27803, 89th Cong. 1st. Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia be discharged from further consideration of 
    the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 678) to provide for the 
    administration and development of Pennsylvania Avenue as a national 
    historic site, and that the bill be rereferred to the Interior and 
    Insular Affairs Committee, which more appropriately should handle 
    such legislation.
        Also, I make the same request with respect to the Executive 
    communication thereon, dated September 30,

[[Page 2919]]

    1965, and printed as House Document No. 296, which was also 
    referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The executive communication which contained 
the genesis of this proposal, No. 1629 of Sept. 30, 1965, and House 
Joint Resolution 678, were both rereferred by this request. It should 
be noted, however, that the two were not identical. Mr. William B. 
Widnall, of New Jersey, who sponsored House Joint Resolution 678, had 
added to it a new section 3(d) which directed the commission to develop 
a plan for the relocation of the John F. Kennedy Center for the 
Performing Arts from the Potomac site to one on Pennsylvania Avenue. 
This particular addition, while itself a matter which fell within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works, was subsidiary to the 
main purpose of the legislation.

Renaming Reservoirs

Sec. 40.22 In the 93d Congress, the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs, and not the Committee on Public Works, had jurisdiction of 
    a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to rename the 
    Alamogordo Reservoir in New Mexico, although that reservoir was a 
    flood control project.

    On June 28, 1973,(14) Mr. Ray Roberts, of Texas, a 
member of the Committee on Public Works, obtained unanimous consent to 
have that committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 8094), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 22103, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Alamogordo Reservoir was authorized as 
a flood control project by 53 Stat. 1414, a bill reported by the 
Committee on Public Works.



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 41. Committee on Internal Security

    On Feb. 18, 1969,(15) the Committee on Internal Security 
became a standing committee of the House, replacing the Committee on 
Un-American Activities which, itself, had been a standing committee 
since 1945. Several special committees with a similar investigative 
jurisdiction but without legislative jurisdiction existed prior to that 
date, including a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 3746, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2920]]

Special Committee to Investigate Communist Activities (1930), a Special 
Committee to Investigate Un-American Activities (1934), a Committee on 
Un-American Activities (1935), and a Special Committee to Investigate 
Un-American Propaganda Activities (1938).

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Internal Security pursuant to 
the 1973 rules (16) read as I follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XI clause 11, House Rules and Manual Sec. 703 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Communist and other subversive activities affecting the 
    internal security of the United States.
        (b) The Committee on Internal Security, acting as a whole or by 
    subcommittee, is authorized to make investigations from time to 
    time of (1) the extent, character, objectives, and activities 
    within the United States of organizations or groups, whether of 
    foreign or domestic origin, their members, agents, and affiliates, 
    which seek to establish, or assist in the establishment of, a 
    totalitarian dictatorship within the United States, or to overthrow 
    or alter, or assist in the overthrow or alteration of, the form of 
    government of the United States or of any State thereof, by force, 
    violence, treachery, espionage, sabotage, insurrection, or any 
    unlawful means, (2) the extent, character, objectives, and 
    activities within the United States of organizations or groups, 
    their members, agents, and affiliates, which incite or employ acts 
    of force, violence, terrorism, or any unlawful means, to obstruct 
    or oppose the lawful authority of the Government of the United 
    States in the execution of any law or policy affecting the internal 
    security of the United States, and (3) all other questions, 
    including the administration and execution of any law of the United 
    States, or any portion of law, relating to the foregoing that would 
    aid the Congress or any committee of the House in any necessary 
    remedial legislation.
        The Committee on Internal Security shall report to the House 
    (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the 
    results of any such investigation, together with such 
    recommendations as it deems advisable.
        For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on 
    Internal Security, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to 
    sit and act at such times and places within the United States, 
    whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, to 
    hold such hearings, and to require, by subpena or otherwise, the 
    attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of 
    such books, records, correspondence, memorandums, papers, and 
    documents, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the 
    signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or 
    by any member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by 
    any person designated by any such chairman or member.

    As the precedents indicate, the jurisdiction of the committee's 
precursor, the Committee on Un-American Activities extended to such 
matters as a resolution to

[[Page 2921]]

define ``Communism,'' (17) and a bill to regulate and 
control the operation of foreign agencies acting within the United 
States or its I territories or dependencies.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sec. 41.2, infra.
18. Sec. 41.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee regarded its oversight jurisdiction as applying 
``across the board to the internal security activities of all Executive 
departments.'' (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dennis J. Taylor, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee did not ordinarily employ subcommittees. However, 
where hearings on a particular subject were anticipated to be lengthy, 
a special subcommittee was sometimes created.
    In the 94th Congress, the Committee on Internal Security was 
abolished, its jurisdiction was transferred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and records and staff of the Committee on Internal Security 
were transferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-22, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 
        1975.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Redefining Jurisdiction; Name Change

Sec. 41.1 The rules were amended to change the name of the Committee on 
    Un-American Activities to the Committee on Internal Security and to 
    redefine its jurisdiction.

    On Feb. 18, 1969,(1) William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 89 and 
asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 3723, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is amended--
        (1) by striking out clause 19; (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. At the time, this clause [H. Jour. 1317, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. 
        (1968)] identified the committee's jurisdiction as follows: 
        ``19. Committee on un-American Activities. (a) un-American 
        activities. (b) The Committee on un-American Activities, as a 
        whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to 
        time investigations of (1) the extent, character, and objects 
        of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (2) 
        the diffusion within the United States, of subversive and Un-
        American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries 
        or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form 
        of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (3) all 
        other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in 
        any necessary remedial legislation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (2) by renumbering clauses 11 through 18 as clauses 12 through 
    19, respectively; and

[[Page 2922]]

        (3) by inserting immediately after clause 10 the following new 
    clause:
        ``11. Committee on Internal Security.
        ``(a) Communist and other subversive activities affecting the 
    internal security of the United States.
        ``(b) The Committee on Internal Security, acting as a whole or 
    by subcommittee, is authorized to make investigations from time to 
    time of (1) the extent, character, objectives, and activities 
    within the United States of organizations or groups, whether of 
    foreign or domestic origin, their members, agents, and affiliates, 
    which seek to establish, or assist in the establishment of, a 
    totalitarian dictatorship within the United States, or to overthrow 
    or alter, or assist in the overthrow or alteration of, the form of 
    government of the United States or of any State thereof, by force, 
    violence, treachery, espionage, sabotage, insurrection, or any 
    unlawful means, (2) the extent, character, objectives, and 
    activities within the United States of organizations or groups, 
    their members, agents, and affiliates, which incite or employ acts 
    of force, violence, terrorism, or any unlawful means, to obstruct 
    or oppose the lawful authority of the Government of the United 
    States in the execution of any law or policy affecting the internal 
    security of the United States, and (3) all other questions, 
    including the administration and execution of any law of the United 
    States, or any portion of law, relating to the foregoing that would 
    aid the Congress or any committee of the House in any necessary 
    remedial legislation.
        ``The Committee on Internal Security shall report to the House 
    (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the 
    results of any such investigation, together with such 
    recommendations as it deems advisable. . . .''
        (b) Clause 31 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is amended by striking out ``Un-American 
    Activities'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Internal Security''. . 
    . .(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. This clause then stated [H. Jour. 1319, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968)] 
        that: ``31. No committee of the House, except the Committees on 
        Government Operations, Rules, on Standards of Official Conduct, 
        and Un-American Activities, shall sit, without special leave, 
        while the House is in session.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 4. Nothing in this resolution shall affect (1) the 
    validity of any action or proceeding of the Committee on Un-
    American Activities or of the House of Representatives before the 
    date of adoption of this resolution, or (2) the validity of any 
    action or proceeding by any officer or agency of the executive 
    branch of the Government, or by any court of competent 
    jurisdiction, based on any action or proceeding referred to in 
    clause (1) of this sentence. Any action or proceeding referred to 
    in clause (2) of the preceding sentence and pending on the date of 
    adoption of this resolution shall be continued by the officer, 
    agency, or court concerned in the same manner and to the same 
    extent as if this resolution had not been adopted.

    After lengthy debate,(4) the previous question was 
moved, the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. For discussion of the problems in overlapping jurisdiction which 
        the resolution brought about, see Sec. 29.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2923]]

motion carried, and the resolution, itself, was agreed 
to.(~5~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 3745, 3746, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defining Communism

Sec. 41.2 The Committee on Un-American Activities (later the Committee 
    on Internal Security), and not the Committee on the Judiciary had 
    jurisdiction of a resolution to ``define communism.''

    On Mar. 20, 1947,(6) Mr. Gordon L. McDonough, of 
California, obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on the 
Judiciary discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. 
Res. 99), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Un-American 
Activities (7) (later the Committee on Internal Security).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 2315, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The abolition of the Committee on Un-American Activities and the 
        creation of the Committee on Internal Security were 
        simultaneous actions but were not solely the result of a name 
        change. The jurisdiction of the successor committee was also 
        changed. See Sec. 29.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulating Foreign Agencies Within the United States

Sec. 41.3 The Committee on Un-American Activities (later the Committee 
    on Internal Security), and not the Committee on the Judiciary had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to regulate and control the operation of 
    foreign agencies acting within the United States or its territories 
    or dependencies.

    On Feb. 5, 1948,(8) Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, asked unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2948), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Un-American 
Activities (later the Committee on Internal Security). In so doing, Mr. 
Michener stated that he had conferred with the author of the bill as 
well as the acting chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
and observed that it was ``agreeable to them that I submit this 
request.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 94 Cong. Rec. 1150, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Sec. 41.4 The Committee on Un-American Activities (later the Committee 
    on Internal Security), had jurisdiction of a bill to protect the 
    United States against certain Un-

[[Page 2924]]

    American and subversive activities by requiring registration of 
    Communist organizations.

    On Aug. 22, 1950,(9) the Committee on Un-American 
Activities reported the bill (H.R. 9490), which was then referred to 
the Union Calendar. This measure became the Subversive Activities 
Control Act of 1950.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 96 Cong. Rec. 13062, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
10. 64 Stat. 987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 42. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

    The House first established a Committee on Commerce and 
Manufactures in 1795.(11) The committee was split in 1819, 
and one of the offspring of that split, the Committee on Commerce, was 
renamed in 1892--becoming the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4096.
12. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the course of its history, the committee has undergone a 
number of jurisdictional changes. Until 1883, it had reported the 
rivers and harbors appropriation bill.(13) In 1935, 
jurisdiction over measures dealing with water transportation, the Coast 
Guard, lifesaving service, lighthouses, lightships, ocean derelicts, 
the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Panama Canal was transferred to 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.(14) At the 
same time, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce received 
exclusive jurisdiction over measures pertaining to radio.(1) 
In 1947, by virtue of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the 
committee's jurisdiction was expanded to include most of its current 
responsibilities. In 1958, however, matters relating to the Bureau of 
Standards, standardization of weights and measures, and the metric 
system became the responsibility of the Committee on Science and 
Astronautics.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4096.
14. Rule XI clause 12, House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(l), House Rules and Manual Sec. 681 (1979).
 1. Rule XI clause 12, House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(l), House Rules and Manual Sec. 681 (1979).
 2. 104 Cong. Rec. 14513, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., July 21, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce pursuant to the 1973 rules read as follows: (3~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XI clause 12, House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(l), House Rules and Manual 681 (1979).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2925]]

        (a) Interstate and foreign commerce generally.
        (b) Civil aeronautics.
        (c) Inland waterways.
        (d) Interstate oil compacts and petroleum and natural gas, 
    except on the public lands.
        (e) Public health and quarantine.
        (f) Railroad labor and railroad retirement and unemployment, 
    except revenue measures relating thereto.
        (g) Regulation of interstate and foreign communications.
        (h) Regulation of interstate and foreign transportation, except 
    transportation by water not subject to the jurisdiction of the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission.
        (i) Regulation of interstate transmission of power, except the 
    installation of connections between Government water-power 
    projects.
        (j) Securities and exchanges.
        (k) Weather Bureau.

    Among the major pieces of legislation which the committee has 
reported out and which require periodic legislative activity are the 
following:

        (1) Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970.
        (2) Clean Air Act.
        (3) Communications Act of 1934.
        (4) Campaign Contributions Reform Act (Title I, Federal 
    Elections Campaign Act of 1971).
        (5) Communications Satellite Act of 1962.
        (6) Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
        (7) Community Mental Health Centers Act.
        (8) Emergency Rail Services Act of 1970.
        (9) Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.
        (10) Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
        (11) Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
        (12) Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
        (13) Federal Hazardous Substances Act.
        (14) Federal Power Act.
        (15) Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970.
        (16) Federal Trade Commission Act.
        (17) Flammable Fabrics Act.
        (18) National Emissions Standards Act.
        (19) Natural Gas Act.
        (20) National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.
        (21) Public Health Service Act.
        (22) Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970.
        (23) Railroad Retirement Act of 1935.
        (24) Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
        (25) Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970.
        (26) War Claims Act of 1948.

    In addition to its nonlegislative Subcommittee on Investigations, 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, in 1973, consisted of 
four legislative subcommittees with the following responsibilities:

                      Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance

        (a) Interstate and foreign commerce generally (including 
    Federal Trade Commission and labeling);

[[Page 2926]]

        (b) Securities and exchanges;
        (c) Motor vehicle safety;
        (d) Newsprint, pulp and paper, and brand names;
        (e) Trading With the Enemy and War Claims Acts; and
        (f) Travel and tourism.

                    Subcommittee on Communications and Power

        (a) Interstate and foreign communications;
        (b) Weather Bureau;
        (c) Petroleum and natural gas (including interstate oil 
    compacts); and
        (d) Interstate electric power.

                 Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment

        (a) Public health and quarantine;
        (b) Food and drugs;
        (c) Hospital construction;
        (d) Mental health and research; and
        (e) Air pollution.

                 Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics

        (a) Interstate and Foreign Transportation;
        (b) Civil aeronautics (including Federal Aviation 
    Administration and Civil Aeronautics Board);
        (c) Inland waterways;
        (d) Railroad retirement and unemployment; and
        (e) Railroad labor.

    The committee's jurisdiction also extends to bills authorizing the 
construction of marine hospitals and the acquisition of sites therefor, 
the establishment of quarantine stations, the spread of leprosy and 
other contagious diseases, measures declaring whether or not streams 
are navigable and for preventing or regulating hindrances to navigation 
(except bridges and dams that are part of river improvements), bills 
regulating railroads in their interstate commerce relations, bills 
relating to commercial travelers as agents of interstate commerce, the 
branding of articles going into such commerce, the prevention of the 
carriage of indecent and harmful pictures or literature, the protection 
of game through prohibition of interstate transportation, and to a 
certain extent, the regulation of the export of livestock, meat, and 
other agricultural products.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. All of the foregoing are cited in the House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 705, 706 (1973). See also Rule X clause 1(l), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 681 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as the precedents reveal, the jurisdiction of the 
committee and its predecessors has included such other legislative 
matters as creating civil remedies in federal courts for certain 
violations of commercial ethics,(5) providing aid to 
engineering and industrial research,(6) authorizing loan 
guarantees to institutions of higher education for development of 
telecommunications systems,(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sec. 42.3, infra.
 6. Sec. 42.4, infra.
 7. Sec. 42.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2927]]

assisting in the financing of the arctic winter games in 
Alaska,(8) constructing hospitals in Indian 
communities,(~9~) imposing safety standards on government-
purchased vehicles,(10) dealing with war claims of American 
nationals against foreign countries,(11) and foreign 
nationals' war claims against the United States.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sec. 42.1, infra.
 9. Sec. 42.7, infra.
10. Sec. 42.10, infra.
11. Sec. Sec. 42.12, 42.13, infra.
12. Sec. 42.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 vested in the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce jurisdiction over consumer affairs and 
consumer protection, health and health facilities except those 
supported by payroll deductions, and biomedical research and 
development; the committee lost jurisdiction over civil aeronautics (to 
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation), civil aviation 
research and development and the National Weather Service (to the 
Committee on Science and Technology), and trading with the enemy (to 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs).(~13~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 95th Congress, the committee obtained ``the same 
jurisdiction with respect to regulation of nuclear facilities and of 
use of nuclear energy as it has with respect to regulation of 
nonnuclear facilities and of use of nonnuclear energy,'' and obtained 
the special oversight function of reviewing and studying all laws, 
programs, and government activities relating to nuclear energy. See the 
``Memorandum of Understanding'' relating to this jurisdiction and to 
that of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs inserted by Mr. 
Jonathan B. Bingham, of New York, during debate on the adoption of the 
rules in the 95th Congress.(l4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 64, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arctic Winter Games--Financing

Sec. 42.1 In the 92d Congress, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, and not the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 
    was given jurisdiction of a bill to assist in financing by the 
    Secretary of Commerce of the arctic winter games in Alaska in 1974.

    On June 7, 1972,(15) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 19935, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2928]]

the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (S. 2988), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Civil Aeronautics

Sec. 42.2 In the 91st Congress, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, with the concurrence of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    was given jurisdiction over legislative proposals providing for the 
    expansion and improvement of airports and related facilities, even 
    where such proposals included amendments to the Internal Revenue 
    Code and the imposition of user charges on passengers and property 
    transported by air; but the Committee on Ways and Means reserved 
    the right to consider the tax features of such legislative 
    proposals separately.

    On June 18, 1969,(16) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, Chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, who made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 16301, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Executive 
    Communication No. 863, received from the Secretary of 
    Transportation on June 17, relating to the future of air 
    transportation, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, be 
    referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    because the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means 
    understand that the tax provisions contained in that message will 
    be handled by the Committee on Ways and Means.

    Immediately thereafter, unanimous consent was granted.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Executive Communication No. 863, which 
proposed the enactment of an Aviation Facilities Expansion Act and 
included extensive amendments to the Internal Revenue Code was 
initially referred to the Committee on Ways and Means because of the 
tax features contained therein. Following discussions between the 
Chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the communication was rereferred to 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. After the 
rereference, the Chairman of that committee, Harley O. Staggers, of 
West Virginia, introduced a bill

[[Page 2929]]

(H.R. 12374), on June 24, 1969,(17) embodying the proposals 
contained in the draft bill submitted with Executive Communication No. 
863. H.R. 12374 was referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce. A precedent for this agreement between the two committees was 
a similar arrangement which had been worked out with respect to the 
Federal Aid Highway Act of 1959,(18) where title II was 
considered by the Committee on Ways and Means although the primary 
jurisdiction over the program fell within the Committee on Public 
Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 17138, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See Sec. 29.4 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfair Trade Practices

Sec. 42.3 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, and not the Committee on the Judiciary, had jurisdiction 
    of bills creating civil remedies (including injunctions), in the 
    federal courts for misleading or false advertising, dilution of 
    trademark or trade name distinctiveness, or violation of commercial 
    ethics.

    On June 4, 1962,(19) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Emanuel Celler, of New York, Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, who made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 9601, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 10038, to 
    provide civil remedies to persons damaged by unfair commercial 
    activities in or affecting commerce, and H.R. 10124, be referred to 
    the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. They were 
    improperly referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The subject 
    matter of these bills should be properly before the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        A previous bill, H.R. 4590, which is superseded by H.R. 10038, 
    had been referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, and the present bill should likewise fall within that 
    category.

    Shortly thereafter, the House agreed by unanimous consent to Mr. 
Celler's request.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 10038 and H.R. 10124 were identical 
bills based on language in H.R. 4590, which as Mr. Celler indicated, 
had been originally referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce.

Engineering and Industrial Research

Sec. 42.4 In the 75th Congress, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce and not the Committee on Education (now the Committee on 
    Edu

[[Page 2930]]

    cation and Labor), had jurisdiction of a bill to aid engineering 
    and industrial research in connection with colleges and schools of 
    engineering in the several state and territorial universities and 
    colleges.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(20) Mr. Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, a 
member of the Committee on Education (now the Committee on Education 
and Labor), obtained unanimous consent to have his committee discharged 
from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5531), and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 3090, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Alcohol Administration Act

Sec. 42.5 The Committee on interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction of a bill to amend the 
    Federal Alcohol Administration Act to regulate commerce in 
    distilled spirits.

    On June 18, 1948,(21) Mr. Daniel A. Reed, of New York, a 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent 
to have that committee discharged from further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 5849), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 94 Cong. Rec. 8918, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holding Companies

Sec. 42.6 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has 
    jurisdiction of a concurrent resolution directing the Federal Trade 
    Commission to investigate and report back to the Congress on 
    propaganda regarding federal legislation on the subject of holding 
    companies.

    On Mar. 14, 1935,(1) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, recognized Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, a member of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, who asked unanimous 
consent that the House immediately consider Senate Concurrent 
Resolution No. 12, which read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 79 Cong. Rec. 3623, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the Federal Trade Commission be, and it is 
    hereby, directed to make an investigation and report its 
    conclusions to the Congress as to the propaganda which is now going 
    on over the Nation re

[[Page 2931]]

    garding Federal legislation on the subject of holding companies, 
    and to inform the Congress the origin, magnitude, purpose, methods, 
    and expense of said propaganda.

    Reserving the right to object, Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, 
initiated the following exchange:

        . . . [H]as the gentleman [Mr. Rayburn] taken up this 
    resolution with the members of his committee?
        Mr. Rayburn: The resolution would not have gone to the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in my opinion. I think 
    it would have gone to the Rules Committee.
        Mr. Snell: Has it been taken up with the Rules Committee?
        Mr. Rayburn: No.
        Mr. Snell: It seems to me a matter as important as this ought 
    to be taken up with some committee and should have some little 
    consideration. I do not know that I shall object, but I really 
    think if it is a matter that should go to the Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce Committee that the ranking minority member of that 
    committee should have an opportunity to be here, or at least have 
    been notified before it was brought out on the floor.
        Mr. Rayburn: It is my impression it would not go to that 
    committee.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snell: What committee would this resolution naturally go 
    to?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

    Mr. Rayburn's unanimous-consent request was objected 
to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 3626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And, on the following day,(3) the Speaker referred the 
measure to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 3776, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 15, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hospital Construction in Indian Communities

Sec. 42.7 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has jurisdiction of a 
    bill to provide for the construction of Indian hospitals and to 
    provide for grants to assist in the construction of community 
    hospitals which will serve Indians and non-Indians jointly.

    On Feb. 6, 1957,(4) Clair Engle, of California, Chairman 
of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from the further consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 2021) and for its rereference to the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 1585, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2932]]

Loan Guarantees to Educational Institutions Developing 
    Telecommunications Systems

Sec. 42.8 While the Committee on Education and Labor has reported 
    legislation of this type, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, having consistently handled legislation relating to 
    noncommercial educational broadcasting facilities pursuant to its 
    jurisdiction under the rules over interstate communications, was 
    held to have jurisdiction of a proposal adding a new section to the 
    Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 authorizing loan guarantees 
    to institutions of higher education for development and use of 
    educational delivery (telecommunications) systems on and off 
    campus.

    On Oct. 28, 1971,(5) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
7248), to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other 
acts dealing with higher education. In the course of that consideration 
a jurisdictional question arose over part C of title VII of a proposed 
committee [Committee on Education and Labor] amendment to H.R. 7248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 38036, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The relevant sections pertained to the governmental guarantee of 
certain loans to institutions of higher education for the purpose of 
encouraging the development and use of educational delivery (i.e., 
telecommunications) systems. Of particular pertinence were the 
following provisions: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 38076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Part C--Guarantee of Loans for Educational Delivery Systems

        Sec. 721. Title III of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 
    1963 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    section:

             ``guarantee of loans for educational delivery systems

        ``Sec. 310. (a) To encourage institutions of higher education 
    to develop and use educational delivery systems which, through 
    technological means, permit carrying on educational programs of the 
    institution in locations away from the campus and out of the 
    presence of the institution's instructional personnel, the 
    Secretary may guarantee, in accordance with the provisions of this 
    section, the payment of the principal and accrued interest on loans 
    made to eligible borrowers (as defined in subsection (k)) to 
    acquire, install, and operate such systems. . . .
        ``(k) For purposes of this section--
        ``(1) The term `eligible borrower' means an institution of 
    higher edu

[[Page 2933]]

    cation or a nonprofit organization established and operated with 
    the active participation of one or more institutions of higher 
    education for the sole purpose of acquiring, installing, or 
    operating an educational delivery system.

        ``(2) The terms `acquiring' and `installing' mean the 
    procurement and placement in position for service (including 
    planning therefor) of the technological facilities and equipment 
    needed for the operation of the educational delivery system, 
    including any new or remodeled facilities and equipment required by 
    the system for the production, processing, and transmission of 
    electronic signals. Such terms include the construction or repair 
    of facilities needed to house equipment, and space, facilities, and 
    equipment at receiving installations, except where such receiving 
    installations are equipped and operated by an eligible borrower as 
    a part of a `remote' campus, distributing, or displaying 
    educational materials (whether in an electronic manner, or 
    otherwise).
        ``(3) The term `operating' means the use of services of staff 
    and technical personnel, the acquisition of necessary supplies, the 
    maintenance of a debt service reserve, and other activities 
    necessary to operate the educational delivery system, but does not 
    include the provision of educational services.
        ``(4) The term `educational delivery system' includes any 
    system which by technological means, enables a teaching classroom 
    to be extended to reach students in remote locations, and, 
    specifically, includes a telecommunication system which provides a 
    network of communications via electronic means over distance, 
    including radio and television in broadcast, closed-circuit, or 
    point-to-point service, data transmission, computers, and other 
    electronic devices involving the use of the electromagnetic 
    spectrum and including apparatus necessary for the production and 
    processing of such electronic transmissions such as audio or video 
    recording equipment, cameras, microphones, control consoles, 
    microwave equipment, transmitters, towers, translators and 
    repeaters, but does not include the apparatus required for 
    reception, distribution at the receiving installation, or display 
    of signals so transmitted.''

    Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, raised a jurisdictional point of 
order, as follows: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 38077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman,(8) part C of title VII would provide 
    for loan guarantees for educational delivery systems. To show the 
    nature of those systems, I would refer the Members to section 
    310(b)(3)--page 175, beginning at line 19--which refers to 
    instances where these delivery systems may require licenses issued 
    by the Federal Communications Commission and to the definition of 
    ``educational delivery system'' in section 310(k)(4)--appearing at 
    page 180, beginning line 23--where these systems are defined to 
    include telecommunications systems, and radio and television 
    broadcasting systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I would also point out to the Members that the 
    jurisdiction of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, 
    insofar as edu

[[Page 2934]]

    cational broadcasting facilities are concerned, has not laid 
    fallow. In support of this statement I would point to the 
    provisions of subpart A of part IV of title III of the 
    Communications Act of 1934 which provides for grants for 
    educational radio and television broadcasting facilities.
        These provisions were originally enacted in 1962 and have been 
    amended at least twice since that time. Since enactment of the 
    Educational Radio and Television Broadcasting Facilities Act of 
    1962, over $100 million has been authorized to be appropriated for 
    the construction of such facilities.
        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think that the point of 
    order lies on this portion.

    Responding to the point of order, Mr. John R. Dellenback, of 
Oregon, noted that: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 117 Cong. Rec. 38077, 38078, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]here is no attempt in part C to amend any statute 
    which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce. There is reference on the bottom of page 175, as 
    my good friend has made clear, to the Federal Communications 
    Commission. But if you look at the language of that reference there 
    is no attempt there to change the powers of the Commission, and 
    there is no attempt here to amend any law whatsoever; there is 
    merely a reference to a situation which might possibly exist. It 
    makes clear that where the system requires the use of the frequency 
    spectrum under jurisdiction of the FCC, that Commission will issue 
    the required license, and so on.
        So far as that is concerned, of course, any laws that affect 
    the powers of the FCC and any laws that affect the licenses are not 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor, 
    but there is no attempt to deal with such laws.
        The basic sweep of this particular part C does not go, as you 
    see, to the amendment of any such statutes, and it does not deal 
    with just such a subject as television, but where they are talking 
    about the possible use of tape recorders or talking about the 
    possible use of computer hookups, or talking about a television 
    license, but not dealing with the control of those licenses, but 
    merely dealing with the utilization of telephone lines. And we have 
    hosts of bills which deal with the utilization of equipment that is 
    affected by other statutes than the statute before this body, that 
    provide them, or before another committee.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we are not here dealing with 
    the amendment of any statute within the control of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, that we are merely striving to 
    make available to educational institutions throughout the country 
    the broad sweep of potential equipment and assistance which will 
    aid in the educational processes with which the institutions 
    applying for loans are properly concerned, and with which this 
    committee is properly concerned. And that is all that part C deals 
    with.

    The Chairman explained his ruling, as follows:

        The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) has raised a 
    point of

[[Page 2935]]

    order against section 721 of title VII beginning on page 174, line 
    3, through page 181, line 13, on the ground that the subject matter 
    of this section is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not that of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor.
        Section 721 in the present bill would add a new section to 
    title III of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 to 
    authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to 
    guarantee loans to institutions of higher education and related 
    nonprofit corporations for development and use of educational 
    delivery systems to transmit what takes place in a classroom and on 
    the campus to remote locations on or off the campus.
        The Chair observes that on pages 180 and 181 the educational 
    delivery system is so designed as to include a telecommunication 
    system which provides a network of communications via electronic 
    means over distances, and includes radio and television and other 
    electronic devices.

        The Chair notes that while the Higher Education Facilities Act 
    of 1963, and amendments thereto, have been reported by the 
    Committee on Education and Labor, that committee in section 721 of 
    the present bill is attempting to add a completely new section to 
    that act to incorporate therein a subject which has heretofore been 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce--that subject being the approval, installation, and 
    operation of broadcasting facilities.
        Clause 12(g) of rule XI (10) confers upon the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce jurisdiction over the 
    regulation of interstate and foreign communications. Under that 
    clause, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has 
    considered legislation authorizing grants for noncommercial 
    educational broadcasting facilities to public institutions of 
    higher education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Rule X clause 1(l) (5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 681 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the gentleman from West Virginia has stated, the original 
    legislation enacted in 1962, and subsequent amendments thereto, 
    were reported by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        Therefore, the Chair holds that the subject of Federal loans 
    for television facilities on and off campus for institutions of 
    higher education is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order and the 
    language identified in the point of order is stricken from the 
    committee amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This bill was being considered under a 
special rule permitting jurisdictional points of order to be raised 
against portions of the Committee on Education and Labor's amendment in 
the nature of a substitute within the jurisdiction of other House 
committees.

Physical Fitness and Training Programs as Public Health Measures

Sec. 42.9 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on

[[Page 2936]]

    Armed Services has jurisdiction of a concurrent resolution 
    expressing the sense of the Congress that a civilian physical 
    fitness and training program should be established in the interest 
    of national security.

    On June 27, 1951,(11) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent to have 
his committee discharged from further consideration of the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 19), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 97 Cong Rec. 7254, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safety Standards on Government-purchased Vehicles

Sec. 42.10 In the 86th Congress, the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce and not the Committee on Government Operations had 
    rereferred to it a bill to require passenger-carrying motor 
    vehicles purchased for use by the federal government to meet 
    certain safety standards.

    On Feb. 16, 1959,(12) Mr. Kenneth A. Roberts, of 
Alabama, obtained unanimous consent to have the bill (H.R. 1341), 
rereferred from the Committee on Government Operations to the Committee 
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 2420, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 1341 was reported by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
        Commerce on July 27, 1959 (H. Rept. No. 715).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Travel Data

Sec. 42.11 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill authorizing an annual appropriation to enable the Secretary of 
    Commerce to compile and make available information and statistical 
    data relating to travel within the United States.

    On Feb. 14, 1951,(14) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1898), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 1255, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2937]]

War Claims

Sec. 42.12 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill creating a 
    commission to examine and render final decisions on all claims by 
    American nationals who were members of the Armed Forces of the 
    United States and who were prisoners of war of Germany, Italy, or 
    Japan, for payment of awards.

    On Mar. 21, 1947,(15) ``after conferring with the 
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs as well as the chairman of 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,'' Mr. James E. Van 
Zandt, of Pennsylvania, sought unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 
1000), which had been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
``be transferred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.'' 
Immediately thereafter, the House granted this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 93 Cong. Rec. 2417, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The War Claims Act of 1948 (50 USC App. 
Sec. Sec. 2001 et seq.) permits claims by U.S. nationals for loss of 
property located in foreign countries during war. Such claims are 
adjudicated by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and are 
satisfied out of the War Claims Fund which consists of sums covered 
into the Treasury pursuant to section 39 of the Trading with the Enemy 
Act (50 USC App. Sec. 39). These are proceeds from properties of 
Germany or Japan or their nationals retained by the United States after 
World War II. While the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 transferred 
jurisdiction over the Trading with the Enemy Act from the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
including claims under that act (50 USC App. Sec. Sec. 1-44) by persons 
(not only U.S. nationals) for property in the custody of the alien 
property custodian seized from an enemy or an ally thereof under the 
provisions of that act, there was no indication that the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce has been stripped of jurisdiction over 
the War Claims Act.

Sec. 42.13 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction of a bill to change 
    the order of priority for payment out of the German special deposit 
    account

[[Page 2938]]

    [amending the Settlement of War Claims Act].

    On July 16, 1947,(16) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Daniel A. Reed, of New York, who stated 
that he had introduced the bill (H.R. 4213), on the previous day and 
that ``Through error it was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means.'' Accordingly, Mr. Reed asked unanimous consent that the latter 
committee be discharged from further consideration of the bill and that 
it be rereferred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 93 Cong. Rec. 9049, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent to 
effect this rereferral.

Sec. 42.14 The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and not the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs has jurisdiction of House joint 
    resolutions authorizing the Secretary of State to repay German and 
    Japanese citizens, subjects, corporations, or associations whose 
    property was taken by the United States since Dec. 18, 1941.

    On July 13, 1955,(17) by direction of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, James P. Richards, of South Carolina, Chairman of that 
committee, asked unanimous consent that House Joint Resolutions 264, 
265, 268, and 272, which had been referred to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs be rereferred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce. The joint resolutions all entitled ``to improve the relations 
of the United States with Western Germany and Japan'' (18) 
were identical. Each authorized the Secretary of State ``following as 
nearly as . . . feasible those [procedures] used as a result of the 
Treaty of Peace with Italy, to pay amounts equal in value to all 
property and interest taken by the United States since Dec. 18, 1941, 
from Germany or Japan, or any citizen or subject thereof, or any 
corporation or association organized under the laws thereof.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 101 Cong. Rec. 10440, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 4093, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 30, 1955; 101 Cong. 
        Rec. 3892, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Mar. 28, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In advancing this request, Mr. Richards noted that:

        . . . Preliminary hearings by an ad hoc subcommittee of the 
    Foreign Affairs Committee developed that these resolutions are 
    similar in purpose to H.R. 6730,(19) a measure sponsored 
    by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. ``A bill to amend the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended, and 
        the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended''; 101 Cong. Rec. 7932, 
        84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2939]]

    the administration which was introduced June 8, 1955, and referred 
    to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

    The House granted the request.


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 43. Committee on the Judiciary

    The Committee on the Judiciary has been a standing committee of the 
House since 1813, when it was concerned exclusively with matters 
pertaining to judicial proceedings. The breadth of its jurisdiction 
grew considerably in the 20th century. In 1947,(1) the 
committee annexed most of the jurisdiction of the former Committees on 
Claims, Immigration and Naturalization, Patents, Revision of the Laws, 
and War Claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. This change in jurisdiction was the result of the Legislative 
        Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to the 
1973 rules read as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XI clause 13, House Rules and Manual Sec. 707 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(m), House Rules and Manual Sec. 682 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Judicial proceedings, civil and criminal generally.
        (b) Apportionment of Representatives.
        (c) Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting.
        (d) Civil liberties.
        (e) Constitutional amendments.
        (f) Federal courts and judges.
        (g) Holidays and celebrations.
        (h) Immigration and naturalization.
        (i) Interstate compacts generally.
        (j) Local courts in the Territories and possessions.
        (k) Measures relating to claims against the United States.
        (l) Meetings of Congress, attendance of Members and their 
    acceptance of incompatible offices.
        (m) National penitentiaries.
        (n) Patent Office.
        (o) Patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
        (p) Presidential succession.
        (q) Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful 
    restraints and monopolies.
        (r) Revision and codification of the Statutes of the United 
    States.

        (s) State and Territorial boundary lines.

    There were seven subcommittees in 1973, and the jurisdiction of 
each was specified in the committee's own Rule VIII:

        Rule VIII. Jurisdiction of Subcommittees.--The jurisdiction of 
    the seven standing Subcommittees shall, subject to alteration as 
    other Subcommittees are created, be as follows:

               Subcommittee on International Law and Citizenship

        (a) Immigration and naturalization.
        (b) Deportation, extradition, and crimes committed outside the 
    United States.

[[Page 2940]]

        (c) Passports, travel, and international compacts and 
    organizations.
        (d) Admiralty matters.
        (e) Amnesty.
        (f) Internal security matters, espionage, and mutiny.
        (g) Treaties.
        (h) Offshore mineral rights.
        (i) Other related matters.

            Subcommittee on Courts and the Administration of Justice

        (a) Oversight of the Department of Justice, except as otherwise 
    assigned by these rules.
        (b) Oversight of United States Attorneys and United States 
    Marshals.
        (c) Administrative Conference and administrative procedure 
    matters.
        (d) Judicial ethics and recompense.
        (e) The courts--their non-criminal rules; non-criminal 
    procedures; operation; number.
        (f) Jury matters.
        (g) Other related matters.

                Subcommittee on Claims and Government Relations

        (a) Claims against the United States.
        (b) Governmental relations, including boundaries, interstate 
    compacts, and state taxation of interstate commerce.
        (c) Conflicts of interest and conflicts of laws.
        (d) Compensation for individuals or groups.
        (e) Federal holidays and celebrations, and charters for non-
    business corporations.
        (f) Apportionment of Representatives, meetings of Congress, 
    attendance of Members and their acceptance of incompatible offices.
        (g) Contracts.
        (h) Revision and codification of the statutes of the United 
    States. excet tor the Federal Criminal Laws.
        (i) Other related matters.

              Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments and Rights

        (a) Constitutional amendments-1. Presidential succession.
        (b) Civil liberties.
        (c) Privacy matters, including oversight; consideration of 
    wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping.
        (d) Civil rights and equal rights.
        (e) Separation of powers.
        (f) District of Columbia home rule.
        (g) Other related matters.

                        Subcommittee on Criminal Justice

        (a) Revision of the United States Criminal Code.
        (b) Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
        (c) Oversight of the Department of Justice in criminal matters.
        (d) Criminal justice, including Federal Rules of Criminal 
    Procedure, bail, Criminal Justice Act of 1964.
        (e) Firearms legislation, counterfeiting, and other criminal 
    matters not otherwise specifically assigned by these rules.
        (f) Other related matters.

                     Subcommittee on Crime and Corrections

        (a) Oversight and investigation of criminal activities, 
    including organized crime, street crime, and crimes associated with 
    narcotics.
        (b) Corrections, including probation matters and pre- and post-
    release problems of criminal offenders.

[[Page 2941]]

        (c) National Penitentiaries.
        (d) Juvenile delinquency.
        (e) Other related matters.

                        Subcommittee on Economic Matters

        (a) Antitrust.
        (b) Monopolies.
        (c) Bankruptcy.
        (d) Patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
        (e) Insurance.
        (f) Federal chartering of business corporations.
        (g) Other related matters.

    The committee has exercised jurisdictional authority over related 
subjects. These include bills relating to local courts in the District 
of Columbia, Alaska, and the territories, the establishment of a court 
of patent appeals, claims of states against the United States, bills 
relating to the Office of President, to the flag, removal of political 
disabilities, and the prohibition of traffic in intoxicating liquors. 
Moreover, the committee also reports on important subjects of law 
relating to questions within the jurisdiction of other 
committees.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. All of the foregoing are cited in House Rules and Manual Sec. 708 
        (1973). See Rule X clause 1(m), House Rules and Manual Sec. 682 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents reveal, the public jurisdiction of the committee 
and of those committees whose responsibilities it assumed has also 
extended to such subjects as authorization to modify a trust of which 
the Library of Congress is a contingent beneficiary,(4) 
establishment of a national motto, (5) provision of a legal 
defense for Members and employees sued for duty related 
action,(6) elimination of renewed oaths of office by 
civilians,(7) and the establishment of panels to encourage 
inventions.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sec. 43.10, infra.
 5. Sec. 43.18, infra.
 6. Sec. 43.17, infra.
 7. Sec. 43.19, infra.
 8. Sec. Sec. 43.15, 43.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of private jurisdiction, the committee has dealt with such 
matters as conferring or extending veterans' survivor,(9) 
medical,(10) educational,(11) or insurance 
(12) benefits, adjusting the annual leave account of a civil 
service employee,(13) exempting a certain annuity fund from 
taxation,(14) and providing tax relief to a charitable 
foundation and its contributors.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sec. Sec. 43.24, 43.25, infra.
10. Sec. Sec. 43.26, 43.27, infra.
11. Sec. 43.28, infra.
12. Sec. 43.29, infra.
13. Sec. 43.20, infra.
14. Sec. 43.22, infra.
15. Sec. 43.23, infra. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Celebration Proclamations

Sec. 43.1 Measures calling on the President to issue proclama

[[Page 2942]]

    tions establishing periods of celebration or commemoration were 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

    On Apr. 27, 1967,(16~) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, who made 
the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 11062, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that House Joint 
    Resolution 117 authorizing and requesting the President to extend 
    through 1967 his proclamation of a period to ``See the United 
    States,'' and for other purposes, be rereferred to the Committee on 
    the Judiciary instead of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce. The Committee on the Judiciary has handled this matter 
    before.

    Immediately thereafter, the House agreed to the rereferral by 
unanimous consent.(1~7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Effective Jan. 3, 1975, the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 
        transferred jurisdiction over holidays and celebrations from 
        the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on Post Office 
        and Civil Service. See Rule X clause 1(o)(7), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 684 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Liberties; Sex Discrimination

Sec. 43.2 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Education and Labor has jurist diction of proposals amending the 
    Civil Rights Act of 1957 [42 USC Sec. 1975c(a)], to include 
    discrimination on the basis of sex among the several forms of 
    discrimination to be investigated by the Civil Rights Commission.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(1~8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
7248), to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other 
acts dealing with higher education. As Chairman pro tempore Edmond 
Edmondson, of Oklahoma, noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 117 Cong. Rec. 39248, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When the Committee rose on yesterday, it was agreed 
    (19) that title X, ending on page 202, line 8, of the 
    committee substitute amendment would be considered as read and open 
    to amendment at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 117 Cong. Rec. 39099, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 3, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Emanuel Cellar, of New 
York, made the following point of order: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 39248, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 4, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order with reference to section 
    1007 of

[[Page 2943]]

    the committee substitute,(21) the contents of which are 
    exclusively within the purview of the House Judiciary Committee. It 
    concerns the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and there are a number of 
    bills pending in our committee concerning that act. For that reason 
    a point of order made (22) to the provisions and a 
    motion is made to strike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Section 1007 was actually part of an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor 
        [see 117 Cong. Rec. 39099, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 3, 1971]. 
        It read as follows: ``Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of 
        section 104 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 USC 
        Sec. 1975c(a)) is amended by inserting immediately after 
        `religion,' the following: `sex,' and paragraphs (2), (3), and 
        (4) of subsection (a) of such section 104 are each amended by 
        inserting immediately after `religion' the following: `, 
        sex'.''
22. H. Res. 661, agreed to on Oct. 27, 1971 [117 Cong. Rec. 37769, 92d 
        Cong. 1st Sess.], prescribed the special rule by which H.R. 
        7248 was to be considered, and provided among other things [id. 
        at p. 37765], that ``all titles, parts, or sections of 
        [amendment in the nature of a substitute] the subject matter of 
        which is properly within the jurisdiction of any other standing 
        committee of the House of Representatives, shall be subject to 
        a point of order for such reason if such point of order is 
        properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 7248.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair then recognized Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, a member 
of the Committee on Education and Labor, who was managing the Bill in 
the Committee of the whole. The following exchange took place:

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentlewoman from Oregon wish 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded. The 
    Chair sustains the point of order and the language in section 1007 
    is stricken.

Claims Against the United States; Compensating Flood Victims

Sec. 43.3 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Public Works has jurisdiction of a bill to provide for determining 
    the compensation of certain persons whose lands have been flooded 
    and damaged by reasons of fluctuations in the water level of the 
    Lake of the Woods, Minnesota.

    On Mar. 17, 1954,(23) George A. Dondero, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(S. 215), and to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 100 Cong. Rec. 3418, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2944]]

have it rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.(24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. H.R. 2098, which was identical to S. 215, was reported by the 
        Committee on the Judiciary on Aug. 4, 1954 (H. Rept. No. 2273).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compensating Nonfederal Firemen for Civil Disorder Injuries

Sec. 43.4 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Education and Labor has jurisdiction of a bill providing for 
    compensation of firemen, not employed by the United States, who are 
    killed or injured in the performance of duty during a civil 
    disorder.

    On May 6, 1968,(1) Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, obtained unanimous 
consent to have the bill (H.R. 16898), rereferred from that committee 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 11798, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compensating Certain U.S. Employees for Newly Assigned Duties

Sec. 43.5 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a bill to provide for 
    a claim for the payment of extra compensation for certain work 
    heretofore performed by customs officers and employees.

    On Mar. 23, 1950,(2) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bil1 (H.R. 7767), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 3989, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increasing Pensions for Certain Class of Persons

Sec. 43.6 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a private bill amending an 
    omnibus pension act to increase the amount of pension granted a 
    certain class of persons.

    On Feb. 15, 1960,(3) Olin E. Teague, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 10380), and to have it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 106 Cong. Rec. 2523, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2945]]

rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Use of Contingent Fund as Reimbursement for Lost Cameras Entrusted to 
    the Capitol Police

Sec. 43.7 The Committee on Claims (now the Committee on the Judiciary), 
    and not the Committee on Accounts (now the Committee on House 
    Administration), had jurisdiction of a private resolution 
    appropriating money out of the contingent fund of the House to 
    reimburse visitors to the Capitol for cameras checked with the 
    Capitol Police and subsequently lost or stolen.

    On Dec. 10, 1943,(4) John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
Chairman of the Committee on House Accounts (now the Committee on House 
Administration), obtained unanimous consent to have his committee 
discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 194), 
and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Claims (now the Committee 
on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 89 Cong. Rec. 10553, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Validating Additional Sea Duty Payments for Naval Personnel

Sec. 43.8 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Government Operations has jurisdiction of a bill to provide for 
    validation of additional sea duty payments to certain naval 
    personnel who served on vessels operating on the Great Lakes.

    On May 29, 1956,(5) William L. Dawson, of Illinois, 
Chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 11125), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 9253, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal Justice Training and Research

Sec. 43.9 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Un-
    American Activities had jurisdiction of a bill establishing an 
    academy of criminal justice and providing for training and research 
    in the administration of criminal justice.

[[Page 2946]]

    On Apr. 5, 1965,(6) Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana, 
Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 6071), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. As Mr. Willis pointed out in making his request, the 
original referral was inadvertent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 6822, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Library of Congress Trust Fund

Sec. 43.10 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    House Administration has jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the 
    Attorney General to consent, on behalf of the Library of Congress 
    Trust Fund Board, to a modification of a certain trust of which the 
    Library is a contingent beneficiary.

    On Aug. 17, 1959,(7) Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, 
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, obtained unanimous 
consent to have that committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 7415), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. In so doing, Mr. Burleson noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 16051, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [I]f I may advise the Speaker,(8) the 
    gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Meyer] who introduced the bill and the 
    chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Celler], have agreed to accept the bill in the Judiciary 
    Committee. The reason the request is made is that the other body 
    has referred the companion bill to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.), Speaker pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conflicts of Interest in the Executive Branch

Sec. 43.11 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a bill establishing 
    standards to govern possible conflicts of interest of employees of 
    the executive branch of the government, providing the Attorney 
    General with civil remedies for violations of these standards, and 
    supplementing and revising the criminal law (Title 18, United 
    States Code), prescribing restrictions against conflicts of 
    interest.

    On Feb. 25, 1960,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 3484, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2947]]

nized Emanuel Celler, of New York, Chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, who sought unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 10575), be 
rereferred from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. In presenting his request, Mr. Celler 
stated ``I have already arranged with the chairman of the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service [Thomas J. Murray (Tenn.) ] and there is 
no objection to the rereference of the bill.''

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

D.C. Code of Laws

Sec. 43.12 The Committee on Revision of the Laws (now the Committee on 
    the Judiciary), and not the Committee on the District of Columbia 
    had jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the appointment of a 
    commission to prepare a new Code of Laws for the District of 
    Columbia.

    On Mar. 13, 1940,(10) Jennings Randolph, of West 
Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, 
obtained unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from 
further consideration of the bill (H. R. 8891), and to have it referred 
to the Committee on Revision of the Laws (now the Committee on the 
Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 2808, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.C. Judges' Retirement Pay

Sec. 43.13 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia had jurisdiction of bills providing retirement 
    pay for the judges of the police court, the municipal court, and 
    the juvenile court of the District of Columbia.

    On June 26, 1939,(11) Mr. Jennings Randolph, of West 
Virginia, obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on the 
District of Columbia discharged from further consideration of H.R. 
6651, and to have the bill referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 
Unanimous consent had been obtained by Mr. Randolph for the similar 
rereferral of an identical bill (H. R. 6504), two weeks 
earlier.(1~2~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 7904, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 7050, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12,1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2948]]

Interstate Racketeering in Cigarette Distribution; Cigarette Taxes

Sec. 43.14 The Committee on the Judiciary, and not the Committee on 
    Ways and Means, has jurisdiction of bills to eliminate racketeering 
    in the interstate sale and distribution of cigarettes and to assist 
    state and local governments in the enforcement of cigarette taxes.

    On Feb. 9, 1972,(13) Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent 
to have that committee discharged from further consideration of the 
bills (H.R. 7050, H.R. 12184, H.R. 12688, H.R. 12689), and to have them 
rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 3429, 3430, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Invention Panels of the Military

Sec. 43.15 The Committee on Patents (now the Committee on the 
    Judiciary), and not the Committee on Military Affairs (now the 
    Committee on Armed Services), had jurisdiction of a bill to create 
    a National Defense Commission on Inventions.

    On Apr. 21, 1941,(14) Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs (now the Committee on 
Armed Services), obtained unanimous consent to have his committee 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3153), and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on Patents (now the Committee on 
the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 3206, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 43.16 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill to authorize the 
    establishment of an Inventive Contributions Awards Board within the 
    Department of Defense.

    On June 25, 1953,(~15) Chauncey W. Reed, of Illinois, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have the Committee on Armed Services discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 5889), and to have it rereferred to his 
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 99 Cong. Rec. 7328, 7329, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Defense for Personnel of House Committees Where Official Duties 
    Prompt Lawsuits

Sec. 43.17 A resolution has been referred to and reported by

[[Page 2949]]

    the Committee on the Judiciary (and subsequently adopted on the 
    Consent Calendar) directing that committee to file general and 
    special appearances on behalf of, and to arrange for the defense 
    of, Members, former Members, and employees of the Committee on Un-
    American Activities with respect to any lawsuits brought against 
    such persons growing out of actions undertaken in the performance 
    of duties and obligations imposed upon them by the laws of Congress 
    and the rules and resolutions of the House of Representatives.

    On Sept. 6, 1961,(16) the House considered on the 
Consent Calendar House Resolution 417 which read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 18240, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That effective from January 3, 1961, the provisions 
    of H. Res. 190, Eighty-third Congress, agreed to March 26, 1953, 
    and H. Res. 386, Eighty-third Congress, agreed to August 1, 1953, 
    are continued in effect.

    The first resolution (H. Res. 190),(17) referred to 
above, was a response to the service of subpenas upon six Members and 
two employees of the House, all of whom were commanded to testify and 
give depositions in the case of Michael Wilson et al. v Loew's 
Incorporated et al., an action pending in the Superior Court in and for 
the county of Los Angeles. The Members in question belonged to the 
Committee on Un-American Activities and the two employees had performed 
investigative work for that committee. The resolution noted that the 
complaint was directed, in part, at actions undertaken by the 
defendants ``both in their official capacity with relation to [the] 
House Committee on Un-American Activities and individually in 
nonofficial capacities.'' It further noted that the service of such 
process upon Members of the House while Congress remained in session 
``might deprive the district which each respectively represents of his 
voice and vote;'' that such service of process upon staff employees 
``will hamper and delay if not completely obstruct the work of such 
committee,'' and ``by reason of the said processes . . . the rights and 
privileges of the House of Representatives may be infringed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 99 Cong. Rec. 2356, 2357, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, House Resolution 190 authorized and directed the 
Committee on the Judiciary to investigate and consider whether the 
service of aforementioned

[[Page 2950]]

processes constituted an invasion of ``the rights and privileges of the 
House'' and whether allegations contained in the case complaint 
``reflected upon Members, former Members, and employees of the House 
and their actions in their representative and official capacities'' 
thereby constituting an invasion of ``the rights and privileges of the 
House of Representatives.'' (18) To this end, the committee 
or any subcommittee thereof was authorized to sit and act at any time 
or place, to hold hearings, to require the attendance of witnesses, the 
production of documents, and the taking of whatever testimony deemed 
necessary. The committee was granted subpena power and authorized to 
incur all necessary expenses for the purposes described including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For further information on questions of privilege, see Ch. 11, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [E]mploy counsel to represent any and all of the Members, 
    former Members, and employees of the House of Representatives named 
    as parties defendant in the aforementioned action of Michael Wilson 
    et al. v. Loew's Inc. et al., and such expenses shall be paid from 
    the Contingent Fund of the House of Representatives on vouchers 
    authorized by said committee and signed by the chairman thereof and 
    approved by the Committee on House Administration. . . .

    The other resolution (H. Res. 386), incorporated by reference in 
House Resolution 417 was agreed to on Aug. 1, 1953,(1) and 
provided, in pertinent part, as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 99 Cong. Rec. 10950, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Id. at pp. 10949, 10950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a 
    whole or by subcommittee, is hereby authorized to direct the filing 
    in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et 
    al. of such special or general appearances on behalf of any of the 
    Members, former Members, or employees of the House of 
    Representatives named as defendants therein, and to direct such 
    other or further action with respect to the aforementioned 
    defendants in such manner as will, in the judgment of the Committee 
    on the Judiciary, be consistent with the rights and privileges of 
    the House of Representatives; and be it further
        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is also 
    authorized and directed to arrange for the defense of the Members, 
    former Members, and employees of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities in any suit hereafter brought against such Members, 
    former Members, and employees, or any one or more of them, growing 
    out of the actions of such Members, former Members, and employees 
    while performing such duties and obligations imposed upon them by 
    the laws of the Congress and the rules and resolutions of the House 
    of Representatives. The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to 
    incur all expenses necessary for the purposes hereof, including but 
    not limited to expenses of travel and subsist

[[Page 2951]]

    ence, employment of counsel and other persons to assist the 
    committee or subcommittee, and if deemed advisable by the committee 
    or subcommittee, to employ counsel to represent any and all of the 
    Members, former Members, and employees of the Committee on Un-
    American Activities who may be named as parties defendant in any 
    such action or actions; and such expenses shall be paid from the 
    contingent fund of the House of Representatives on vouchers 
    authorized by the Committee on the Judiciary and signed by the 
    chairman thereof and approved by the Committee on House 
    Administration.

    Immediately after the Clerk read House Resolution 417, it was 
agreed to.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 107 Cong. Rec. 18240, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 6, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: While in this instance the Committee on the 
Judiciary reported a resolution referred to it by the Speaker, 
authorizing that committee to continue legal actions initially 
authorized by resolutions adopted in a prior Congress, such a 
resolution conferring such authority on a standing committee would 
ordinarily be referred to the Committee on Rules or to the Committee on 
House Administration where use of the contingent fund is involved.

National Motto

Sec. 43.18 The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction of a joint 
    resolution to establish a national motto of the United States.

    On July 21, 1955,(4) after Mr. Charles E. Bennett, of 
Florida, introduced House Joint Resolution 396, it was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 101 Cong. Rec. 11193, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oaths of Office by Executive Branch Civilians--Dispensing With Renewals

Sec. 43.19 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Expenditures in the Executive Departments (now the Committee on 
    Government Operations), had jurisdiction of a bill to dispense with 
    unnecessary renewals of oaths of office by civilian employees of 
    the executive departments and independent establishments.

    On Apr. 22, 1937,(5) by direction of the Committee on 
Expenditures the Executive Departments (now the Committee on Government 
Operations), Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, obtained unanimous 
consent to have that committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 6295), and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 3740, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2952]]

to have it rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. In so doing, 
Mr. Cochran noted that a similar bill had been reported by the 
Committee on the Judiciary in the previous Congress.

Private Bill Adjusting Federal Employee's Annual Leave

Sec. 43.20 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a private bill to 
    adjust the ``annual-leave account'' of an employee under the 
    Federal Civil Service.

    On Mar. 21, 1960,(~~6) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the private bill (H. R. 10432), and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 106 Cong. Rec. 6131, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excluding Employee From United States Code Section Affecting 
    Compensation

Sec. 43.21 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a private bill waiving 
    the applicability to an individual of section 3(b) of the Act 
    entitled ``An act to provide a method for payment in certain 
    Government establishments of overtime, leave, and holiday 
    compensation on the basis of night rates pursuant to certain 
    decisions of the Comptroller General, and for other purposes,'' 
    approved July 31, 1946 [5 USC Sec. 951(b)].

    On Oct. 11, 1949,(7) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 6284), and to have it referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 95 Cong. Rec. 14258, 14259, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Providing Tax Relief

Sec. 43.22 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Ways 
    and Means has jurisdiction over a private bill specifying that a 
    certain annuity fund is exempt from taxation under provisions of 
    the Internal Revenue Code.

[[Page 2953]]

    On Sept. 1, 1959,(8) Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 7854), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 105 Cong. Rec. 17612, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (H.R. 7854 was intended to provide tax relief to the annuity fund 
of the electrical switchboard and panelboard manufacturing industry of 
New York and the contributors thereto.)

Sec. 43.23 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Ways 
    and Means has jurisdiction of private bills to provide tax relief 
    to a charitable foundation and the contributors thereto.

    On Aug. 1, 1955,(9) Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, Chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent to have 
his committee discharged from further consideration of two identical 
bills (H.R. 7746, H.R. 7747), and to have the measures rereferred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 12655, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relating to Veterans' Survivor Benefits

Sec. 43.24 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs had jurisdiction of a private bill entitling the 
    parents of a serviceman who died in France to those veterans' 
    benefits to which they would have been entitled had their son's 
    application not been misplaced by the veterans' agency to which 
    delivered.

    On Apr. 8, 1948,(10) Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts, Chairwoman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
obtained unanimous consent to have her committee discharged from 
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5515), and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. In so doing, Mrs. Rogers 
noted that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs did not handle claims, 
and that the rereferral was satisfactory to the Chairman 
(11) of the Committee on the Judiciary as well as the author 
of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 4272, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 43.25 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs

[[Page 2954]]

    has jurisdiction of a private bill providing that a certain person 
    shall be considered the lawful widow of a World War I veteran and 
    authorizing the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to pay such 
    benefits to which she is entitled as the lawful widow of such 
    veteran.

    On Apr. 5, 1950,(12) John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (13) (H.R. 743), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 4884, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
13. An identical bill (H.R. 3276), pertaining to the same person was 
        similarly rereferred in a later Congress; see 99 Cong. Rec. 
        1566, 1567, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 3, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Bill Entitling Veteran to Medical Care

Sec. 43.26 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a private bill entitling an 
    American citizen who served in the Royal Canadian Air Force during 
    World War II to receive medical, hospital, and domiciliary care to 
    the same extent as those who served an equivalent period of time in 
    the U.S. Armed Forces and who were honorably discharged therefrom.

    On Mar. 3, 1953,(14) Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts, Chairwoman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
obtained unanimous consent to have her committee discharged from 
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3350), and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 99 Cong. Rec. 1566, 1567, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 3350 was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on July 1, 
        1953 (H. Rept. No. 699).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 43.27 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a private bill authorizing 
    and directing the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to furnish 
    domiciliary or hospital care in an appropriate Veterans' 
    Administration facility to a veteran of military engagements in the 
    Philippine Islands.

    On Mar. 9, 1953,(16) Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 99 Cong. Rec. 1759, 1760, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2955]]

Chairwoman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have her committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3723), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

Private Bill Extending Certain Veterans' Benefits

Sec. 43.28 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has considered private bills extending the time 
    within which an educational program under veterans' benefits might 
    be initiated.

    On Apr. 29, 1959,(17) Olin E. Teague, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, obtained unanimous consent that 
his committee be discharged from further consideration of two private 
bills (H.R. 3244, H.R. 3991), and that they be rereferred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 105 Cong. Rec. 7028, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 43.29 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs has jurisdiction of a private bill directing the 
    Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to renew a veteran's insurance 
    policy.

    On May 16, 1956,(18) Laurence Curtis, of Massachusetts, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 10890), and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. In so doing, he 
noted that the matter had been cleared with the chairmen of both 
committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 102 Cong. Rec. 8268, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salary Claim Due Former Member's Estate

Sec. 43.30 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on 
    House Administration has jurisdiction of a resolution authorizing 
    the Speaker to certify the proper salary certificates and enabling 
    the Comptroller General to certify for payment the claim of a 
    former Member's estate for salary due that Member.

    On Aug. 5, 1954,(1) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa, who noted that 
the resolution (H. Res. 301), ``seems to have the elements of a 
claim,'' and that the Committee on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 100 Cong. Rec. 13469, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2956]]

House Administration, which he chaired, voted to request that the 
measure be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary ``which has 
jurisdiction of claims.'' Mr. LeCompte added that such action was 
agreeable to the Chairman (2) of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chauncey W. Reed (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the resolution was rereferred by unanimous 
consent.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. A similar rereferral was obtained with respect to a resolution (H. 
        Res. 269), regarding the same subject in the next Congress; 101 
        Cong. Rec. 8757, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 20, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Taxation Prohibition

Sec. 43.31 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on Ways 
    and Means has jurisdiction of bills ``to provide that the several 
    States shall not impose taxes'' in respect of income derived from 
    certain interstate activities.

    On June 18, 1959,(4) Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, obtained unanimous consent 
to have the bill (H.R. 7715), rereferred from that committee to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.(5) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 105 Cong. Rec. 11317, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. For an instance where a bill adding a new section to the Internal 
        Revenue Code prohibiting states from taxing individual income 
        earned by persons not domiciled in that state or earned from 
        sources outside that state was rereferred from the Committee on 
        the Judiciary to the Committee on Ways and Means, see 120 Cong. 
        Rec. 29006, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 19, 1974. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Election Law Penalties

Sec. 43.32 The Committee on the Judiciary and not the Committee on the 
    Election of the President, Vice President, and Representatives in 
    Congress (now the Committee on House Administration), had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to amend 2 USC Sec. 251 in force Jan. 3, 
    1935, also adding thereto sections 251A and 251B, relating to 
    offenses in elections and providing penalties therefor.

    On Feb. 19, 1936,(6) Mr. Thomas Brooks Fletcher, of 
Ohio, obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on the Election 
of the President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress (now 
the Committee on House Administration), discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 9481), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Fletcher noted that he had
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 80 Cong. Rec. 2360, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2957]]

spoken to the chairmen of both committees.


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 44. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

    The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries was established on 
Dec. 21, 1887,(7) to take the place of the old Select 
Committee on Shipbuilding and Shipowning Interests. The committee was 
primarily ocean-oriented, and because of the importance of wireless 
telegraphy (i.e., radio) in maritime commerce, sea disasters, and naval 
operations,(8) the committee was given jurisdiction over 
matters relating to radio services in 1919.(9) In 1932, the 
committee's name changed to become the Committee on Merchant Marine, 
Radio, and Fisheries; however, the new name lasted only briefly as the 
committee was divested of radio services jurisdiction by House 
resolution (~10) in 1935. The same resolution also increased 
the jurisdictional breadth of the committee by transferring to it 
subject matters formerly within the realm of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce.(~11) The Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (12) further enhanced the 
committee's jurisdiction. Under the 1973 rules (~13) the 
committee's jurisdiction read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4129.
 8. See Walter J. Oleszek, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House 
        of Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 110.
 9. The committee had reported on measures pertaining to radio 
        communication before that, however; see 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 1853.
10. H. Res. 126, 79 Cong. Rec. 2631, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 26, 
        1935.
11. The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce forfeited its 
        jurisdiction over all transportation by water, the Coast Guard, 
        lifesaving service, lighthouses, lightships, ocean derelicts, 
        the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Panama Canal. See 
        Sec. 44.19, infra.
12. 60 Stat. 812.
13. Rule XI clause 14, House Rules and Manual Sec. 709 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(n), House Rules and Manual Sec. 683 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Merchant marine generally.
        (b) Coast and Geodetic Survey.
        (c) Coast Guard, including lifesaving service, lighthouses, 
    lightships, and ocean derelicts.
        (d) Fisheries and wildlife, including research, restoration, 
    refuges, and conservation.
        (e) Measures relating to the regulation of common carriers by 
    water (except matters subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate 
    Commerce Commission) and to the inspection of merchant marine 
    vessels, lights and signals, lifesaving equipment, and fire 
    protection on such vessels.

[[Page 2958]]

        (f) Merchant marine officers and seamen.
        (g) Navigation and the laws relating thereto, including 
    pilotage.
        (h) Panama Canal and the maintenance and operation of the 
    Panama Canal, including the administration, sanitation, and 
    government of the Canal Zone; and interoceanic canals generally.
        (i) Registering and licensing of vessels and small boats.
        (j) Rules and international arrangements to prevent collisions 
    at sea.
        (k) United States Coast Guard and Merchant Marine Academies.

    As noted in the House Rules and Manual,(14) the 
jurisdiction of this committee includes the general subjects of 
shipbuilding, admission of foreign-built ships, registering and 
licensing of vessels,(15) including pleasure 
yachts,(16) tonnage taxes and fines and penalties on 
vessels,(17) the extension and increase of the merchant 
marine,(l8) navigation and the laws relating 
thereto,(19) pilotage,(20) the naming and 
measuring of vessels,(1) rules, and international 
arrangements to prevent collisions at sea,(2) and the 
shipping, wages, treatment,(3) and health of 
sailors.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XI clause 14, House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(n), House Rules and Manual Sec. 683 (1979).
15. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4134.
16. Id. at Sec. 4143.
17. Id. at Sec. 4131, and 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1856.
18. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4138.
19. Id. at Sec. 4130.
20. Id. at Sec. 4136.
 1. Id. at Sec. 4132.
 2. Id. at Sec. 4135.
 3. Id. at Sec. 4140.
 4. Id. at Sec. 4141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee has also exercised a general jurisdiction over 
subjects relating to inspection of steam vessels as to hulls and 
boilers (5) lights and signals,(6) and protection 
from fire on vessels,(7) collisions, coasting districts, 
marine schools, etc.,(8) regulation of small vessels 
propelled by naphtha, etc., and transportation of inflammable 
substances on passenger vessels,(9) the titles, conduct, and 
licensing of officers of vessels,(10) and regulation of 
shipping in Hawaii.(11) The committee exercises jurisdiction 
as to the seal herds and other revenue-producing animals of 
Alaska.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at Sec. 4133, and 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1854.
 6. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4135.
 7. Id. at Sec. 4141.
 8. Id. at Sec. 4146, and 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1857.
 9. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4142.
10. Id. at Sec. 4139.
11. Id. at Sec. 4130.
12. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1725, 1851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents reveal, the committee's jurisdiction has also 
extended to such matters as regulating the hours and pay of cer

[[Page 2959]]

tain civilian employees of the Coast Guard,(13) authorizing 
construction of a geomagnetic station for the Department of 
Commerce,(14) authorizing construction of a saltwater 
marine-life research lab,(15) licensing commercial boat 
personnel,(16) promoting foreign commerce through use of 
mobile (seagoing) trade fairs,(17) and controlling the 
shipment overseas of gasoline and petroleum products from the United 
States.(18) The committee has also had jurisdiction over 
measures relating to marine resources of the Continental Shelf and the 
establishment of a Marine Exploration and Development 
Commission,(19) the importation and interstate shipment of 
endangered wildlife species,(20) and the use of radios on 
shipboard.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sec. 44.3, infra.
14. Sec. 44.8, infra.
15. Sec. 44.7, infra.
16. Sec. 44.9, infra.
17. Sec. 44.12, infra.
18. Sec. 44.14, infra.
19. Sec. 44.10, infra.
20. Sec. 44.21, infra.
21. Sec. 44.18, infra. The committee's jurisdiction over this subject 
        was with the consent of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
        Commerce although the legislation in question called for 
        amendment of the Communications Act of 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973, the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries maintained 
five subcommittees, as follows:

        1. Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation;
        2. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the 
    Environment;
        3. Subcommittee on Merchant Marine;
        4. Subcommittee on Oceanography; and
        5. Subcommittee on Panama Canal.

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 broadened the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries over Coast and 
Geodetic Survey to include the entire subject of oceanography and 
marine affairs, including coastal zone management; the amendments also 
granted the committee jurisdiction over state maritime academies and 
international fishing 
agreements.                          -------------------

Canadian Registered Ship--Permitting Travel Between American Ports

Sec. 44.1 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has jurisdiction of a 
    joint resolution to permit travel by ship of Canadian registry 
    between American ports.

[[Page 2960]]

    On May 5, 1941,(22) Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, obtained 
unanimous consent that the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 166), which was 
referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, be 
rereferred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so 
doing Mr. Bland noted that both the author of the resolution and the 
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce were in 
agreement with such action.(23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 87 Cong. Rec. 3596, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
23. H.J. Res. 166 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on June 6, 1941 (H. Rept. No. 744).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canal Zone Code and Postage Stamp Designs

Sec. 44.2 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill amending the Canal Zone Code to prescribe the design of 
    postage stamps to be used in the Canal Zone postal service.

    On July 2, 1963,(24) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 6081), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 109 Cong. Rec. 12120, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civilian Employees of Coast Guard--Duties and Pay

Sec. 44.3 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill and an executive communication pertaining thereto, to regulate 
    the hours of duty and the pay of civilian keepers of lighthouses 
    and civilians employed on lightships and other vessels of the Coast 
    Guard.

    On Mar. 21, 1949,(25) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have the bill (H. R. 3294), and a letter from the 
Acting Secretary of the Treasury pertaining thereto (Exec. Comm. No. 
289), rereferred from his committee to the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries. In so
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 95 Cong. Rec. 2868, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2961]]

doing, Mr. Murray noted that he had made his request at the suggestion 
of the Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

Coast and Geodetic Survey Officers

Sec. 44.4 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill to extend to 
    commissioned officers of the Coast and Geodetic Survey the 
    provisions of the Armed Forces Leave Act of 1946.

    On Mar. 11, 1949,(26) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services obtained unanimous consent to have 
his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2572), and to have it referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries.(27)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. 95 Cong. Rec. 2277, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
27. H.R. 2572 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on June 29, 1949 (H. Rept. No. 950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fisheries Research--Aiding Fish Restoration and Management Projects

Sec. 44.5 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction of a bill to provide 
    that the United States shall aid the states in fish restoration and 
    management projects.

    On Feb. 25, 1941,(28) by direction of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, Mr. Frank H. Buck, of California, obtained unanimous 
consent to have that committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3361), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. 87 Cong. Rec. 1389, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conveyance of Land Formerly Operated as Federal Fish Cultural Station

Sec. 44.6 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Public Lands (now the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs), had jurisdiction of a bill to grant a certain 
    parcel of land in St. Louis County, Minnesota (formerly operated as 
    a federal fish cultural station), to the University of Minnesota.

    On May 13, 1948,(29) Mr. Fred L. Crawford, of Michigan, 
ob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. 94 Cong. Rec. 5823, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2962]]

tained unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 6446), which was 
previously referred to the Committee on Public Lands (now the Committee 
on Interior and Insular Affairs), be rereferred to the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.In so doing, Mr. Aspinall noted that ``It 
is the sense of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that this 
bill properly comes within the scope and jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.''

Construction of Saltwater Marine-life Research Laboratory

Sec. 44.7 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had jurisdiction in the 
    86th Congress of a bill to provide for construction of a saltwater 
    marine-life research laboratory.

    On Feb. 16, 1959,(1) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, requested 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4402), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so doing, Mr. Aspinall 
noted that ``It is the sense of the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs that this bill properly comes within the scope and jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 105 Cong. Rec. 2382, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Geomagnetic Station for Department of Commerce

Sec. 44.8 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has jurisdiction of an 
    executive communication transmitting a draft of a bill entitled 
    ``To authorize the construction and equipment of a geomagnetic 
    station for the Department of Commerce.''

    On Sept. 13, 1950,(2) Mr. Lindley Beckworth, of Texas, 
obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce be discharged from further consideration of a letter from the 
Acting Secretary of Commerce (Exec. Comm. No.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 14746, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2963]]

1652), and that the communication be referred to the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

Licensing of Commercial Boat Personnel

Sec. 44.9 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction of a bill relating to 
    the licensing of personnel on tug boats, towing boats, and freight 
    boats [amending 46 USC Sec. 405].

    On Oct. 7, 1969,(3) Mr. James A. Burke, of 
Massachusetts, on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means,(4) obtained unanimous consent to have that committee 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H. R. 14186), and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 28798, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: There was no jurisdictional conflict with 
respect to H.R. 14186. The bill was inadvertently referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means when it was introduced on Oct. 3, 1969.

Marine Resources of the Continental Shelf; Marine Exploration and 
    Development

Sec. 44.10 In the 89th Congress, the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries and not the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had 
    jurisdiction of a bill relating to marine resources of the 
    Continental Shelf and establishment of a Marine Exploration and 
    Development Commission.

    On Mar. 15, 1965,(5) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 6009), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 5001, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 17, 1965,(6) Mr. Aspinall similarly obtained 
unanimous consent to have an identical bill (H.R. 5884), rereferred 
from his committee to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 5285, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Both bills were initially referred to the

[[Page 2964]]

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs because they dealt with the 
development of the land mass beneath the sea. The rereferrals were at 
the instigation of the chairman, who declined jurisdiction.

Merchant Marine Act

Sec. 44.11 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction of a bill to amend 
    title V of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.

    On Feb. 2, 1959,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, who made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 1606, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on January 12, last, H.R. 2181, to amend title V 
    of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, to promote the 
    maintenance of the American fishing fleet under competitive 
    conditions and in the interest of sustained fish food supplies in 
    case of emergency, and for other purposes, was referred to the 
    Committee on Ways and Means. The bill proposes to amend an act that 
    comes within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Merchant Marine 
    and Fisheries.
        I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that the bill be referred 
    to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

    Immediately thereafter, unanimous consent was granted.

Mobile (Seagoing) Trade Fairs

Sec. 44.12 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries and not the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    had jurisdiction of a bill designed to promote foreign commerce 
    abroad through use of mobile [seagoing] trade fairs.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(8) Oren Harris, of Arkansas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (S. 3389), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 17706, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the text of the bill (S. 3389), did 
not disclose the fact, the trade fair contemplated by this bill would 
have involved U.S. naval or merchant vessels outfitted for this special 
purpose.(9~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. S. 3389 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on Sept. 21, 1962 (H. Rept. No. 2463).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2965]]

Private Bill Conveying Land to Utility Company

Sec. 44.13 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries and not the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had 
    jurisdiction of a private bill to provide for the conveyance of 
    certain land under the control of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries to 
    a utility company.

    On Feb. 28, 1961,(10) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, requested 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the private bill (H.R. 3840), and to have it 
rereferred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so 
doing, Mr. Aspinall noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 2858, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It is the sense of the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs that this bill properly comes within the scope and 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.
    Parliamentanian's Note: The land to be conveyed was under the 
control of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and was used for 
conservation and wildlife refuge purposes.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3840 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on Aug. 23, 1961 (H. Rept. No. 1019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petroleum Shipment Overseas

Sec. 44.14 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill to control 
    the shipment to foreign countries of gasoline and petroleum 
    products from the United States.

    On July 17, 1947,(12) Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4042), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 9205, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 4042 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on July 21, 1947 (H. Rept. No. 1018).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2966]]

Retirement Benefits of Lighthouse Service Employees

Sec. 44.15 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill to provide benefits for the widows of certain persons who were 
    retired or are eligible for retirement under section 6 of the act 
    entitled ``An act to authorize aids to navigation and for other 
    works in the Lighthouse Service, and for other purposes'' [approved 
    June 20, 1918, as amended].

    On Feb. 20, 1950,(14) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 7192), and to have it referred to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 1983, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 7192 was reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries on June 26, 1950 (H. Rept. No. 2328).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 44.16 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill to increase the retirement pay of certain employees of the 
    former Lighthouse Service.

    On Mar. 21, 1949,(16) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have the bill (H.R. 2986), rereferred from his 
committee to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so 
doing, Mr. Murray noted that he had made his request at the suggestion 
of the Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 2868, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retirement Pay of Members of Life Saving Service

Sec. 44.17 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a 
    bill to amend the Act of Apr. 14, 1930, to provide increased 
    retirement pay for certain members of the former life saving 
    service.

    On Feb. 5, 1947,(17) Mr. T. Millet Hand, of New Jersey, 
obtained
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 800, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2967]]

unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 70), which was originally 
referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, be 
rereferred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so 
doing, he noted that the chairmen of both committees had no objection 
to the rereference.

Shipboard Radios

Sec. 44.18 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has jurisdiction of a 
    bill relating entirely to the use of radios on shipboard.

    On June 8, 1936,(18) Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, requested 
unanimous consent that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
be discharged from further consideration of a bill (S. 4619), to amend 
the Communications Act of 1934, approved June 19, 1934, for the purpose 
of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and 
radio communications and for other purposes, and that the bill be 
referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In so 
doing, he noted that ``This bill relates entirely to radios on 
shipboard, and for that reason the chairman of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce agrees that it should be referred to 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 80 Cong. Rec. 9244, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Water Transportation; Rate Regulation on Inland Waterways

Sec. 44.19 The House having effected a transfer of jurisdiction by 
    unanimous consent and by amendment of the rules, the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce obtained jurisdiction over all water 
    transportation except the regulation of rates on inland waterways.

    On Feb. 26, 1935,(19) Sam Rayburn, of Texas, Chairman of 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, asked unanimous 
consent that a bill (H.R. 5379), to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, 
as amended, by providing for the regulation of the transpor

[[Page 2968]]

tation of passengers and property by water carriers operating in 
interstate and foreign commerce, be rereferred from the committee he 
chaired to [what was then] the Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and 
Fisheries. He additionally asked unanimous consent that thereafter all 
bills relating to or affecting transportation by water carriers, 
regardless of the fact that they may amend an act which was originally 
considered by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, be 
referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 2623, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under reservation of objection, several Members initiated a series 
of exchanges relating to the unanimous-consent request. In an effort to 
explain the situation, Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, noted 
that:(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 2624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This unanimous-consent request is to be immediately followed by 
    the presentation of a rule coming from the Rules Committee which 
    further deals with the subject matter of jurisdiction. It does not 
    in any way bring about a conflict of jurisdiction. Insofar as 
    cooperation and coordination with respect to rates of competing 
    water, highway, and railroad carriers are concerned, that is with 
    the Interstate Commerce Committee, but all shipping matters 
    concerning vessels on the rivers and on the coast and in overseas 
    transportation have always belonged to the Merchant Marine 
    Committee.

    At another juncture, the chairmen of the two committees involved 
were queried as follows:

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right to 
    object, I should like to ask the Chairman of the Interstate 
    Commerce Committee if the regulation of rates will still be under 
    the jurisdiction of his committee?
        Mr. Rayburn: Yes.
        Mr. [Francis D.] Culkin [of New York]: Reserving the right to 
    object, I should like to ask the distinguished Chairman of the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and Fisheries, on which I 
    happen to serve, if this resolution or proposition proposes that 
    all maritime matters go to the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries? Is that the understanding?
        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Not as to inland 
    waters.

    Mr. Lehlbach then stated:

        The fact is at the present time inland navigation with respect 
    to its physical aspect is now with the Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries Committee. Insofar as the rate structure is concerned 
    relative to the various means of transportation in interstate 
    commerce, particularly where it competes with railroads, that 
    remains with the Interstate Commerce Committee, and there is no 
    conflict at all.

    Shortly thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.
    A few moments after that,(1) John J. O'Connor, of New 
York,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 2627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2969]]

Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 126, 
which had been previously alluded to by Mr. Lehlbach as he initially 
explained the unanimous-consent request. House Resolution 126 read as 
follows:

        Resolved, That the rules of the House of Representatives are 
    amended in the following manner:
        ``Rule X, clause 9. On the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to 
    consist of 21 Members.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The only change to be affected by this clause was to remove the 
        word, ``Radio'' from the name of the Committee on Merchant 
        Marine, Radio, and Fisheries, thus renaming the committee. See 
        H. Jour. 875, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. (1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``Rule XI, clause 7. To commerce--to the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. At the time, this clause provided that legislative subject matters 
        relating ``to commerce, life-saving service, and lighthouses, 
        other than appropriations for life-saving service and 
        lighthouses'' were to be referred to the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce; see H. Jour. 875, 73d Cong. 2d 
        Sess. (1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``Rule XI, clause 9. To the merchant marine, including all 
    transportation by water, Coast Guard, life-saving service, 
    lighthouses, lightships, ocean derelicts, Coast and Geodetic 
    Survey, Panama Canal, and fisheries--to the Committee on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries.''(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. At the time, this clause provided that legislative subject matters 
        relating ``to merchant marine, radio, and fisheries'' were to 
        be referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and 
        Fisheries; see H. Jour. 875, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. (1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of discussing the resolution, Mr. O'Connor noted 
that:

        . . . Both committees have agreed entirely to the resolution 
    and the question of their respective jurisdiction. . . .
        . . . The Rules Committee came to the determination that you 
    could not properly divide communications, and that radio, 
    telegraph, telephone, and cable inevitably went together, and, the 
    Interstate Commerce Committee having jurisdiction of most of those 
    subjects and for a longer time than the Merchant Marine Committee 
    had jurisdiction over radio, it was thought best and fairest to put 
    radio in the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. On the 
    other hand the Merchant Marine Committee reestablishes and reclaims 
    its jurisdiction over the merchant marine and over many matters 
    which were under the jurisdiction of the Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce Committee.

    Discussion of the measure continued, after which the resolution was 
agreed to by voice vote.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 2631, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 26, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wildlife Conservation Through Land-use Practices

Sec. 44.20 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

[[Page 2970]]

    and not the Committee on Agriculture has jurisdiction of a bill to 
    provide expert assistance and to cooperate with federal, state, and 
    other suitable agencies in promoting the conservation of wildlife 
    by promoting sound land-use practices.

    On May 21, 1947,(6) Mr. Raymond H. Burke, of Ohio, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Agriculture 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2472), and to 
have it referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 5615, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wildlife; Importing and Shipping Endangered Species

Sec. 44.21 The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and not the 
    Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction of bills regulating the 
    importation and interstate shipment of wildlife species threatened 
    with extinction, even though such proposals include amendments to 
    title 18, United States Code, ``Crimes and Criminal Procedure''.

    On Apr. 27, 1967,(7) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of two 
bills (H.R. 6138, H.R. 8693), and to have them rereferred to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 11060, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Title 18 of the United States Code encompasses federal criminal law 
        and criminal procedure. Accordingly, the Committee on the 
        Judiciary normally deals with amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 45. Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

    The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service was created Jan. 2, 
1947, as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946,(9) and combined the former Committees on Post-Office 
and Post Roads (created in 1808),(10) the Civil Service 
(created in 1893 as the Committee on Reform in the Civil 
Service),(11) and the Census (created in 
1901).(12) At the same time, jurisdiction over post-roads
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 60 Stat. 812.
10. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4190.
11. Id. at Sec. 4296.
12. Id. at Sec. 4351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2971]]

was transferred to the Committee on Public Works, and the newly created 
committee was accorded jurisdiction over the National Archives 
(formerly within the jurisdiction of a Committee on the Library).

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service 
pursuant to the 1973 rules (1) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule XI clause 15, House Rules and Manual Sec. 711 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(o), House Rules and Manual Sec. 684 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Census and the collection of statistics generally.
        (b) Federal Civil Service generally.
        (c) National Archives.
        (d) Postal-savings banks.
        (e) Postal service generally, including the railway mail 
    service, and measures relating to ocean mail and pneumatic-tube 
    service; but excluding post roads.
        (f) Status of officers and employees of the United States, 
    including their compensation, classification, and retirement.

    In addition to these topics, the committee also routinely considers 
federal employee-management relations, health benefits, life insurance, 
retirement, and veterans' preference legislation.
    Moreover, as the precedents reveal, the committee and its 
predecessors have dealt with such subjects as amending the District of 
Columbia Code to increase the salaries of certain District of Columbia 
judges,(2) amending the Immigration Act [of Feb. 5, 1917], 
relative to salaries of various Immigration Service 
employees,(3) and authorizing the Secretary of Defense and 
the military departments to grant return rights of employment to 
certain career and career-conditional employees.(4~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sec. 45.2, infra.
 3. Sec. 45.6, infra.
 4. Sec. 45.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service obtained jurisdiction over all federal 
civil service, including intergovernmental personnel, over the Hatch 
Act (political activity prohibitions on federal employees, formerly 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration), over 
holidays and celebrations, and over population and 
demography.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 
        1975.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advancing Civil Service Status--Private Bill

Sec. 45.1 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and not the 
    Committee on the Ju

[[Page 2972]]

    diciary had jurisdiction of a private bill providing for an 
    advancement in status in the civil service, particularly the Post 
    Office Department.

    On Aug. 15, 1950,(6) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, obtained unanimous consent 
to have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(S. 2927), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Post Office 
and Civil Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 96 Cong. Rec. 12522, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

District of Columbia Judges' Salaries

Sec. 45.2 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, and not the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia, considered a bill amending 
    the District of Columbia Code to increase the salaries of certain 
    District of Columbia judges whose salary adjustments had been 
    omitted from the Federal Salary Act of 1968, which adjusted the pay 
    of judicial, executive, and legislative officials of the 
    government.

    On Dec. 11, 1969,(7) Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service obtained 
unanimous consent to have the Committee on the District of Columbia 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 3180), and to 
have it rereferred to his committee. In so doing, Mr. Dulski noted that 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service had received a letter 
from Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the Committee on 
the District of Columbia stating that he was in accord with the 
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 38543, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Certain judges in the District of Columbia 
had been inadvertently omitted at the time the omnibus legislation was 
passed by the two Houses. The Chairman of the Committee on the District 
of Columbia agreed to this rereference since the subject matter had 
previously been considered in the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service and was part of the comprehensive legislative scheme reported 
by that committee in 1968, notwithstanding the fact that it amended the 
District of Columbia Code.

Educational Agency--Establishing Supergrades

Sec. 45.3 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and not the 
    Committee on Education and Labor was held to

[[Page 2973]]

    have jurisdiction under the rules of proposals establishing the 
    position of Deputy Commissioner of a Bureau of Occupational 
    Education at GS-18 and prescribing the number of supergrade 
    positions which must be assigned thereto.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
7248), to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other 
acts dealing with higher education. In the course or the bill's 
consideration, a jurisdictional point of order was raised with respect 
to title XVI of a proposed committee (9~) amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 117 Cong. Rec. 39248, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. Committee on Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title XVI,(10) among other things, provided for the 
establishment of a Bureau of Occupational Education within the U.S. 
Office of Education. Pursuant to section 1612 (b) of the title, this 
Bureau was to be staffed in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 39281-84, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (b)(1) The Bureau shall be headed by a person (appointed or 
    designated by the Commissioner) who is highly qualified in the 
    fields of vocational, technical, and occupational education, who is 
    accorded the rank of Deputy Commissioner, and who is compensated at 
    the rate specified for GS-18 of the General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 
    5332).
        (2) Additional positions shall be assigned to the Bureau as 
    follows--
        (A) not less than three positions compensated at the rate 
    specified for GS-17 of the General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5332), one of 
    which shall be filled by a person with broad experience in the 
    field of community and junior college education;
        (B) not less than seven positions compensated at the rate 
    specified for GS-16 of the General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5332), at 
    least two of which shall be filled by persons with broad experience 
    in the field of postsecondary occupational education in community 
    and junior colleges, at least one of which shall be filled by a 
    person with broad experience in education in private proprietary 
    institutions, and at least one of which shall be filled by a person 
    with professional experience in occupational guidance and 
    counseling; and
        (C) not less than three positions which shall be filled by 
    persons at least one of whom is a skilled worker in a recognized 
    occupation, another is a subprofessional technician in one of the 
    branches of engineering, and the other is a subprofessional worker 
    in one of the branches of social or medical services, who shall 
    serve as senior advisers in the implementation of this title.

    Immediately after it was agreed by unanimous consent that title XVI 
be considered as open to

[[Page 2974]]

amendment, Chairman pro tempore Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. David N. Henderson, of North Carolina, a member of the 
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. The following exchange took 
place: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 39284.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against 
    section 1612 of title XVI.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will hear the gentleman on 
    his point of order.
        Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, section 1612 establishes a Bureau 
    of Occupational Education. Subsection (b) of section 1612 provides 
    that the Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau shall be compensated at 
    the rate specified for GS-18, and that the Bureau may assign not 
    less than three positions at the rate specified for GS-17, not less 
    than seven positions at the rate for GS-16, and not less than three 
    senior advisers, one of whom shall be skilled in a recognized 
    occupation, another in a branch of engineering, and a third in a 
    branch of social or medical services.
        All of these matters relate to the classification and the 
    fixing of rates of compensation for Federal employees, and are 
    matters that relate specifically to the Federal civil service.
        Under clause 15 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives, matters relating to the Federal civil service are 
    matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and 
    Civil Service.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Pursuant to the rule [Rule XI clause 15, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 711 (1973)], the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
        Service exercises jurisdiction over the following subjects, 
        among others: ``(b) Federal Civil Service generally. . . . (f) 
        Status of officers and employees of the United States, 
        including their compensation, classification, and retirement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, in view of the lateness of the hour and the 
    situation as it now exists, I should point out that Chairman Dulski 
    of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service in September 
    wrote to the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor and 
    pointed out these matters that we now make a point of order against 
    as contained in section 1612.
        Mr. Chairman, I urge that my point of order against section 
    1612 be sustained on the basis that it includes matter that is 
    clearly within the jurisdictions of the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service.

    At the conclusion of Mr. Henderson's remarks, the Chair recognized 
Mr. Roman C. Pucinski, of Illinois, who opposed the point of order:

        Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of order. The 
    provisions in question in title XVI, the Occupational Education 
    Act, create a Bureau of Occupational Education and specify that 11 
    positions with specific responsibilities be included in that 
    Bureau. Mr. Chairman, these provisions in no way impinge upon the 
    jurisdiction of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee.
        These provisions do not amend the Civil Service Act nor do they 
    create

[[Page 2975]]

    any exemptions from that act. They simply specify that in the 11 
    positions created persons must be compensated at rates specified 
    for supergrades. These provisions in no way require that these 
    supergrades must be new supergrades, rather they can be positions 
    which are presently assigned to the Office of Education by 
    Congress. If the Office does not want to reassign these supergrades 
    within the Office to this new Bureau, it will have to come before 
    the Post Office and Civil Service Committee to request additional 
    supergrades; and the decision on whether to give the office any new 
    supergrades will be the decision of the Post Office and Civil 
    Service Committee.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge you to overrule the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the last point I should like to make is that 
    these provisions are in H.R. 7429, the Occupational Education Act, 
    as it was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
        The important thing is that we are not creating new positions. 
    We are not asking the Civil Service Commission or the committee to 
    approve these positions because these are positions already 
    approved by the committee in previous allocations of supergrades to 
    the Department. All we are saying is that the Commissioner shall 
    reassign existing supergrades in his Department to this new 
    Department for the new duties spelled out in the Act.
        Therefore, I see no conflict between the jurisdictions of the 
    committees, and I hope that the point of order will be overruled.

    At this juncture, the Chair recognized Mr. Albert H. Quie, of 
Minnesota, who made the following observations:

        It is true that section 1612 establishes by law a Bureau of 
    Occupational Education within the U.S. Office of Education and 
    requires that certain supergrade positions be assigned to that 
    Bureau and that the persons who fill them have certain 
    qualifications of a general nature, such as ``highly qualified in 
    the fields of vocational, technical, and occupational education'' 
    and ``broad experience in the field of community and junior college 
    education.''
        Now I want to make three points about these provisions:
        First. They do not affect the Federal civil service generally 
    or in any way at all; they do not amend, modify, or affect either 
    directly or indirectly any act relating to the Federal civil 
    service. At most, the provisions of this section say that from the 
    supergrade resources available or made available to the Department, 
    the new Bureau will have the specified number. Incidentally, in the 
    opinion of everyone on our committee who worked on the occupational 
    education title, these provisions were absolutely necessary to 
    assure that the purposes of the Occupational Education Act were 
    realized.
        Second. While the provisions of this section mandate the 
    assignment of certain supergrade positions to the new Bureau, they 
    do not alter in any way any provision of law or civil service 
    regulations relating to the compensation or classification of such 
    positions, and of course they in no way affect the civil service 
    retirement system.
        Third. Finally--and I think this is the critical concern to the 
    members of

[[Page 2976]]

    the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service--these provisions 
    are not intended to have the effect of adding to the quota of 
    supergrade positions established under title 5, United States Code, 
    section 5108. Fixing the number of such positions is clearly a 
    matter for the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and these 
    provisions do not interfere with that. The supergrade positions 
    specified in section 1612 would have to come out of the quota 
    established by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service under 
    section 5108 of title 5 of the United States Code.
        Accordingly, I do not believe the point of order will lie 
    against section 1612.

    Announcing he was ready to rule, the Chairman stated: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 39285, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Henderson) has raised a 
    point of order against section 1612, beginning on page 235, line 
    18, through page 237, line 8, on the ground that the subject matter 
    of subsection (b) of that section is within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and not the Committee on 
    Education and Labor.
        Section 1612(a) establishes in the Office of Education a Bureau 
    of Occupational Education, which is to serve as the principal 
    agency for the administration of various occupational, vocational, 
    and manpower education and training programs. Section 1612(b) 
    establishes the position of Deputy Commissioner at GS-18 to head 
    the Bureau, and also prescribes the number of supergrade positions 
    which must be assigned to the Bureau.
        Clause 15(f), rule XI confers upon the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service jurisdiction over the status of officers and 
    employees of the United States, including their compensation, 
    classification, and retirement. Section 1612(b) of the committee 
    substitute, if considered separately, is a subject properly within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
    Service.(14) Under the precedents of the House, if a 
    point of order is sustained against a portion of a pending section 
    or paragraph, the entire section or paragraph may be ruled out of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. It should be noted that H. Res. 661, agreed to on Oct. 27, 1971 
        [117 Cong. Rec. 37769, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.] prescribed the 
        special rule by which H.R. 7248 was to be considered. This 
        resolution provided, among other things [id. at p. 37765] that 
        ``all titles, parts, or sections of the [amendment in the 
        nature of a] substitute, the subject matter of which is 
        properly within the jurisdiction of any other standing 
        committee of the House of Representatives, shall be subject to 
        a point of order for such reason if such point of order is 
        properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 7248.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order against 
    section 1612, and the language in that section is stricken from the 
    committee amendment.

Certain Educational Agencies--Waiver of Civil Service Laws Regarding 
    Employment

Sec. 45.4 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and

[[Page 2977]]

    not the Committee on Education and Labor was held to have 
    jurisdiction under the rules of proposals which would: (1) 
    authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to (a) 
    fix entrance level rates of compensation up to two grades higher 
    than prescribed under the General Schedule for officers and 
    employees of a National Institute of Education; (b) appoint up to 
    one-third of the regular, technical, or professional employees of 
    the institute without regard to civil service laws; (c) fix rates 
    of compensation up to GS-18 level for members of a National 
    Advisory Council on Educational Research and Development; and (2) 
    permit the National Advisory Council on Educational Research and 
    Development to employ personnel and fix rates of compensation 
    without regard to civil service laws.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(15) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
7248), to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other 
acts dealing with higher education. In the course of that consideration 
a jurisdictional question arose over title XIV of a proposed committee 
(16) amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 39248, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Committee on Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title XIV (17) provided for the establishment of a 
National Institute of Education within the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare, as well as a National Advisory Council on 
Educational Research and Development. The jurisdictional conflict 
pertained to those sections within the title which provided for the 
staffing of these organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 117 Cong. Rec. 32971, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staffing of the institute was detailed in section 1405 which 
read as follows:

        Sec. 1405. The Secretary may appoint and fix the compensation 
    of such officers and employees as may be necessary to carry out 
    purposes of this title. Such officers and employees shall be 
    appointed in accordance with chapter 51 of title 5, United States 
    Code, except that (1) to the extent that the Secretary deems such 
    action necessary to recruit men and women of exceptional talent he 
    may establish the entrance grade for personnel at a level up to two 
    grades higher than the grade level provided for by such personnel 
    under the General Schedule established by such title, and fix their 
    compensation accordingly, and (2) to the

[[Page 2978]]

    extent the Secretary deems such action necessary to the discharge 
    of his responsibilities, he may appoint personnel of the Institute 
    without regard to the civil service or classification laws; 
    Provided, That personnel appointed under this clause do not exceed 
    at any one time one-third of the number of full-time, regular 
    technical or professional employees of the Institute.

    The staffing of the council was provided for in section 1406, 
pertinent sections of which are excerpted below:

        Sec. 1406(a). The President shall appoint a National Advisory 
    Council on Educational Research and Development. . . .
        (b) The Council shall be appointed by the President without 
    regard to the civil service laws and shall consist of fifteen 
    members appointed for terms of three years; except that (1) any 
    member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the 
    expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed 
    shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. . . . One of 
    such members shall be designated by the President as Chairman. 
    Members of the Council who are not regular full-time employees of 
    the United States shall, while serving on the business of the 
    Council, be entitled to receive compensation at rates to be 
    determined by the Secretary, but not exceeding the per diem 
    equivalent for GS-18 for each day so engaged, including travel time 
    and, while so serving away from their homes or regular places of 
    business, may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in 
    lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, 
    United States Code, for persons in the Government service employed 
    intermittently. The Director of the Institute and the Commissioner 
    of Education shall serve on the Council ex officio. . . .
        (e) The Council is authorized without regard to the provisions 
    of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
    competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of 
    chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating 
    to classification and general schedule pay rates, to employ and fix 
    the compensation of such personnel as may be necessary to carry out 
    its functions.

    Immediately after it was agreed by unanimous consent 
(18) that title XIV be considered as open to amendment, 
Chairman pro tempore Richard Bolling, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. 
H.R. Gross, of Iowa, a member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service, who raised the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 39272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against title XIV 
    inasmuch as it invades the jurisdiction of the House Post Office 
    and Civil Service Committee.
        Mr. Chairman, this title, on pages 220 and 222 and 223, 
    includes authorizations for the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
    Welfare to recruit men and women of certain talent, and establishes 
    entrance grades for personnel at levels up to two grades higher 
    than the grade levels provided for under the

[[Page 2979]]

    general schedule, and authorizes the Secretary to appoint personnel 
    of the National Institute of Education without regard to the Civil 
    Service or classification laws.
        The language in title XIV also authorized the President to 
    appoint a National Advisory Council on Education, Research and 
    Development, and it authorizes the Council to employ and fix the 
    compensation of such personnel as may be necessary to carry out its 
    functions without regard to the provisions of title 5, United 
    States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and 
    without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III 
    of chapter 53 of title 5 relating to the classification of 
    positions and the General Schedule rates of pay.
        Clause 15 of rule XI (19) of the Rules of the House 
    of Representatives provides that the Committee on Post Office and 
    Civil Service shall have jurisdiction over all matters relating to 
    the Federal civil service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Rule XI clause 15, House Rules and Manual Sec. 711 (1973) lists the 
        following subjects, among others, as being within the 
        jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service: 
        `` (b) Federal Civil Service generally. . . . (f) Status of 
        officers and employees of the United States, including their 
        compensation, classification, and retirement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The civil service laws, the classification laws, and the laws 
    relating to the General Schedule all pertain to title 5, United 
    States Code, and are clearly under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, my point of order against title XIV is 
    based on the fact that it contains matters that are clearly and 
    wholly within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service. There can be no claim or pretense on the 
    part of the House Committee on Education and Labor to jurisdiction 
    in these matters.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist that my point of order be sustained.

    The Chair then recognized Mr. John Brademas, of Indiana, who, as a 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor, which drafted the 
substitute for H.R. 7248, responded, as follows:

        First, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Iowa on the basis that the scope of his point of 
    order is much too broad. The intent of the rule adopted for 
    consideration of the bill now under consideration is to provide 
    that any ``titles, parts, or sections'' of the bill would be 
    subject to a point of order where the subject matter jurisdiction 
    was in question. In this case, Mr Chairman, the personnel 
    exemptions to the civil service laws are the only matters in 
    question with respect to jurisdiction.
        I contend, therefore, that the question of the point of order 
    should be directed to those provisions with respect to which there 
    is a question of jurisdiction, and not to the entire title.
        Second, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the jurisdiction question, 
    legislation to establish a National Institute of Education was 
    introduced in the House during the 91st, and again during the 92d 
    Congresses. In each instance the bills were referred to the 
    Committee on Education and Labor. Extensive hear

[[Page 2980]]

    ings were held over a period of 2 years, and at no time was the 
    jurisdictional question raised. I suggest, therefore, Mr. Chairman, 
    that this bill is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Education and Labor, and germane to the bill before this 
    Chamber.
        Third, Mr. Chairman, the specific provisions of concern to 
    which the gentleman from Iowa makes reference have been a part of 
    this legislation since the date of its introduction to the House 2 
    years ago. The only change made by the Committee on Education and 
    Labor was to limit the number of exemptions from the civil service 
    laws.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the point of order is 
    overruled.

    Immediately thereafter, the Chairman announced that he was ready to 
rule and explained his reasoning and conclusion:

        The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order against title 
    XIV. The Chair has examined the title, and has found that the 
    language in section 1405, and in section 1406 invades the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
        Under provisions of House Resolution 661 (20) under 
    which the Committee of the Whole is considering this bill, it is 
    provided that all titles, parts, or sections of the said 
    substitute, the subject matter of which is properly within the 
    jurisdiction of any other standing committee of the House of 
    Representatives shall be subject to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 661, agreed to on Oct. 27, 1971 [117 Cong. Rec. 37769, 92d 
        Cong. 1st Sess.], prescribed the special rule by which H.R. 
        7248 was to be considered, and provided, among other things 
        [id. at p. 37765], that ``all titles, parts or sections of the 
        [amendment in the nature of a] substitute, the subject matter 
        of which is properly within the jurisdiction of any other 
        standing committee of the House of Representatives, shall be 
        subject to a point of order for such reason if such point of 
        order is properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 
        7248.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Iowa has directed his point of order, not 
    just to the sections on pages 220 through 223, but to the whole 
    title.
        Under the rule, the point of order in this case must be 
    sustained against the whole title, and the entire title is thus 
    stricken.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 117 Cong. Rec. 39286, 39287, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 4, 
        1971, where another proposed title of H.R. 7248, which called 
        for the establishment of an advisory council (the Council on 
        Higher Education Relief Assistance), to be staffed without 
        regard to civil service laws, was similarly objected to, and 
        struck from the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI Reemployment of Civil Service Retirees

Sec. 45.5 The Committee on Civil Service (now the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service), and not the Committee on Naval Affairs 
    (now the Committee on Armed Services), had jurisdiction of a

[[Page 2981]]

    bill to permit the reemployment by the Federal Bureau of 
    Investigation of persons retired under the Civil Service Retirement 
    Act.

    On Apr. 25, 1941,(2) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs (now the Committee on Armed 
Services), obtained unanimous consent to have his committee discharged 
from further consideration of the bill (S. 881), and to have it 
referred to the Committee on Civil Service (now the Committee on Post 
Office and Civil Service).(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 87 Cong. Rec. 3329, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. S. 881 was reported by the Committee on Civil Service on July 14, 
        1941 (H. Rept. No. 944).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration Service Salaries

Sec. 45.6 The Committee on Civil Service (now the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service), and not the Committee on Immigration and 
    Naturalization (now the Committee on the Judiciary), had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to amend section 24 of the Immigration Act 
    of Feb. 5, 1917, relative to salaries of various employees of the 
    Immigration Service.

    On May 8, 1946,(4) Mr. John Lesinski, of Michigan, 
obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Immigration and 
Naturalization (now the Committee on the Judiciary), be discharged from 
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2988), and that it be referred 
to the Committee on Civil Service (now the Committee on Post Office and 
Civil Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 4676, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military Disabled Retirees--Ceiling on Military and Civilian 
    Remuneration to the Federally Employed

Sec. 45.7 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and not the 
    Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill to provide 
    that certain officers of the uniformed services who have been 
    retired for disability incurred in line of duty, and who hold 
    civilian office or employment with the United States, may receive 
    retired pay and civilian pay totaling $6,000.

    On Jan. 13, 1955,(5) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 279, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2982]]

rerefer the bill (H.R. 487), from his committee to the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service.

Authorizing Military to Grant Employee Return Rights

Sec. 45.8 The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and not the 
    Committee on Armed Services has jurisdiction of proposed 
    legislation to authorize the Secretary of Defense and the 
    secretaries of the military departments to grant return rights of 
    employment to career and career-conditional employees in the civil 
    service who accept temporary overseas assignments with the defense 
    establishment.

    On Feb. 26, 1959,(6) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent to have 
an executive communication (Exec. Comm. No. 553), containing the 
legislative proposals described above rereferred from his committee to 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 3042, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 46. Committee on Public Works

    The Committee on Public Works was created on Jan. 2, 1947, as part 
of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,(7) and 
combined the Committees on Flood Control (created in 
1916),(8) Public Buildings and Grounds (created in 
1837),(9) Rivers and Harbors (created in 
1883),(10) and Roads (created in 1913).(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 60 Stat. 812.
 8. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2069.
 9. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4231.
10. Id. at Sec. 4118.
11. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973, the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works read as 
follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XI clause 16, House Rules and Manual Sec. 713 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(p), House Rules and Manual Sec. 685 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Flood control and improvement of rivers and harbors.
        (b) Measures relating to the Capitol Building and the Senate 
    and House Office Buildings.
        (c) Measures relating to the construction or maintenance of 
    roads and post roads, other than appropriations therefor; but it 
    shall not be in order for any bill providing general legislation in 
    relation to roads to contain any provision for any specific road, 
    nor for any bill in relation to a specific road to embrace a 
    provision in relation to any other specific road.

[[Page 2983]]

        (d) Measures relating to the construction or reconstruction, 
    maintenance, and care of the buildings and grounds of the Botanic 
    Gardens, the Library of Congress, and the Smithsonian Institute.
        (e) Measures relating to the purchase of sites and construction 
    of post offices, customhouses, Federal courthouses, and Government 
    buildings within the District of Columbia.
        (f) Oil and other pollution of navigable waters.
        (g) Public buildings and occupied or improved grounds of the 
    United States generally.
        (h) Public reservations and parks within the District of 
    Columbia, including Rock Creek Park and the Zoological Park.
        (i) Public works for the benefit of navigation, including 
    bridges and dams (other than international bridges and dams).
        (j) Water power.

    Among the other subjects upon which the committee has reported on 
over the years (13~) are disaster relief, regional 
development, and relocation assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Terrence T. Finn, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents reveal, the jurisdiction of the committee and its 
predecessors has also extended to such matters as converting toll 
bridges to free bridges,(l4) enabling the Secretary of 
Agriculture to build national forest roads and trails,(15) 
providing economic development programs in conjunction with a state 
centennial observance,(16) providing facilities for 
educational institutions,(17) transferring the U.S. interest 
in educational and recreational facilities to the states,(1) 
providing school facilities for dependents of workmen on water 
projects,(2) establishing the jurisdiction of the Federal 
Works Administrator over certain school buildings,(3) 
authorizing the conveyance of certain Army lands,(4) 
creating a Division of Stream Pollution Control in the Bureau of the 
Public Health Service,(5) and establishing a revolving fund 
in the Treasury for certain regional power 
administrations.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sec. 46.6, infra.
15. Sec. 46.16, infra.
16. Sec. 46.8, infra.
17. Sec. Sec. 46.9, 46.10, infra.
 1. Sec. 46.11, infra.
 2. Sec. 46.18, infra.
 3. Sec. 46.12, infra.
 4. Sec. Sec. 46.1-46.4, 46.7, infra.
 5. Sec. 46.22, infra.
 6. Sec. 46.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973, the Committee on Public Works maintained six subcommittees 
of which five were legislative and one investigative, as follows:

                         Legislative Subcommittees

        (1) Subcommittee on Economic Development;

[[Page 2984]]

        (2) Subcommittee on Energy;
        (3) Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds;
        (4) Subcommittee on Transportation; and
        (5) Subcommittee on Water Resources.

                           Oversight Subcommittee

        (6) Subcommittee on Investigations and Review.

    In the exercise of its oversight jurisdiction, the committee relies 
on its Subcommittee on Investigations and Review. Among the executive 
agencies the committee oversees completely or in part are the Corps of 
Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Highway 
Administration, the General Services Administration, the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the various regional 
economic commissions (for example, the Coastal Plains Regional 
Commission).
    During the 92d Congress, the Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Review studied such matters (7) as highway safety, the 
impact of the postal building program on federal agencies, closure of 
the Fort Worth clinical research center, the federal water pollution 
program, disaster relief, safety and security in public buildings, and 
(in conjunction with the Subcommittee on Energy) the energy crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Terrence T. Finn, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation lost jurisdiction over parks in the 
District of Columbia to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 
but obtained jurisdiction over: transportation, including civil 
aviation, but excluding railroads, which remain within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce; roads and the 
safety thereof; water transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the 
Interstate Commerce Commission; and related transportation regulatory 
agencies with the exception of those relating to 
railroads.                          -------------------

Army Lands--Conveyance to State and Local Governments

Sec. 46.1 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on Armed 
    Services has jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the Secretary of 
    the Army to sell certain lands within a Corps of Engineers water 
    project to the State of Oklahoma.

[[Page 2985]]

    On Apr. 21, 1953,(8) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized George A. Dondero, of Michigan, Chairman of 
the Committee on Public Works, who proceeded to make the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 99 Cong. Rec. 3486, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the bill H.R. 4505 was referred to the Committee 
    on Armed Services. The bill has to do with the sale of certain land 
    in the State of Oklahoma. I received a letter this morning from the 
    Honorable Dewey Short, chairman of the committee, to the effect 
    that either he would ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
    Armed Services be discharged from the consideration of the bill and 
    to have the bill referred to the Committee on Public Works or that 
    I should do so. I now make that request.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted his request by unanimous 
consent.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 4505 was reported by the Committee on Public Works on May 21, 
        1953 (H. Rept. No. 446).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 46.2 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on Armed 
    Services has jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the Secretary of 
    the Army to convey certain land acquired as part of a river and 
    harbor improvement project to the Brownsville Navigation District 
    of Cameron County, Texas.

    On July 23, 1954,(10) Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the bill (H.R. 9913), referred from 
the Committee on Armed Services to the Committee on Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 100 Cong. Rec. 11757, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 46.3 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on Armed 
    Services has jurisdiction of a bill authorizing the Secretary of 
    the Army to convey certain lands in San Diego, California held in 
    connection with a flood control project to the city of San Diego.

    On May 21, 1953,(1~) George A. Dondero, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, obtained unanimous consent 
to have the Committee on Armed Services discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1613), and to have it rereferred to his 
committee. In so doing, he noted that he had received a letter from the 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, Dewey Short, of Missouri, 
in which the original referral of the bill was brought to his 
attention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 99 Cong. Rec. 5322, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2986]]

Army Land Conueyance--Flood Control Project

Sec. 46.4 In the 89th Congress, the Committee on Public Works and not 
    the Committee on Armed Services had jurisdiction of a bill 
    authorizing the Secretary of the Army to convey to a third party, 
    lands acquired by the government as part of a Corps of Engineers 
    public works-flood control project.

    On July 15, 1965,(2~) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Robert A. Everett, of Tennessee, who made 
the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 17002, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on January 4, 1965, H.R. 1296 was referred through 
    error to the Committee on Armed Services. We have cleared this with 
    the chairman of that committee, and as a member of the Committee on 
    Public Works, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be rereferred 
    to the Committee on Public Works.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Bridge Alteration; Toll Bridges

Sec. 46.5 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce has jurisdiction of a bill to amend 
    the act of June 21, 1940, relating to the alteration of certain 
    bridges over navigable waters, so as to include highway bridges, 
    and for other purposes.

    On June 6, 1951,(3) Mr. Lindley Beckworth, of Texas, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3464), and to have it referred to the Committee on Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 6181, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 46.6 The Committee on Roads (now the Committee on Public Works), 
    and not the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce had 
    jurisdiction of a bill to aid several states in making certain toll 
    bridges free bridges, to authorize an appropriation for such 
    purpose, and to make such appropriation available for matching 
    funds apportioned under the Federal Highway Act.

    On May 18, 1936,(4) Sam Rayburn, of Texas, (chairman of 
the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 7444, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2987]]

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, obtained unanimous 
consent that the bill (H.R. 12722), be rereferred from his committee to 
the Committee on Roads (now the Committee on Public Works).

Authorizing Defense Homes Corporation to Convey District of Columbia 
    Land

Sec. 46.7 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency had jurisdiction of a bill to authorize the 
    Defense Homes Corporation to convey certain lands in the District 
    of Columbia to Howard University.

    On Mar. 9, 1948,(5) Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5509), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 94 Cong. Rec. 2414, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This bill authorized the Reconstruction 
Finance Corporation [RFC], to discharge the indebtedness of the Defense 
Homes Corporation to the RFC, and the Secretary of the Treasury to 
discharge the indebtedness of the RFC to the Treasury.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 5509 was reported by the Committee on Public Works on May 11, 
        1948 (H. Rept. No. 1931).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Development Programs in Conjunction With State Centennial 
    Observances

Sec. 46.8 Under the rules of the 89th Congress a bill providing for 
    federal economic assistance and economic development programs as 
    part of a state centennial observance was within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on the 
    Judiciary. (This was an instance in which the Speaker took the 
    floor in debate to explain his referral of the bill.)

    On Mar. 2, 1966,(7) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9963). 
In the course of the debate which ensued, Chairman Charles A. Vanik, of 
Ohio, recognized Mr. James C. Cleveland, of New Hampshire, who noted 
that: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 4571, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Id. at pp. 4572, 4573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This bill, to promote the economic development of the State of 
    Alaska, by

[[Page 2988]]

    providing for the U.S. participation in the statewide exposition to 
    be held in Alaska next year, provides for an authorization for 
    appropriations from the Federal Treasury of $5,600,000. It is 
    disturbing to me that the bill is being sponsored to provide for a 
    centennial celebration of Alaska when even in the purposes of the 
    bill it is clearly stated that the money is for projects that will 
    contribute to the economy of Alaska.
        It is quite obvious that the money will be expended on 
    industrial, agricultural, educational, research, or commercial 
    projects or facilities which will endure in their use far beyond 
    the life of the centennial celebration. . . .
        Last fall, when the legislation was reported, many of us in the 
    minority were unaware of the fact that the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, which committee has jurisdiction over holidays and 
    celebrations, had before it some 250 bills relative to holidays, 
    celebrations, centennials, and the like. These bills encompass over 
    five score separate proposals. Many of them provide for the 
    expenditure of Federal funds. The Committee on Public works, which 
    handled this legislation, does not have jurisdiction of holidays 
    and celebrations. However, the bill was referred to the committee 
    when it was introduced last summer.

    The Chairman later recognized Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, who explained the manner in which the bill was referred 
to the Committee on Public Works: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 4579, 4580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks made by the gentleman from 
    New Hampshire [Mr. Cleveland] about the reference of this bill, and 
    overhearing them and confining myself to that aspect of his 
    remarks, I simply want to advise the Members of the House that in 
    my judgment as the Speaker, this bill was properly referred to the 
    Committee on Public Works.
        In the original bill, the bill calls for the participation in 
    the 1967 exposition, jointly with the State of Alaska through 
    economic development projects such as industrial, agricultural, 
    educational, research, or commercial facilities, and so forth.
        Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly respect the views of my friend, the 
    gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Cleveland], but I cannot be on 
    the floor and listen to one challenge the reference of a bill that 
    I made. I realize that I might make mistakes occasionally, but I 
    will always make the reference of a bill that the rules call for. 
    In my clear judgment this bill was properly referred to the 
    Committee on Public Works.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the excerpts quoted above reveal, there 
was some concern as to how this bill was referred. As introduced the 
bill was primarily an economic development measure, contemplating 
public works to stimulate tourism and commercial development. In this 
form, the bill was primarily within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Public Works. As reported, however, the primary emphasis of the bill 
was federal recognition of and participation in the centennial celebra

[[Page 2989]]

tion of the Alaska Purchase. Economic development was a secondary 
purpose. In this form, the bill was similar to centennial bills that 
are normally, under the precedents, referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. (The rule under which the bill was considered, H. Res. 741, 
89th Cong. 2d Sess., H. Jour. 290, provided that it would be in order 
to consider the substitute amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Public Works, such substitute for the purpose of amendment to be 
considered under the five-minute rule as an original bill.)

Federal Educational and Recreational Facilities Under Lanham Public War 
    Housing Act

Sec. 46.9 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency has jurisdiction of a bill to provide that 
    schools constructed under the act entitled ``An act to expedite the 
    provision of housing in connection with national defense, and for 
    other purposes,'' approved Oct. 14, 1940, as amended, may be 
    donated to local school agencies.

    On Mar. 12, 1947,(~10) Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2190), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 93 Cong. Rec. 1981, 1982, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Public Buildings and 
Grounds--later to be incorporated into the Committee on Public Works--
reported (11) what was popularly known as the ``Lanham 
Public War Housing Act,'' the act of Oct. 14, 1940 (Pub. L. No. 76-
849). The legislation was designed to provide federal housing 
facilities for persons engaged in national defense activities and for 
their families in areas where an acute shortage of housing existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 11606, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 5, 1940 (H. Rept. 
        No. 2923).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 46.10 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency has jurisdiction of bills to amend the Act of 
    Oct. 14, 1940, as amended (1) relative to additional facilities for 
    educational institutions; and (2) to permit the making of

[[Page 2990]]

    contributions for the maintenance and operations of school 
    facilities.

    On. Feb. 27, 1948,(12) Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bills (H.R. 2845 and H.R. 3545, respectively), and to have them 
referred to the Committee on Public Works.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 94 Cong. Rec. 1909, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. The Record also discloses the identical rereferrals later in the 
        session; see 94 Cong. Rec. 4127, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 6, 
        1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Lanham War Housing Act had as its 
purpose to provide housing for persons engaged in national defense 
activities, as by authorizing the Federal Works Administrator to 
provide housing for such persons and their families in areas in which 
acute shortages of housing existed, without complying with state 
statutes and municipal ordinances prescribing zoning regulations.

Sec. 46.11 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency has jurisdiction of a bill to authorize the 
    transfer without charge to the states and their political 
    subdivisions of all interest of the United States in educational 
    and recreational facilities acquired under the Act of Oct. 14, 
    1940, as amended.

    On Mar. 11, 1947,(14~) Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2473), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 1915, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jurisdiction of Federal Works Administrator Over School Buildings; 
    Rebuilding Schools Destroyed by Fire

Sec. 46.12 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency had jurisdiction of a bill to transfer 
    jurisdiction over certain school buildings to the Federal Works 
    Administrator and to authorize an appropriation to rebuild a school 
    building destroyed by fire.

    On Feb. 27, 1948,(15) Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
Chairman of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 1909, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2991]]

the Committee on Banking and Currency, obtained unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5433), pertaining to certain school buildings located in Vanport, 
Oregon, and to have the bill referred to the Committee on Public 
Works.(16~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The Record also discloses the identical rereferral later in the 
        session; see 94 Cong. Rec. 4127, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 6, 
        1948.
            H.R. 5433 was reported by the Committee on Public works on 
        May 17, 1948 (H. Rept. No. 1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Capital Planning Commission; Planning Kennedy Center Site

Sec. 46.13 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia had jurisdiction of a joint resolution 
    directing the National Capital Planning Commission to study the 
    location and development of the John F. Kennedy Center for the 
    Performing Arts.

    On Sept. 15, 1965,(17) John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, 
obtained unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from 
further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 646), and to 
have it rereferred to the Committee on Public Works.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 23927, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. For a similar rereference, see 111 Cong. Rec. 27803, 89th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Oct. 21, 1965 [H.J. Res. 659].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Monument Commission; Monument Construction

Sec. 46.14 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Interior and Insular Affairs has jurisdiction of a communication 
    from the National Capital Park and Planning Association submitting 
    a bill to create a National Monument Commission to build a monument 
    on the Nevius Tract adjoining Arlington Cemetery.

    On Aug. 15, 1951,(2) John R. Murdock, of Arizona, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the communication (Exec. Comm. No. 699), and to have 
it rereferred to the Committee on Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 97 Cong. Rec. 10098, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2992]]

Road Construction or Maintenance--Creating Federal Highway Corporation 
    to Finance Interstate Highways

Sec. 46.15 The House rejected a motion to rerefer from the Committee on 
    Public Works to the Committee on Appropriations identical bills to 
    create a federal highway corporation for financing the construction 
    of the National System of Interstate Highways; to amend and 
    supplement the Federal Aid Road Act approved July 11, 1916 (39 
    Stat. 355), as amended and supplemented; and for other purposes.

    On Feb. 24, 1955,(3) acting by direction of the 
Committee on Appropriations which he chaired, Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, moved to rerefer the two identical bills (H.R. 4260 and H.R. 
4261), from the Committee on Public Works to the Committee on 
Appropriations. Mr. Cannon having demanded a division, the question was 
taken and there were--ayes 87, noes 131. A request for the yeas and 
nays was then refused, so the motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 101 Cong. Rec. 2029, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Forest Roads and Trails

Sec. 46.16 In the 87th Congress, the Committee on Public Works and not 
    the Committee on Agriculture had jurisdiction of proposed 
    legislation enabling the Secretary of Agriculture to construct and 
    maintain a system of roads and trails for the national forests.

    On May 7, 1962,(4) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, 
obtained unanimous consent to have a letter (Exec. Comm. No. 2000), 
from the Secretary of Agriculture rereferred from the Committee on 
Agriculture to the Committee on Public Works. The letter contained a 
draft bill which would authorize the Secretary to grant permanent 
easements for road rights-of-way through the national forests; permit 
him to acquire, construct, and maintain forest development roads and 
trails; and authorize financing of the construction by using 
appropriated funds, charging users of the national forests, and of the 
products therefrom, and through cooperative financing with public or 
private agencies. The proposal would not have amended title 23, ``High

[[Page 2993]]

ways,'' of the United States Code or any other existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 7826, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Code Provisions Relating to Highways

Sec. 46.17 Bills having the purpose of codifying and enacting into law 
    title 23 of the United States Code, entitled ``Highways,'' but also 
    containing substantive revisions of certain provisions of the 
    highway laws, were rereferred from the Committee on the Judiciary 
    to the Committee on Public Works with the understanding that this 
    action was not to be construed as a jurisdictional waiver by the 
    Committee on the Judiciary over codification bills.

    On June 4, 1958,(5) by direction of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, Emanuel Celler, of New York, who chaired that committee, 
asked unanimous consent that the two bills (H.R. 12776 and H.R. 12777), 
be rereferred from his committee to the Committee on Public Works. Mr. 
Celler emphasized that such a request was ``not to be construed as a 
waiver by the Committee on the Judiciary of any of the jurisdiction 
under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 or the United States 
Code,'' but rather was being urged ``solely because of the particular 
circumstances with respect to the drafting of the bills.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 104 Cong. Rec. 10164, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    He explained those circumstances as follows:

        . . . Under section 12 of Public Law 350 of the 83d Congress, 
    the Secretary of the Department of Commerce was directed to 
    transmit to the Committees on Public Works of the Senate and of the 
    House of Representatives a suggested draft of a bill or bills for a 
    Federal Highway Act, which will include such provisions of existing 
    law, and such changes or new provisions as the Secretary deems 
    advisable. The Secretary submitted such a draft bill to the 
    committees, as a result of which the bill H.R. 10488, to revise the 
    Federal aid highway laws of the United States, was introduced and 
    referred to the Committee on Public Works. A companion bill, S. 
    3151, was referred to the Senate Committee on Public Works. Through 
    the cooperation between the counsel of the House Committee on 
    Public Works and the law revision counsel of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, clerical changes have been suggested in the bill H.R. 
    10488 to provide for the enactment into law of title 23, United 
    States Code ``Highways.'' As a result, the bills H.R. 12776 and 
    H.R. 12777 were introduced containing a number of clerical changes 
    to achieve that purpose. These two bills are, however, essentially 
    the same as the bill submitted by the Secretary of Commerce to the 
    Committee on Public Works and which is now pending be

[[Page 2994]]

    fore that committee which has set hearings for tomorrow.
        Therefore, in view of these special circumstances and without 
    any intention to waive the prerogative of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, I make this unanimous-consent request.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent to 
effect the bills' rereferral.

School Facilities for Dependents of Workmen Engaged in a Water 
    Conservation Project

Sec. 46.18 In the 90th Congress, the Committee on Public Works and not 
    the Committee on Education and Labor had jurisdiction of a bill 
    authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Army to provide 
    school facilities for dependents of construction workers engaged in 
    the building of a Corps of Engineers project.

    On June 17, 1968,(~6) Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 17487), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 114 Cong. Rec. 17429, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H.R. 17487 was specifically intended to provide facilities for the 
dependents of persons working on the construction of the Dworshak Dam 
and Reservoir project.

Smithsonian-affiliated Buildings

Sec. 46.19 The Committee on Public Works and not the Committee on 
    Interior and Insular Affairs has jurisdiction of a bill providing 
    for the construction of a National Air Museum for the Smithsonian 
    Institution.

    On July 2, 1958,(7) Clair Engle, of California, Chairman 
of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, asked unanimous 
consent that the bill (S. 1985), be rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works, ``it having been erroneously referred to the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 12941, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, unanimous consent was granted.

Sec. 46.20 In the 90th Congress, the Committee on Public Works and not 
    the Committee on House Administration reported a measure 
    authorizing the trustees of the Smithsonian Institution to 
    construct, with privately donated funds, an annex to the

[[Page 2995]]

    National Gallery of Art on a site previously earmarked for that 
    purpose by the Congress.

    On Apr. 10, 1968,(8) Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, 
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 16358), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on 
Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 9553, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Executive Communication No 1579, 
transmitting a draft bill on this subject to the Congress, was not 
rereferred from the Committee on House Administration along with the 
bill since it contained information regarding the gallery which, as 
part of the Smithsonian, is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
House Administration. Matters pertaining to the actual construction of 
Smithsonian buildings are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Public Works. Matters pertaining to the management of the Institution 
are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on House 
Administration.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The rules [Rule XI clause 16(d) House Rules and Manual Sec. 713 
        (1973)] provide that the Committee on Public Works has 
        jurisdiction over ``measures relating to the construction or 
        reconstruction, maintenance, and care of the buildings and 
        grounds of the Botanic Gardens, the Library of Congress, and 
        the Smithsonian Institute.''
            The rules provide also [Rule XI clause 9(e), House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 693 (1973)] that the Committee on House 
        Administration has jurisdiction ``except as provided in clause 
        16(d) [over] matters relating to the Smithsonian Institution.. 
        . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revolving Funds for Regional Power Administrations

Sec. 46.21 In the 86th Congress, the Committee on Public Works and not 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had jurisdiction of 
    proposed legislation dealing with the establishment of revolving 
    type funds in the Treasury for the Southeastern and Southwestern 
    Power Administrations.

    On July 2, 1959,(10) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of an executive communication (Exec. Comm. No. 1109), and 
to have that communication re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 12629, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2996]]

referred to the Committee on Public Works.

Stream Pollution Control

Sec. 46.22 The Committee on Rivers and Harbors (now the Committee on 
    Public Works), and not the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce had jurisdiction of a bill to create a Division of Stream 
    Pollution Control in the Bureau of Public Health Service.

    On June 8, 1936,(11) Sam Rayburn, of Texas, Chairman of 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, obtained unanimous 
consent to have the bill (H.R. 12764), rereferred from his committee to 
the Committee on Rivers and Harbors (now the Committee on Public 
Works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 80 Cong. Rec. 9241, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water Resources Conservation and Development

Sec. 46.23 A Presidential message pertaining to the need for regional 
    conservation and development of national water resources was, on 
    motion, referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors (now the 
    Committee on Public Works) after a motion to refer to the Committee 
    on Flood Control was withdrawn following rejection of the previous 
    question.

    On June 3, 1937,(12) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, laid before the House the following message from President 
Franklin D. Roosevelt:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 5296, 5297, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.

    To the Congress of the United States:

        Nature has given recurrent and poignant warnings through dust 
    storms, floods, and droughts that we must act while there is yet 
    time if we would preserve for ourselves and our posterity the 
    natural sources of a virile national life. . . .
        For instance, our recent experiences of floods have made clear 
    that the problem must be approached as one involving more than 
    great works on main streams at the places where major disasters 
    threaten to occur. There must also be measures of prevention and 
    control among tributaries and throughout the entire headwaters 
    areas. A comprehensive plan of flood control must embrace not only 
    downstream levees and floodways and retarding dams and reservoirs 
    on major tributaries but also smaller dams and reservoirs on the 
    lesser tributaries, and measures of applied conservation throughout 
    an entire drainage area, such as restoration of forests and grasses 
    on inferior lands, and encouragement of farm practices which 
    diminish run-off and prevent erosion on arable lands. . . .

[[Page 2997]]

        It is also well to remember that improvements of our national 
    heritage frequently confer special benefits upon regions 
    immediately affected, and a large measure of cooperation from State 
    and local agencies in the undertaking and financing of important 
    projects may fairly be asked for. . . .
        I think, however, that for the time being we might give 
    consideration to the creation of seven regional authorities or 
    agencies--one on the Atlantic seaboard; a second for the Great 
    Lakes and Ohio Valley; a third for the drainage basin of the 
    Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers; a fourth embracing the drainage 
    basins of the Missouri River and the Red River of the North; a 
    fifth embracing the drainage basins of the Arkansas, Red, and Rio 
    Grande Rivers; a sixth for the basins of the Colorado River and 
    rivers flowing into the Pacific south of the California-Oregon 
    line; and a seventh for the Columbia River Basin. And, in addition, 
    I should leave undisturbed the Mississippi River Commission, which 
    is well equipped to handle the problems immediately attending the 
    channel of that great river. . . .
        Such regional bodies would also provide a useful mechanism 
    through which consultation among the various governmental agencies 
    working in the field could be effected for the development of 
    integrated programs of related activities. Projected programs would 
    be reported by the regional bodies annually to the Congress through 
    the President after he has had the projects checked and revised in 
    light of national budgetary considerations and of national planning 
    policies. When the national planning board is established I should 
    expect to use that agency to coordinate the development of regional 
    planning to insure conformity to national policy, but not to give 
    to the proposed national planning board any executive authority 
    over the construction of public works or over management of 
    completed works. . . .
        For nearly a year I have studied this great subject intensively 
    and have discussed it with many of the Members of the Senate and 
    the House of Representatives. My recommendations in this message 
    fall into the same category as my former recommendation relating to 
    the reorganization of the executive branch of the Government. I 
    hope, therefore, that both of these important matters may have your 
    attention at this session.
                                            Franklin D. Roosevelt.
                                    The White House, June 3, 1937.

    Although William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, Chairman of the 
Committee on Flood Control, moved that the President's message be 
referred to his committee,(13) the previous question on that 
motion was subsequently voted down.(14) Shortly thereafter, 
Mr. Whittington withdrew his motion, after which Joseph J. Mansfield, 
of Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors (now the 
Committee on Public Works), moved that the message be referred to his 
committee. The latter motion was agreed to.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 5297.
14. Id. at p. 5306.
15. Id. at p. 5307.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2998]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Flood Control and the 
Committee on Rivers and Harbors were both incorporated into the present 
day Committee on Public Works. Had Mr. Whittington not withdrawn his 
motion to refer, Mr. Mansfield would have been obliged to offer an 
amendment to that motion to accomplish his purpose.



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 47. Committee on Science and Astronautics

    The Committee on Science and Astronautics was established on July 
21, 1958,(16) although it did not commence operations until 
January 1959. The committee was vested with jurisdiction formerly 
accorded a Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration 
established the previous March,(1) as well as the subject of 
science scholarships and matters relating to the Bureau of Standards 
(transferred from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce).(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 104 Cong. Rec. 14513, 14514, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. The name of the 
        committee was changed to the Committee on Science and 
        Technology effective Jan. 3, 1975. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 
        34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974.
 1. After the new standing committee was created, no Members were 
        elected to it during the remainder of the second session of the 
        85th Congress. The Members appointed to the select committee 
        continued to serve on that committee until the end of the 
        session.
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 719 (1973). See House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 687 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that, initially, the committee's primary purpose 
was to oversee the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
and the nonmilitary national space program.(3) Indeed,

        [O]ne of the major legislative problems involved in creating 
    NASA was to distinguish the aeronautical and space activities to be 
    conducted by NASA from those to be conducted by the Department of 
    Defense. This distinction was made in the Act by excluding 
    ``activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the 
    development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense 
    of the United States (including the research and development 
    necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United 
    States) . . .'' (42 U.S. Code, sec. 2451(b)).(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Spencer M. Beresford, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House 
        of Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 135.
 4. Id. at p. 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Astronau

[[Page 2999]]

tics pursuant to the 1973 rules (5) read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XI clause 18, House Rules and Manual Sec. 718 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause l(r), House Rules and Manual Sec. 687 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Astronautical research and development, including 
    resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.
        (b) Bureau of Standards, standardization of weights and 
    measures and the metric system.
        (c) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
        (d) National Aeronautics and Space Council.
        (e) National Science Foundation.
        (f) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
        (g) Science Scholarships.
        (h) Scientific research and development.

    Pursuant to its responsibilities, the committee oversees and 
reports the annual authorization bills for the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.
    The committee has reported on such subject matters as: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Spencer M. Beresford, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House 
        of Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) International space cooperation;
        (2) Ocean and atmospheric sciences;
        (3) Satellite programs (weather, communications, earth 
    resources);
        (4) Science fellowships and research grants;
        (5) Science policy;
        (6) Scientific and technical manpower; and
        (7) Technology assessment.

    Further insight into the committee's jurisdictional expanse is seen 
in the following list of legislative subject categories: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. This list was prepared by the staff of the Select Committee on 
        Committees [enumeration added].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) Measurement systems;
        (2) Metric system;
        (3) Research and development: (a) Aeronautical (by or for the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Civil Aviation); (b) 
    Astronautical, generally; and (c) Scientific (except that required 
    for the national defense);
        (4) Science and technology;
        (5) Science fellowships;
        (6) Science policy;
        (7) Science scholarships;
        (8) Scientific centers;
        (9) Scientific measurements and observations;
        (10) Scientific programs;
        (11) Scientific resources including manpower;
        (12) Space, outer (Control, exploration, space programs);
        (13) Technology assessment; and
        (14) Weights and measures.

    As the precedents reveal, the committee's jurisdiction has extended 
to such matters as the establishment of a Council on Environmental 
Quality,(8) expression of congressional support for an inter

[[Page 3000]]

national biological program,(9) and U.S. participation in 
the World Science Pan-Pacific Exposition.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sec. 47.2, infra.
 9. Sec. 47.3, infra.
10. Sec. 47.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be borne in mind, moreover, that the focal point of the 
committee's jurisdiction has shifted over the years from primary 
concern with astronautical matters to a far broader emphasis on 
scientific research and development, in general. Thus, the committee 
has recently reported on such matters as computer technology and 
genetic engineering. And, of course, as new technological advances take 
place, the committee's jurisdiction expands, accordingly.
    In 1973, the committee maintained the following six subcommittees:

        (1) Subcommittee on Aeronautics and Space Technology;
        (2) Subcommittee on Energy;
        (3) Subcommittee on International Cooperation in Science and 
    Space;
        (4) Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight;
        (5) Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development;
        (6) Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications.

    The Subcommittees on Aeronautics and Space Technology, Manned Space 
Flight, and Space Science and Applications were fundamentally concerned 
with NASA and its authorization bills. The Subcommittee on Science, 
Research, and Development dealt with authorizing legislation for the 
National Science Foundation. The Subcommittees on Energy and 
International Cooperation in Science and Space were largely 
investigative and nonlegislative in nature.
    In the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, the Committee on 
Science and Technology obtained legislative jurisdiction over civil 
aviation research and development, environmental research and 
development, energy research and development (except nuclear research 
and development which remained with the Joint Committee on Atomic 
Energy), and the National Weather Service. The amendments also vested 
in the committee oversight jurisdiction over all laws, programs and 
government activities involving nonmilitary research and 
development.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the legislative jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Atomic 
Energy was abolished in the 95th Congress, the Committee on Science and 
Technology obtained jurisdiction over all energy re

[[Page 3001]]

search and development, including nuclear research and 
development.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53-70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
        1977. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creation of the Committee; Acquisition of Functions of Other Committees

Sec. 47.1 Transferring certain functions of the Committees on Armed 
    Services and Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the House amended its 
    rules to create a new standing committee to take over and continue 
    the work started by the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space 
    Exploration to be known as the ``Committee on Science and 
    Astronautics.''

    On July 21, 1958,(1) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, who, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 580 and asked for its 
immediate consideration. The resolution was read by the Clerk, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 104 Cong. Rec. 14513, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives are 
    hereby amended as follows:
        Rule X, clause 1, is hereby amended by inserting after (p) the 
    following:
        ``(q) Committee on Science and Astronautics, to consist of 25 
    members.'' . . .
        Rule XI, clause 11, is hereby amended to read as follows:
        ``11. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        ``(a) Interstate and foreign commerce generally.
        ``(b) Civil aeronautics.
        ``(c) Inland waterways.
        ``(d) Interstate oil compacts and petroleum and natural gas, 
    except on the public lands.
        ``(e) Public health and quarantine.
        ``(f) Railroad labor and railroad retirement and unemployment, 
    except revenue measures relating thereto.
        ``(g) Regulation of interstate and foreign communications.
        ``(h) Regulation of interstate and foreign transportation, 
    except transportation by water not subject to the jurisdiction of 
    the Interstate Commerce Commission.
        ``(i) Regulation of interstate transmission of power, except 
    the installation of connections between Government waterpower 
    projects.
        ``(j) Securities and exchanges.
        ``(k) Weather Bureau.''
        Rule XI is further amended by inserting after clause 16 the 
    following:
        ``17. Committee on Science and Astronautics.
        ``(a) Astronautical research and development, including 
    resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.
        ``(b) Bureau of Standards, standardization of weights and 
    measures, and the metric system.

[[Page 3002]]

        ``(c) National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.
        ``(d) National Science Foundation.
        ``(e) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
        ``(f) Science scholarships.
        ``(g) Scientific research and development.''

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Bolling offered this amendment:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bolling: On page 2, line 24, strike 
    out line 24 through the remainder of the resolution and in lieu 
    thereof insert the following:
        ``(c) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
        ``(d) National Aeronautics and Space Council.
        ``(e) National Science Foundation.
        ``(f) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
        ``(g) Science Scholarships.
        ``(h) Scientific research and development.''

    Referring to the amendment, he stated that it was ``in effect a 
perfecting amendment so that the language of the resolution which 
establishes the new committee will conform to the act which is to 
become law, which was passed by both the House and the other body last 
week establishing this National Administration on Aeronautics and 
Science. This is to make the rules of the House conform to this act 
which is about to become law.''
    Asked to elaborate further with respect to the resolution itself, 
Mr. Bolling explained that it amended the rules of the House to provide 
for the establishment of a new standing legislative committee to be 
known as the Committee on Science and Astronautics. The committee would 
consist of 25 members and would have jurisdiction over the exploration 
and control of outer space and astronautic research and development, 
including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.
    The standing committee would take over, and continue, the work 
started by the House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space 
Exploration. Certain functions of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce and the Armed Services Committee would be transferred 
to this committee; namely legislation relating to the scientific 
agencies--the Bureau of Standards, the National Advisory Committee for 
Aeronautics and the National Science Foundation. The chairmen of the 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and the Armed Services 
Committee agreed with these proposed transfers. The committee would 
also cooperate with the Executive in the operation of the Space Agency.
    Further discussion of the resolution proceeded briefly, after which 
the Chair put the question on the

[[Page 3003]]

amendment which was agreed to, and the resolution, as amended, was then 
agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 14514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Mar. 5, 1958,(~3~) the House 
passed House Resolution 496, creating the Select Committee on 
Astronautics and Space Exploration, consisting of 13 members authorized 
and directed to conduct a complete study and investigation ``with 
respect to all aspects and problems relating to the exploration of 
outer space and the control, development, and use of astronautical 
resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.'' House Resolution 496 
directed the select committee to report to the House by June 1, 1958, 
or the earliest practical date thereafter, but not later than Jan. 3, 
1959. After the new standing committee was created, no Members were 
elected to it nor were any bills referred to it during the remainder of 
the second session of the 85th Congress. The Members appointed to the 
select committee continued to serve on that committee until the end of 
the session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 3443, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishing Council on Environmental Quality

Sec. 47.2 Under the rules in effect in the 90th Congress, the Committee 
    on Science and Astronautics and not the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs had jurisdiction of a bill to establish a Council 
    on Environmental Quality to study environmental changes and their 
    effect on man.

    On Apr. 17, 1967,(4) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 7796), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Science and Astronautics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 9708, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Biological Program

Sec. 47.3 In the 91st Congress, the Committee on Science and 
    Astronautics and not the Committee on Foreign Affairs had 
    jurisdiction of a joint resolution expressing the support of 
    Congress for the international biological program, established 
    under the auspices of the International Council of Scientific 
    Unions and sponsored in the United States by the National Academy 
    of Sciences.

[[Page 3004]]

    On Apr. 29, 1969,(5) Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, 
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 589), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Science and Astronautics.(~6~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 10745, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. H.J. Res. 589 was reported by the Committee on Science and 
        Astronautics on June 11, 1969 (H. Rept. No. 91-302).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Science Pan-Pacific Exposition

Sec. 47.4 The Committee on Science and Astronautics and not the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs had jurisdiction of bills, messages, 
    and communications dealing with the participation of the United 
    States in the World Science Pan-Pacific Exposition.

    On June 24, 1959,(7) Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, 
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, obtained unanimous 
consent to have his committee discharged from further consideration of 
the bills (H.R. 7431, H.R. 7434, H.R. 7435, H.R. 7436, H.R. 7438, H.R. 
7440, and H.R. 7443), and to have them rereferred to the Committee on 
Science and Astronautics. Immediately thereafter, a message from the 
President was similarly referred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 11810, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 48. Committee on Small Business

    The Committee on Small Business was created as a standing committee 
effective Jan. 3, 1975, with the adoption of the Committee Reform 
Amendments of 1974.(8) Paragraph (1) of its jurisdiction was 
transferred from the Committee on Banking and Currency, and paragraph 
(2) was transferred mainly from the Committee on the Judiciary:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975. See Rule X clause 1(s), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 688 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (s) Committee on Small Business.
        (1) Assistance to and protection of small business, including 
    financial aid.
        (2) Participation of small-business enterprises in Federal 
    procurement and Government contracts.
        In addition to its legislative jurisdiction under the preceding 
    provisions of this paragraph (and its general oversight function 
    under clause 2(b)(1)), the committee shall have the special

[[Page 3005]]

    oversight function provided for in clause 3(g) with respect to the 
    problems of small business.

    The committee's oversight jurisdiction [Rule X clause 3(g), House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1979)], reads as follows:

        (g) The Committee on Small Business shall have the function of 
    studying and investigating, on a continuing basis, the problems of 
    all types of small business.

    The standing committee was the successor to the permanent Select 
Committee on Small Business, which had been incorporated into the rules 
as a permanent select committee, but without legislative jurisdiction, 
in the 92d Congress; (9) prior to that time, a Select 
Committee on Small Business had been created by separate House 
resolution in each Congress since 1941.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 5, 117 Cong. Rec. 134-144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 
        1971.
10. See H. Res. 294, 87 Cong. Rec. 9418-28, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 
        4, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 49. Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

    The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was established on 
Apr. 13, 1967,(11) with instructions to ``recommend as soon 
as practicable . . . such changes in laws, rules, and regulations, as 
the committee deems necessary to establish and enforce standards of 
official conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the House.'' 
The committee became a permanent standing committee on Apr. 3, 
1968,(12) at which time its jurisdiction was redefined, and 
a code of ``Official Conduct'' and provisions for ``Financial 
Disclosure'' were made part of the House rules. On July 8, 
1970,(13) the committee was granted certain legislative and 
investigative authority over the subjects of lobbying and the reporting 
of campaign contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 9448, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (H. Res. 418).
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 8812, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (H. Res. 1099).
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 23136, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (H. Res. 1031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
pursuant to the 1973 rules (l4) and the procedures which 
governed the exercise of that jurisdiction were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XI clause 19, House Rules and Manual Sec. 720 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1(t), House Rules and Manual Sec. 689 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Measures relating to the Code of Official Conduct.
        (b) Measures relating to financial disclosure by Members, 
    officers, and employees of the House of Representatives.

[[Page 3006]]

        (c) Measures relating to activities designed to (1) assist in 
    defeating, passing, or amending any legislation by the House or (2) 
    influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any 
    legislation by the House.

        (d) Measures relating to the raising, reporting, and use of 
    campaign contributions for candidates for the office of 
    Representative in the House of Representatives and of Resident 
    Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico.
        (e) The committee is authorized (1) to recommend to the House 
    of Representatives, from time to time, such legislative or 
    administrative actions as the committee may deem appropriate to 
    establish or enforce standards of official conduct for Members, 
    officers, and employees of the House of Representatives; (2) to 
    investigate, subject to paragraph (f) of this clause, any alleged 
    violation, by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives, of the Code of Official Conduct or of any law, 
    rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the 
    conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the performance of 
    his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities and, after 
    notice and a hearing, shall recommend to the House of 
    Representatives, by resolution or otherwise, such action as the 
    committee may deem appropriate in the circumstances; (3) to report 
    to the appropriate Federal or State authorities, with approval of 
    the House of Representatives, any substantial evidence of a 
    violation, by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives, of any law applicable to the performance of his 
    duties or the discharge of his responsibilities, which may have 
    been disclosed in a committee investigation; and (4) to give 
    consideration to the request of a Member, officer, or employee of 
    the House of Representatives, for an advisory opinion with respect 
    to the general propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such 
    Member, officer, or employee and, with appropriate deletions to 
    assure the privacy of the individual concerned, to publish such 
    opinion for the guidance of other Members, officers, and employees 
    of the House of Representatives.
        (f)(1) No resolution, report, recommendation, or advisory 
    opinion relating to the official conduct of a Member, officer, or 
    employee of the House of Representatives shall be made, and no 
    investigation of such conduct shall be undertaken, unless approved 
    by the affirmative vote of not less than seven members of the 
    committee. (2) Except in the case of an investigation undertaken by 
    the committee on its own initiative, the committee may undertake an 
    investigation relating to the official conduct of an individual 
    Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives only 
    (A) upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and under oath, made by 
    or submitted to a Member of the House of Representatives and 
    transmitted to the committee by such Member, or (B) upon receipt of 
    a complaint, in writing and under oath, directly from an individual 
    not a Member of the House of Representatives if the committee finds 
    that such complaint has been submitted by such individual to not 
    less than three Members of the House of Representatives who have 
    refused, in writing, to transmit such complaint to the committee. 
    (3) No investigation shall be undertaken of any alleged violation 
    of a law,

[[Page 3007]]

    rule, regulation, or standard of conduct not in effect at the time 
    of the alleged violation. (4) A member of the committee shall be 
    ineligible to participate, as a member of the committee, in any 
    committee proceeding relating to his official conduct. In any case 
    in which a member of the committee is ineligible to act as a member 
    of the committee under the preceding sentence, the Speaker of the 
    House of Representatives shall designate a Member of the House of 
    Representatives from the same political party as the ineligible 
    member of the committee to act as a member of the committee in any 
    committee proceeding relating to the official conduct of such 
    ineligible member.
        (g) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, acting as a 
    whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to conduct investigations 
    and studies, from time to time, of the laws, rules, regulations, 
    procedures, practices, and activities pertaining to (1) lobbying 
    activities as described in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 
    (c) of this clause, or (2) the raising, reporting, and use of 
    political campaign contributions as described in paragraph (d) of 
    this clause, or (3) both. Each such investigation and study may 
    include all pertinent matters which would assist the Congress in 
    connection with necessary remedial legislation. The committee may 
    obtain the views of all parties familiar with the subject matter 
    covered by the investigation and study. The committee shall report 
    to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in 
    session) the results of each such investigation and study, together 
    with such recommendations as the committee considers advisable.
        (h) For the purpose of carrying out the foregoing provisions of 
    this clause, the committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is 
    authorized to sit and act at such times and places within the 
    United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or 
    has adjourned, to hold such hearings, and to require, by subpena or 
    otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 
    production of such books, records, correspondence, memorandums, 
    papers, and documents, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be 
    issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any 
    member of the committee designated by him, and may be served by any 
    person designated by such chairman or member.

    Further insight into the jurisdiction of the committee may be 
obtained through examination of the rules establishing a code of 
conduct (15) and the financial disclosure 
requirements.(16) Measures relating to these matters were 
incorporated by reference as falling within the committee's 
realm.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XLIII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 939 (1979).
16. Rule XLIV, House Rules and Manual Sec. 940 (1979).
17. See Rule XI clauses 19(a), (b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 720 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973 the relevant provisions read as follows:

                                 Rule XLIII

                          code of official conduct

        There is hereby established by and for the House of 
    Representatives the following code of conduct, to be known as the 
    ``Code of Official Conduct'':

[[Page 3008]]

        1. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner 
    which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.
        2. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the 
    Rules of the House of Representatives and to the rules of duly 
    constituted committees thereof.
        3. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives shall receive no compensation nor shall he permit 
    any compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest from any 
    source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence 
    improperly exerted from his position in the Congress.
        4. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives shall accept no gift of substantial value, directly 
    or indirectly, from any person, organization, or corporation having 
    a direct interest in legislation before the Congress.
        5. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives shall accept no honorarium for a speech, writing 
    for publication, or other similar activity, from any person, 
    organization, or corporation in excess of the usual and customary 
    value for such services.
        6. A Member of the House of Representatives shall keep his 
    campaign funds separate from his personal funds. He shall convert 
    no campaign funds to personal use in excess of reimbursement for 
    legitimate and verifiable prior campaign expenditures. He shall 
    expend no funds from his campaign account not attributable to bona 
    fide campaign purposes.
        7. A Member of the House of Representatives shall treat as 
    campaign contributions all proceeds from testimonial dinners or 
    other fund raising events if the sponsors of such affairs do not 
    give clear notice in advance to the donors or participants that the 
    proceeds are intended for other purposes.
        8. A Member of the House of Representatives shall retain no one 
    from his clerk hire allowance who does not perform duties 
    commensurate with the compensation he receives.
        As used in this Code of Official Conduct of the House of 
    Representatives--(a) the terms ``Member'' and ``Member of the House 
    of Representatives'' include the Resident Commissioner from Puerto 
    Rico and each Delegate to the House; and (b) the term ``officer or 
    employee of the House of Representatives'' means any individual 
    whose compensation is disbursed by the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives.

                                 Rule XLIV

                            financial disclosure

        Members, officers, principal assistants to Members and 
    officers, and professional staff members of committees shall, not 
    later than April 30, 1969, and by April 30 of each year thereafter, 
    file with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct a report 
    disclosing certain financial interests as provided in this rule. 
    The interest of a spouse or any other party, if constructively 
    controlled by the person reporting, shall be considered to be the 
    same as the interest of the person reporting. The report shall be 
    in two parts as follows:

                                   part a

        1. List the name, instrument of ownership, and any position of 
    manage

[[Page 3009]]

    ment held in any business entity doing a substantial business with 
    the Federal Government or subject to Federal regulatory agencies, 
    in which the ownership is in excess of $5,000 fair market value as 
    of the date of filing or from which income of $1,000 or more was 
    derived during the preceding calendar year. Do not list any time or 
    demand deposit in a financial institution, or any debt instrument 
    having a fixed yield unless it is convertible to an equity 
    instrument.
        2. List the name, address, and type of practice of any 
    professional organization in which the person reporting, or his 
    spouse, is an officer, director, or partner, or serves in any 
    advisory capacity, from which income of $1,000 or more was derived 
    during the preceding calendar year.
        3. List the source of each of the following items received 
    during the preceding calendar year: (a) Any income for services 
    rendered (other than from the United States Government) exceeding 
    $5,000. (b) Any capital gain from a single source exceeding $5,000, 
    other than from the sale of a residence occupied by the person 
    reporting. (c) Reimbursement for expenditures (other than from the 
    United States Government) exceeding $1,000 in each instance. (d) 
    Honorariums from a single source aggregating $300 or more.
        4. List each creditor to whom the person reporting was indebted 
    for a period of ninety consecutive days or more during the 
    preceding calendar year in an aggregate amount in excess of 
    $10,000, excluding any indebtedness specifically secured by the 
    pledge of assets of the person reporting of appropriate value.
        Campaign receipts shall not be included in this report.
        Information filed under part A shall be maintained by the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and made available at 
    reasonable hours to responsible public inquiry, subject to such 
    regulations as the committee may prescribe including, but not 
    limited to, regulations requiring identification by name, 
    occupation, address, and telephone number of each person examining 
    information filed under part A, and the reason for each such 
    inquiry.
        The committee shall promptly notify each person required to 
    file a report under this rule of each instance of an examination of 
    his report. The committee shall also promptly notify a Member of 
    each examination of the reports filed by his principal assistants 
    and of each examination of the reports of professional staff 
    members of committees who are responsible to such Member.

                                   part b

        1. List the fair market value (as of the date of filing) of 
    each item listed under paragraph 1 of part A and the income derived 
    therefrom during the preceding calendar year.
        2. List the amount of income derived from each item listed 
    under paragraphs 2 and 3 of part A, and the amount of indebtedness 
    owed to each creditor listed under paragraph 4 of part A.
        The information filed under this part B shall be sealed by the 
    person filing and shall remain sealed unless the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct, pursuant to its investigative 
    authority, determines by a vote of not less than seven members of 
    the committee that the examination of such in

[[Page 3010]]

    formation is essential in an official investigation by the 
    committee and promptly notifies the Member concerned of any such 
    determination. The committee may, by a vote of not less than seven 
    members of the committee, make public any portion of the 
    information unsealed by the committee under the preceding sentence 
    and which the committee deems to be in the public interest.
        Any person required to file a report under this rule who has no 
    interests covered by any of the provisions of this rule shall file 
    a report, under part A only of this rule, so stating.
        In any case in which a person required to file a sealed report 
    under part B of this rule is no longer required to file such a 
    report, the committee shall return to such person, or his legal 
    representative, all sealed reports filed by such person under part 
    B and remaining in the possession of the committee.
        As used in this rule--(1) the term ``Members'' includes the 
    Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico and each Delegate to the 
    House; and (2) the term ``committees'' includes any committee or 
    subcommittee of the House of Representatives and any joint 
    committee of Congress, the expenses of which are paid from the 
    contingent fund of the House of Representatives.

    In the course of analyzing the scope of the committee's 
jurisdiction, it should be noted that the Committee on Rules is 
expressly excluded from responsibility over ``rules or joint rules 
relating to the Code of Official Conduct or relating to financial 
disclosure by a Member, officer, or employee of the House'' (in the 
95th Congress, the Committee on Rules regained jurisdiction over 
financial disclosure rules).(18) Thus, the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct has been charged with exclusive 
responsibilities in regard to the Code of Official Conduct (Rule 
XLIII). Secondly, the procedural safeguards which are incorporated in 
the rules significantly affect the committee's investigatory and 
advisory roles. Thus, no action--not even an advisory opinion--will be 
undertaken by the committee unless seven of its 12 members (the party 
ratio of which is one to one) choose to proceed. No complaint will be 
considered unless it is in writing, under oath, submitted or 
transmitted by a Member or unless its submission is made by a nonmember 
after its transmission has been rejected, in writing, by three Members. 
Moreover, no action not in violation of a law, rule, regulation, or 
standard at the time of its commission will be investigated. And, no 
member of the committee may partake in any proceeding relating to his 
own official conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XI clause 17(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1973) and 
        Rule X clause 1(q)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 686 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents indicate, the committee has issued advisory

[[Page 3011]]

opinions and reports pursuant to its responsibilities (19) 
and has also dealt with such matters as roll call irregularities and 
recommendations with respect thereto.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Ch. 12 Sec. Sec. 9.1, 10, 13.1, 15.2, and the appendix thereto, 
        supra.
20. 49.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 94th Congress, jurisdiction over the raising, reporting, and 
use of campaign contributions for candidates for the House was 
transferred to the Committee on House Administration.(1) And 
Special Committees to Investigate Campaign Expenditures are no longer 
created, since the Committee on House Administration, with jurisdiction 
over that subject, now has standing investigatory power as do other 
standing committees [Rule XI clause 2(m), House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 718 1979)].(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-22, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 
        1975.
 2. Rule XI clause 2(m) resulted from the adoption of the Committee 
        Reform Amendments of 1974, H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-
        70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 95th Congress, the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct over lobbying activities and over 
financial disclosure were removed from the committee, leaving it with 
jurisdiction over measures relating to the Code of Official Conduct and 
the special functions now provided in Rule X clause 4(e) (3) 
[transferred from Rule XI clause 19(e),(4) carried in full 
above]: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (1979).
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 720 (1973).
 5. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53-70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
        1977. The clause was transferred by the Committee Reform 
        Amendments of 1974, which also permitted a majority of the 
        committee, rather than seven members, to authorize an 
        investigation. Subparagraph (E) was added to the clause by H. 
        Res. 5, in the 95th Congress, to provide a mechanism for a 
        committee member to disqualify himself from participating in an 
        investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (e)(1) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is 
    authorized: (A) to recommend to the House from time to time such 
    administrative actions as it may deem appropriate to establish or 
    enforce standards of official conduct for Members, officers, and 
    employees of the House; (B) to investigate, subject to subparagraph 
    (2) of this paragraph, any alleged violation by a Member, officer, 
    or employee of the House, of the Code of Official Conduct or of any 
    law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to 
    the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the performance 
    of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities, and, after 
    notice and hearing, to recommend to the House by resolution or 
    otherwise, such action as the committee

[[Page 3012]]

    may deem appropriate in the circumstances; (C) to report to the 
    appropriate Federal or State authorities, with the approval of the 
    House, any substantial evidence of a violation, by a Member, 
    officer, or employee of the House, of any law applicable to the 
    performance of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities, 
    which may have been disclosed in a committee investigation; and (D) 
    to give consideration to the request of any Member, officer, or 
    employee of the House for an advisory opinion with respect to the 
    general propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such 
    Member, officer, or employee and, with appropriate deletions to 
    assure the privacy of the individual concerned, to publish such 
    opinion for the guidance of other Members, officers, and employees 
    of the House.

        (2)(A) No resolution, report, recommendation, or advisory 
    opinion relating to the official conduct of a Member, officer, or 
    employee of the House shall be made by the Committee on Standards 
    of Official Conduct, and no investigation of such conduct shall be 
    undertaken by such committee, unless approved by the affirmative 
    vote of a majority of the members of the committee.
        (B) Except in the case of an investigation undertaken by the 
    committee on its own initiative, the committee may undertake an 
    investigation relating to the official conduct of an individual 
    Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives only--
        (i) upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and under oath, 
    made by or submitted to a Member of the House and transmitted to 
    the committee by such Member, or
        (ii) upon receipt of a complaint, in writing and under oath, 
    directly from an individual not a Member of the House if the 
    committee finds that such complaint has been submitted by such 
    individual to not less than three Members of the House who have 
    refused, in writing, to transmit such complaint to the committee.
        (C) No investigation shall be undertaken by the committee of 
    any alleged violation of a law, rule, regulation, or standard of 
    conduct not in effect at the time of the alleged violation.
        (D) A member of the committee shall be ineligible to 
    participate, as a member of the committee, in any committee 
    proceeding relating to his or her official conduct. In any case in 
    which a member of the committee is ineligible to act as a member of 
    the committee under the preceding sentence, the Speaker of the 
    House shall designate a Member of the House from the same political 
    party as the ineligible member of the committee to act as a member 
    of the committee in any committee proceeding relating to the 
    official conduct of such ineligible member.
        (E) A member of the committee may disqualify himself from 
    participating in any investigation of the conduct of a Member, 
    officer, or employee of the House upon the submission in writing 
    and under oath of an affidavit of disqualification stating that he 
    cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision in the case in 
    which he seeks to disqualify himself. If the committee approves and 
    accepts such affidavit of disqualification, the chairman shall so 
    notify the Speaker and request the Speaker to designate a Member of 
    the House from the same political party as the disqualifying member 
    of the com

[[Page 3013]]

    mittee to act as a member of the committee in any committee 
    proceeding relating to such 
    investigation.

                          -------------------

Lobbying Activities; Campaign Contributions

Sec. 49.1 The rules were amended to confer upon the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct jurisdiction over measures relating 
    to (1) lobbying activities affecting the House, and (2) raising, 
    reporting, and use of campaign contributions for candidates for the 
    House; the committee was also given authority to investigate those 
    matters and to report its findings to the House.

    On July 8, 1970,(6) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, William M. Colmer, Chairman of that committee, called up House 
Resolution 1031 and asked for its immediate consideration. The Clerk 
then read the resolution, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 23136, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That (a) clause 19 of rule XI of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives (7) is amended by inserting 
    immediately below paragraph (b) thereof the following new 
    paragraphs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. This clause defined the jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards 
        of Official Conduct [H. Jour. 1435, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. 
        (1969)] and did not then include [Rule XI clause 19, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 720 (1973)] paragraphs ``(c),'' ``(d),'' 
        and ``(g).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``(c) Measures relating to activities designed to (1) assist in 
    defeating, passing, or amending any legislation by the House or (2) 
    influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any 
    legislation by the House.
        ``(d) Measures relating to the raising, reporting, and use of 
    campaign contributions for candidates for the office of 
    Representative in the House of Representatives and of Resident 
    Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico.''.
        (b) Clause 19 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is further amended by inserting immediately below 
    paragraph (d) thereof the following new paragraph:
        ``(g) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, acting as 
    a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to conduct investigations 
    and studies, from time to time, of the laws, rules, regulations, 
    procedures, practices, and activities pertaining to (1) lobbying 
    activities as described in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 
    (c) of this clause, or (2) the raising, reporting, and use of 
    political campaign contributions as described in paragraph (d) of 
    this clause, or (3) both. Each such investigation and study may 
    include all pertinent matters which would assist the Congress in 
    connection with necessary remedial legislation. The committee may 
    obtain the views of all parties familiar with the subject matter 
    covered by the investigation and study. The com

[[Page 3014]]

    mittee shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if 
    the House is not in session) the results of each such investigation 
    and study, together with such recommendations as the committee 
    considers advisable.''.
        Sec. 2. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall 
    conduct its first investigation and study under authority of the 
    amendments made by the first section of this resolution during the 
    remainder of the Ninety-first Congress, and shall submit to the 
    House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in 
    session), at the earliest practicable date prior to the close of 
    the Ninety-first Congress, a report of the results of that 
    investigation and study. Such report shall contain such 
    recommendations as the committee considers advisable, including a 
    draft of proposed legislation to carry out such recommendations.

    As debate on the measure commenced, Mr. Colmer noted that the 
resolution comprised part of the entire congressional reorganization 
effort:

        One of the facets of this reorganization program was the 
    question of amending the House rules with reference to lobbying 
    activities. This matter gave your rules committee, and particularly 
    the subcommittee, considerable concern. It was finally decided that 
    because of the depth and the complexity of the matter that the 
    appropriate place for the lobbying provision was in the Standing 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
        So, primarily, this resolution authorizes the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct to make a study of this matter and 
    report back to the Congress by the end of this session. It also 
    provides that the subject of campaign contributions shall likewise 
    be studied and a report made back to this Congress by the Committee 
    on Standards of Official Conduct.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, further 
elaborated on the position of the Committee on Rules in recommending 
the proposed jurisdictional change: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 23137, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There are several reasons why the Committee on Rules believes 
    that the jurisdiction over both the Federal lobby statute, as well 
    as over campaign fund raising and usage, should be vested in the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. First, in its short 
    period of existence, the committee has proven itself to be more 
    than able in discharging its present responsibilities. Second, 
    matters contained in this resolution are of a nature as to clearly 
    fall within the natural jurisdiction of that committee, and they 
    are so interrelated that divided jurisdiction over them cannot be 
    effectively discharged. Additionally, by vesting this jurisdiction 
    with the committee, the House will be giving this important matter 
    to a committee which does not have substantial duties in other 
    areas that could compete for its energies and time.

        Further, the committee has an able and adequate staff and 
    sufficient office space to assume this additional responsibility. 
    In addition, it is a bipartisan

[[Page 3015]]

    committee from the standpoint of its membership--there being six 
    Democrats and six Republicans. It also has adequate provisions to 
    maintain confidential information.
        The resolution also requires that during the remainder of the 
    91st Congress a study and investigation shall be conducted, and a 
    report containing ``such recommendations as the committee considers 
    advisable, including a draft of proposed legislation to carry out 
    such recommendations'' must be made to the House. The Committee on 
    Rules has recommended this provision because of the need to bring 
    the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act up to date now, rather than 
    later.

    As the debate proceeded, several Members proposed questions 
regarding the jurisdiction to be accorded the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct pursuant to the resolution. Mr. Durward G. Hall, of 
Missouri, for one, prompted the following exchange with B. F. Sisk, of 
California, Chairman of the Committee on Rules' Subcommittee on the 
Reorganization of Congress: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 23137, 23138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Mr. Speaker,(10) I would like to ask the 
    gentleman about the language on page 2 of House Resolution 1031, 
    beginning about on line 7, where it says the Committee on Standards 
    of Official Conduct is delegated authority:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Hale Boggs (La.), Speaker pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            To conduct investigations and studies, from time to time, 
        of the laws, rules, regulations, procedures, practices, and 
        activities pertaining to (1) lobbying activities as described 
        in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph (c) of this clause, 
        or

        Mr. Speaker, in the gentleman's opinion does that also apply to 
    and permit such studies and investigations--by which I presume the 
    committee means surveillance and review and oversight--of executive 
    agencies that might be lobbying the legislative branch? To point 
    this up, I have an old telegram in my hand here from a certain 
    department, which is not only a threat that unless Congress acts 
    certain things will happen; but it also states that the executive 
    branch will make certain recommendations to do or not to do certain 
    things to the interest of our constituents, if Congress does not 
    act within such a time in a certain and allegedly proper way.
        This is, of course, a telegram paid for at the taxpayers' 
    expense in direct violation of existing law. I, for one, would 
    certainly hope it would be in the purview of this new committee 
    under this resolution, and that the gentleman would so indicate at 
    this time, in order to preclude such lobbying activities of the 
    legislative branch by the executive.
        Is that the gentleman's interpretation of the intent?
        Mr. Sisk: Let me thank my colleague from Missouri very much for 
    the statement he has made. I join him in his concern about some of 
    the activities which he has discussed.
        It is my understanding that his statement is correct, that the 
    language is sufficiently broad here to permit the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct to make a study and to look into that 
    phase of it and to make legis

[[Page 3016]]

    lative recommendations as to handling that part of what we might 
    call the executive lobbying, along with all other kinds and types 
    of lobbying.
        My answer would be ``yes,'' emphatically it would be my 
    understanding that is the intent of the language herein contained.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, expressed 
his reservations that House Resolution 103 would encroach upon the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration which committee 
he chaired:

        Under rule XI, section 9(k) relating to the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on House Administration the rule (11) reads:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Rule XI clause 9(k), House Rules and Manual Sec. 693 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Measures relating to the election of the President, Vice 
        President, or Members of Congress; corrupt practices; contested 
        elections; credentials and qualifications; and Federal 
        elections generally.

        I believe the proposal, so far as the lobby is concerned, might 
    be in order, but I believe the rest is usurping the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on House Administration. We have a bill right now 
    before our committee relating to elections, campaign contributions 
    and expenditures and the reporting thereof. We have had hearings on 
    this subject. We intend to pursue it all the way through. We are 
    pursuing this under our assigned authority concerned with corrupt 
    practices of which contributions and expenditures are a part.
        Obviously the purpose of this resolution would encroach upon 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration.
        Mr. Sisk: If the gentleman will permit me to comment, of 
    course, it was certainly not the intention of the Committee on 
    Rules, or of the subcommittee, to invade in any sense the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration. As we 
    interpret the rule which the gentleman read, which I have before 
    me, there would be no jurisdictional question, at least in our 
    opinion.
        As the gentleman knows, the committee does have jurisdiction 
    over contested elections and over matters which arise therefrom, 
    and has a subcommittee which looks into these matters.

        Mr. Friedel: And also contributions and disbursements which are 
    within the Corrupt Practices Act.

    The discussion between Mr. Sisk and Mr. Friedel on this point 
continued with Mr. Sisk observing that:

        . . . It is not the intent of the subcommittee nor of the 
    Committee on Rules, as I understand it . . . to turn over to the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the matter of contested 
    elections or the matter of dealing specifically with elections of 
    the President and Vice President, et cetera, as listed here under 
    subsection (k). . . .
        On the other hand, it was the decision of the committee to turn 
    over to them the lobbying. The question then arose as to campaign 
    expenditures and possible ramifications, as would be of concern to 
    the American public as well as Members of Congress, as it might

[[Page 3017]]

    tie to lobbying activities. It was felt that these two items should 
    go together. . . .
        Again, as I say, there is no intent to invade or step on the 
    toes of our good friends on the Committee on House Administration.

    Mr. Friedel responded by suggesting that those provisions of the 
resolution which pertained to campaign contributions be struck from the 
measure ``because we have a reform bill before our [the Committee on 
House Administration's sub-] committee on Federal elections involving 
specifically the matters of contributions and expenditures, which was 
referred to our committee under the rules of the House.''
    Mr. Sisk replied, that:

        . . . [A]ll this resolution before us does is to call for the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to make a study, to make 
    an investigation of the subjects of lobbying and campaign 
    expenditures, and to report back to the House.

    He additionally stated ``. . . [I]f in their [the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct] recommendations they find that there 
might be a need for some changes in connection with campaign 
expenditures, that could very well be acted on legislatively by the 
gentleman's [Mr. Friedel] committee [the Committee on House 
Administration] either accepting or rejecting the recommendations.''
    At this juncture, Mr. John H. Kyl, of Iowa, a member of the 
Committee on House Administration, also expressed concern as to whether 
the passage of House Resolution 1031 might result in a duplication of 
jurisdictional authority. Mr. Kyl pointed out that before the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct could proceed with any investigation, 
the funds to be used would have to be approved by the Committee on 
House Administration. The latter committee, he added, maintained a firm 
policy of not providing funds for ``any investigation which is a 
duplication of another committee's investigation.'' Continuing the 
discussion on this point, Mr. Kyl prompted the following exchange: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 23139, 23140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kyl: The point I am trying to make is unless this bill also 
    removes authority from the House Administration Committee, then the 
    House Administration Committee can in every instance deny funds for 
    investigation, because the Committee on House Administration itself 
    is, under the rules, given authority to cover exactly the same 
    subject material.
        Mr. Smith of California: Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Sisk: Yes. I yield to the gentleman.

[[Page 3018]]

        Mr. Smith of California: Let us talk about what we are 
    discussing here for a minute. Let us read section (k) of the rule 
    we are referring to, rule 9:

            Measures relating to the election of the President, Vice 
        President, or Members of Congress; corrupt practices; contested 
        elections; credentials and qualifications; and Federal 
        elections generally.

        Let us read what this resolution does. This says:

            Measures relating to the raising, reporting, and use of 
        campaign contributions for candidates.

        It has to do with raising money and funds and giving effective 
    authority to investigate if they are contested. We are not changing 
    your authority at all. You are left in the same position. When we 
    change the rules and give the authority, they will have to get some 
    money to operate.
        Mr. Kyl: Will the gentleman yield further?
        Mr. Sisk: I am glad to yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Kyl: I would say to the other gentleman from California 
    that again I am not in contention with his desire. What I am trying 
    to indicate is unless your piece of legislation, your resolution, 
    does remove from the House Administration Committee certain 
    authority which it now has under the rules, they could effectively 
    block every anticipated effort of the Ethics Committee.
        Mr. Smith of California: I do not think so. That is not the way 
    I read it. I do not think that committee would do it. The 
    jurisdiction is clear. It is a changing of the rules of the House.
        Mr. Sisk: Let me make clear--
        Mr. Friedel: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Sisk: Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
        Mr. Friedel: This resolution embodies what the Committee on 
    House Administration is doing at the present time. They are 
    investigating these very matters. Of course, you can bring in 
    legislation to correct and reform things that are wrong. However, 
    we are doing it right now. It is a part of our basic jurisdiction 
    under the rules of the House, Rule XI, section 9(k) wherein 
    ``corrupt practices'' is spelled out, and campaign contributions 
    and expenditures, and the reporting thereof constitute an important 
    segment of the Corrupt Practices Act.

    In the course of the remaining discussion, no other jurisdictional 
issues were addressed. House Resolution 1031 was agreed to, 
unanimously, on a roll call vote.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 23140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Notwithstanding the passage of House 
Resolution 1031, the Committee on House Administration retains 
jurisdiction under the rules (1) over ``corrupt practices'' 
and ``Federal elections generally.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule X clause 1(j)(11), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roll Call Irregularities

Sec. 49.2 The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct informed the 
    Speaker of its inquiry into roll call

[[Page 3019]]

    irregularities, and of its recommendation for an improved recording 
    system in the House.

    On June 19, 1969,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, laid before the House the following communication from 
Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, and ranking minority member 
Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct which was read and referred to the Committee on House 
Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 16629, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Dear Mr. Speaker: On September 27, 1968 you referred to this 
    Committee a letter from the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
    reporting on his investigation of recording irregularities in roll 
    calls taken on September 9, 10, and 16, 1968. You stated, ``It 
    seems to me that the allegations set forth in the Clerk's (the 
    Clerk of the House) letter are matters that may come within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.'' 
    The Committee interpreted this referral as a request for it to move 
    on its own initiative as provided in the Rules of the House. 
    Accordingly on October 1, 1968, the Committee directed its staff to 
    inquire into these irregularities.
        The first phase of the inquiry sought to fix the responsibility 
    for the specific irregularities referred to in the letter from the 
    Clerk of the House. In pursuing this, the need became apparent for 
    an examination of roll call mechanics in general. The Committee now 
    has drawn certain conclusions with respect to the specific 
    irregularities but feels that until the institution of improved 
    recording procedures, which it previously has recommended, it 
    should continue to observe the working of the present system.
        With respect to the responsibility for the irregularities 
    referred, the Committee was satisfied that the Clerk of the House 
    accurately reported the information he received. But, after deeper 
    scrutiny of all facets of the situation, the Committee became 
    convinced that the tally clerk's explanation, that he had made the 
    specific erroneous entries ``at the request of'' another employee 
    was not accurate. The Committee verified that the errors did, in 
    fact, occur, but the most probable explanation is that the tally 
    clerk's response to the Clerk of the House was an instinctively 
    defensive reaction stemming from the complete state of exhaustion 
    which he was experiencing at the time.

        In the Committee's belief, several factors contributed to this 
    condition in the tally clerk. At a point when legislative activity 
    in the House was unusually high and with his assistant physically 
    incapacitated and off the job, the tally clerk assumed the full 
    burden of both positions. In the Committee's opinion, this burden 
    was beyond his physical capacity to perform with accuracy, and led 
    to impairment of his efficiency, culminating in the errors referred 
    to as well as several others which were disclosed at about that 
    time.
        The Committee therefore reaffirms its earlier interim finding 
    that neither the Member nor employees named in

[[Page 3020]]

    the original referral, nor any names subsequently disclosed, were 
    parties to any complicity in these errors.
        It may be argued that the tally clerk should have sought 
    assistance during this period. Undoubtedly he would have done so 
    had he recognized the effect the increasing work load was producing 
    in his performance.
        Addressing the larger matter of the entire system of tallying, 
    the Committee has made what it feels is the most detailed analysis 
    of the subject ever undertaken and has arrived at numerous 
    statistical conclusions. All of these support the conviction that 
    an unacceptably small percentage of the random error inherent in 
    the present system is subsequently corrected by the Members. While 
    these errors have had absolutely no effect on legislative results, 
    they should be eliminated to the greatest extent possible. Early 
    indications are that there has been some improvement in the 91st 
    Congress to date in the correction of errors but not enough to 
    obviate the need for a modernized system of roll call recording.
        In view of the foregoing, the Committee renews its earlier 
    recommendation for installation of a modernized voting system at 
    the earliest possible date.


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 50. Committee on Veterans' Affairs

    The Committee on Veterans' Affairs was created on Jan. 2, 1947, as 
part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,(3) and 
was accorded jurisdiction formerly held by the Committee on World War 
Veterans' Legislation (created in 1924),(4) the Committee on 
Invalid Pensions (created in 1831),(5) and the Committee on 
Pensions (created in 1825).(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 60 Stat. 812.
 4. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2077.
 5. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4258.
 6. Id. at Sec. 4260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1967,(7) jurisdiction over veterans' cemeteries 
administered by the Department of Defense was transferred to the 
committee from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 29566, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 20, 1967 (H. Res. 
        241).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1973, the jurisdiction of the committee under the rules read as 
follows:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XI clause 20, House Rules and Manual Sec. 722 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause l(u), House Rules and Manual Sec. 690 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Veterans' measures generally.
        (b) Cemeteries of the United States in which veterans of any 
    war or conflict are or may be buried, whether in the United States 
    or abroad, except cemeteries administered by the Secretary of the 
    Interior.
        (c) Compensation, vocational rehabilitation, and education of 
    veterans.
        (d) Life insurance issued by the Government on account of 
    service in the armed forces.
        (e) Pensions of all the wars of the United States, general and 
    special.

[[Page 3021]]

        (f) Readjustment of servicemen to civil life.
        (g) Soldiers' and sailors' civil relief.
        (h) Veterans' hospitals, medical care, and treatment of 
    veterans.

    Further insight into the scope of the committee's jurisdiction is 
provided by the legislative subject categories list prepared by the 
staff of the Select Committee on Committees.(9) With respect 
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the list reads, as follows 
[enumeration added]:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Terrence T. Finn, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) Administration of the Veterans' Administration;
        (2) Veterans' cemeteries;
        (3) Veterans' compensation;
        (4) Veterans' education;
        (5) Veterans' employment;
        (6) Veterans' health care;
        (7) Veterans' housing;
        (8) Veterans' insurance;
        (9) Veterans' pensions;
        (10) Veterans' readjustment; and
        (11) Veterans' training.

    As the precedents reveal, the jurisdiction of the committee has 
also extended to such matters as the erection of headstones to mark 
honorary burial places for deceased and missing veterans; 
(10) veterans' civil liabilities; (11) survivors' 
death benefits; (12) and veterans' cemeteries not 
administered by the Secretary of the Interior.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sec. Sec. 50.3, 50.4, infra.
11. Sec. Sec. 50.1, 50.2, infra.
12. Sec. 50.6, infra.
13. Sec. 50.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee's oversight responsibilities revolve around the 
Veterans' Administration (VA) with particular emphasis on the 
administration of VA hospitals.
    In 1973, the committee maintained five subcommittees, as follows:

        (1) Subcommittee on Compensation;
        (2) Subcommittee on Education and Training;
        (3) Subcommittee on Hospitals;
        (4) Subcommittee on Housing;
        (5) Subcommittee on 
    Insurance.                          -------------------

Soldiers' and Sailor Civil Relief Act of 1940

Sec. 50.1 The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill to amend section 200 of 
    the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 to permit the 
    establishment of certain facts by a declaration under penalty of 
    perjury in lieu of an affidavit.

    On Feb. 4, 1959,(~14~) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman 
of the Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 105 Cong. Rec. 1812, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3022]]

mittee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent to have his 
committee discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3313), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 3133 was reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on 
        Mar. 2, 1960 (H. Rept. No. 1309).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act 
of 1940 (16) was enacted in order to suspend temporarily the 
enforcement of civil liabilities, in certain cases, of persons in the 
military service in order to enable such individuals to devote their 
entire energy to the defense needs of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Pub. L. No. 76-861, 54 Stat. 1178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 50.2 The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of bills pertaining to the 
    Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (1) to provide that 
    it shall not apply to divorce proceedings, (2) to render sections 
    200(1) and 200(2) inapplicable to future actions and proceedings 
    relating to default judgments, and (3) to amend it so as to 
    guarantee to persons after their period of military service certain 
    rights with respect to employment.

    On Apr. 2, 1948,(1) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
obtained unanimous consent that the four bills described above (H.R. 
3137, H.R. 4580, regarding divorce proceedings, H.R. 3808, regarding 
default judgments, H.R. 582, with respect to employment), be rereferred 
from the Committee on Armed Services to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 94 Cong. Rec. 4070, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erection of Headstones; Payment Therefor

Sec. 50.3 The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill providing for the 
    erection of headstones for certain members of the armed forces 
    buried outside the United States, lost at sea, or reported missing 
    in the performance of duty.

    On Feb. 13, 1947,(2) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
obtained unanimous consent to have the Committee on Armed Services 
discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 243), and to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 1001, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3023]]

have it rereferred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Sec. 50.4 The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of bills authorizing the Secretary 
    of War to furnish headstones to mark honorary burial places and 
    relating to the payment therefor.

    On Feb. 13, 1947,(3) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent to have the Committee on Armed Services 
discharged from further consideration of a bill (H.R. 1184), 
authorizing the furnishing of headstones and of a companion measure 
(H.R. 507), providing for the payment of such headstones. He 
additionally requested that both measures be referred to the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 1001, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Interest on Government Life Insurance Loans

Sec. 50.5 The Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation (now the 
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs), and not the Committee on Ways and 
    Means had jurisdiction of a bill to reduce the interest on loans on 
    U.S. Government (converted) life insurance.

    On Nov. 28, 1941,(4) Mr. Victor Wickersham, of Oklahoma, 
asked unanimous consent to have the bill (H.R. 6114), rereferred from 
the Committee on Ways and Means to the Committee on World War Veterans' 
Legislation (5) (now the Committee on Veterans' Affairs). In 
so doing, he stated that he had talked to the Chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, and there was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 87 Cong. Rec. 9248, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. At the time, the jurisdiction of the committee consisted of 
        subjects relating ``to war-risk insurance of soldiers, sailors, 
        and marines, and other persons in the military and naval 
        service of the United States during or growing out of the World 
        War, the United States Veterans' Bureau, the compensations, 
        allowances, and pensions of such persons and their 
        beneficiaries, and all legislation affecting them other than 
        civil service, public lands, adjusted compensations, and 
        private claims.'' Rule XI clause 40, H. Jour. 825, 77th Cong. 
        1st Sess. (1941)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

[[Page 3024]]

Survivors' Death Benefits for Military Retirees

Sec. 50.6 The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and not the Committee on 
    Armed Services has jurisdiction of a bill ``To amend Sec. 102 of 
    the Servicemen's and Veterans' Survivor Benefits Act to provide 
    that all retired members of the uniformed services who served not 
    less than 25 years on active duty and who thereafter die shall be 
    considered to have died service-connected deaths.''

    On May 18, 1959,(6) Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services, obtained unanimous consent to have his 
committee discharged from further consideration of the bill (H. R. 
1129), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 8273, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veterans' Cemeteries Not Administered by Secretary of the Interior

Sec. 50.7 The rules of the House were amended to transfer jurisdiction 
    over all veterans' cemeteries not administered by the Secretary of 
    the Interior from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to 
    the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

    On Oct. 20, 1967,(7) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, called up a resolution (H. 
Res. 241), and asked for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read 
the resolution; a quorum call followed, after which the House 
considered and agreed to the committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 29560, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution, with committee amendments, read as follows:

        Resolved, That clause 10 of rule XI (8) of the Rules 
    of the House of Representatives is amended by striking out 
    paragraph (h) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. At the time, Rule XI clause 10, prescribed the jurisdiction of the 
        Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Clause 10 (h) stated 
        [H. Jour. 1482, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966)] specifically: ``(h) 
        Military parks and battlefields; national cemeteries 
        administered by the Secretary of the Interior.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ``(h) Military parks and battlefields.''
        Sec. 2. Clause 19 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives (9) is amended by inserting a new 
    subsection (b), as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. At the time, this clause [H. Jour. 1483, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. 
        (1966)] set forth the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
        Veterans' Affairs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3025]]

        ``(b) Cemeteries of the United States in which veterans of any 
    war or conflict are or may be buried, whether in the United States 
    or abroad, except cemeteries administered by the Secretary of the 
    Interior''.

    In the course of the ensuing discussion, Mr. James H. Quillen, of 
Tennessee, pointed out (10) that under the then-prevailing 
rules, no less than three committees (Veterans' Affairs, Interior and 
Insular Affairs, and Armed Services) possessed jurisdictional interests 
(11) in matters relating to national cemeteries. He noted 
that such cemeteries were distinguishable insofar as they belonged to 
one of two main categories; to wit, those which were in active use as 
burial grounds for military veterans, and those which were inactive for 
all practical purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 29562, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. See Sec. 40.16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the active cemeteries, he stated:

        . . . Those cemeteries still open and available for the burial 
    of our service men ought uniformly to be under the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. This committee is charged with 
    the overall direction and formulation of our national policy with 
    regard to our service veterans. The committee also deals on a 
    regular and day to day basis with the Veterans' Administration, the 
    agency which handles the matter of veteran burials.

    As the debate proceeded, Mr. E. Ross Adair, of Indiana, further 
explained the distinction between the types of cemeteries and the 
rationale behind the resolution: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 29563, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under this resolution the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will 
    assume legislative jurisdiction over all national cemeteries except 
    13 which are now administered by the Secretary of the Interior as a 
    part of the national park system. Seven of these cemeteries are 
    closed to further burials. These cemeteries are located in national 
    historical parks and battlefields. They are administered by the 
    National Park Service because their significance as national 
    monuments overshadows their importance as places of current burial. 
    Therefore, it seems appropriate that legislative jurisdiction over 
    this small group of national cemeteries should remain with the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

    After additional discussion, the resolution as amended was agreed 
to, unanimously, by roll call vote.(~13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 29566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec. 51. Committee on Ways and Means

    The Committee on Ways and Means was established as a standing 
committee on Jan. 7, 1802,(14) at which time it held ju
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3026]]

risdiction over both revenue and appropriation bills, general oversight 
of the debt and the departments of government, and veterans' 
affairs.(15) Over time, some of this jurisdiction was 
transferred to other committees. In 1814, the Committee on Public 
Expenditures took over the subject of governmental departments; in 
1824, a Committee on Veterans' Affairs garnered that subject, and in 
1865, when the Committee on Appropriations was created and given 
jurisdiction over appropriation of the revenue, the Committee on Ways 
and Means' jurisdiction was largely restricted to revenue-raising 
measures, and the consideration of reports from the 
Treasury.(16) In 1880, the bonded debt of the United States 
formally became one of the committee's responsibilities. And, in 1947, 
by virtue of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,(17) 
the committee lost previously held jurisdiction over the subject of 
recesses and final adjournments to the Committee on Rules while the 
main elements of its jurisdiction were more fully defined and have 
remained part of the committee's mandate in 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Linda H. Kamm, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 154.
16. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4020.
17.  60 Stat. 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that the committee's revenue jurisdiction has 
extended to such subjects as transportation of dutiable goods, 
collection districts, ports of entry and delivery,(18~) 
customs unions, reciprocity treaties,(19) revenue relations 
of the United States with Puerto Rico,(20) the revenue bills 
relating to agricultural products generally, excepting 
oleomargarine,(1) and tax on cotton and grain futures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4026.
19. Id. at Sec. 4021.
20. Id. at Sec. 4025.
 1. Id. at Sec. 4022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee has long held jurisdiction over subjects relating to 
the Treasury of the United States and the deposit of public moneys  
although it failed to make good a claim to the subjects of ``national 
finances'' and ``preservation of the Government credit.'' 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at Sec. 4028.
 3. Id. at Sec. 4023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having once held jurisdiction over seal herds and other revenue-
producing animals in Alaska, the committee lost this jurisdiction to 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the 68th 
Congress.(4) The committee also used to report resolutions 
dis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1725, 1851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3027]]

tributing the President's annual message,(5) but the 
practice was discontinued as of the first session of the 64th 
Congress.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4030.
 6. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means pursuant to the 
1973 rules read as follows: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XI clause 21, House Rules and Manual Sec. 724 (1973). See Rule 
        X clause 1 (v), House Rules and Manual Sec. 691 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and 
    delivery.
        (b) National social security.
        (c) Reciprocal trade agreements.
        (d) Revenue measures generally.
        (e) Revenue measures relating to the insular possession.
        (f) The bonded debt of the United States.
        (g) The deposit of public moneys.
        (h) Transportation of dutiable goods.

    The following list of legislative subject categories provides some 
additional insight into the scope of the committee's jurisdiction 
beyond that specified in the rules (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Linda H. Kamm, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, pp. 150, 151 [enumeration and punctuation 
        added].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) Airport trust fund;
        (2) Highway trust fund;
        (3) National health insurance;
        (4) Public Debt;
        (5) Renegotiation;
        (6) Revenue sharing;
        (7) Social Security: (a) Disability insurance, (b) Maternal and 
    Child Health Care, (c) Medicaid, (d) Medicare, (e) Old Age and 
    Survivors' Insurance, (f) Public assistance, aid for families with 
    dependent children, (g) Public assistance, social services, (h) 
    Public assistance, supplemental security income for aged, blind and 
    disabled, and (i) Unemployment Compensation;
        (8) Taxes, corporate income;
        (9) Taxes, disability insurance fund;
        (10) Taxes, estate;
        (11) Taxes, excise;
        (12) Taxes, gift;
        (13) Taxes, individual income;
        (14) Taxes, interest equalization;
        (15) Taxes, old age and survivors' insurance fund;
        (16) Taxes, unemployment compensation;
        (17) Trade, adjustment assistance;
        (18) Trade, customs administration;
        (19) Trade, import control;
        (20) Trade, negotiating authority;
        (21) Trade, reciprocal agreements;
        (22) Trade, tariffs.

    In an effort to clarify the scope of its subject matter, the 
committee identified four main areas in its legislative activity report 
for the 92d Congress as comprising the major focus of its jurisdiction. 
Those areas (9) are, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Cited by Linda H. Kamm, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House 
        of Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, pp. 149, 150.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3028]]

    1. Federal revenue measures generally. Included in this category 
are personal and corporate income taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes, 
gift taxes, miscellaneous taxes, and tax aspects of both the Highway 
and Airport Trust Funds. With respect to the trust funds, the committee 
prepares the revenue-generating provisions of law while the Committee 
on Public Works [for the Highway Trust Fund] and the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce [for the Airport Trust Fund] prepare 
the nontax aspects of the legislation. Aviation, including jurisdiction 
over the Airport Trust Fund, was transferred from the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce to the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation by the Committee Reform Amendments of 
1974.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
            The Committee on Ways and Means generates all revenue-
        raising legislation including payments into trust funds with 
        the exception of the railroad retirement fund. This fund is 
        within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The bonded debt of the United States. The Committee on Ways and 
Means provides the House with an overview of revenues, spending, and 
the financial stability of the Nation as a whole in conjunction with 
its legislative responsibilities in this area.
    3. National social security programs. The basic programs are:

        (a) Old-Age, Survivors' and Disability Insurance, which is the 
    basic Social Security program;
        (b) Medicare, which provides basic hospital benefits for people 
    over 65 and eligible disabled persons and voluntary medical 
    insurance for the elderly and disabled;
        (c) Medicaid, under which states receive grants-in-aid to help 
    pay for medical care for the poor;
        (d) Public assistance, including supplemental security income 
    for the aged, blind and disabled, aid to families with dependent 
    children, maternal and child health care and social services;
        (e) Unemployment Compensation, which involves trust funds in 
    each of the 50 states, includes programs for extended and emergency 
    benefits in times of high unemployment.

    Medicaid and other health care and programs supported by general 
revenues, as opposed to payroll deductions, were transferred to the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Supplemental medical 
benefits under part B title 18 of the Social Security Act, since 
neither financed from payrolls nor from general revenues but rather 
financed by deductions from payments to retired social security 
recipients, do

[[Page 3029]]

not fall within either committee's exclusive jurisdiction and have been 
a matter of joint jurisdiction since 1974. Work incentive programs 
within the Social Security Act were transferred to the Committee on 
Education and Labor, by the Committee Reform Amendments of 
1974.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Trade and tariff legislation. The committee's jurisdiction over 
tariffs stems from a period when they were a major source of revenue. 
Trade jurisdiction has included the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act and 
the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
    Much of the committee's oversight work involves the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Department of the Treasury 
although committee-sponsored legislation is administered by many 
departments. Also within the committee's oversight jurisdiction are the 
Tariff Commission and the Tax Court. In addition, the committee 
frequently consults with a number of departments in the course of 
preparing legislation. Examples of the latter would include the 
Departments of Agriculture on trade matters, Commerce on tariffs, 
Health, Education, and Welfare on social security and health, Interior 
on mining tax treatment and fishing trust funds, Labor on work 
incentives, State on trade and tariffs, Treasury on customs, taxes, 
trade, trust funds, and the economy, generally, and Transportation on 
highway and airport trust funds.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Linda H. Kamm, ``Monographs on the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives'' (93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1974), 
        committee print, p. 155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the precedents reveal, the committee's jurisdiction has also 
extended to such subjects as agricultural employment insofar as it 
relates to the Social Security Act,(13) codifying the 
internal revenue laws of the United States,(14) taxation 
aspects of the Civil Service Retirement Act,(15) directing 
the Secretary of State through a resolution of inquiry to transmit 
information about foreign trade agreements,(16) and 
providing a federal war service bonus for District of Columbia 
residents.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sec. Sec. 51.1, 51.2, infra.
14. Sec. 51.4, infra.
15. Sec. 51.3, infra.
16. Sec. 51.5, infra.
17. Sec. 51.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For many years, the Committee on Ways and Means conducted all 
business in the full committee and did not have established 
subcommittees. However, the Com

[[Page 3030]]

mittee Reform Amendments of 1974 required each standing committee that 
has more than 20 members to establish at least four subcommittees [Rule 
X clause 6(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 701(c) 
(1979)].(18) Since that time the committee has maintained 
subcommittees with legislative jurisdiction as well as an oversight 
subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-32, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., effective 
        Jan. 14, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the effects of the Committee Reform Amendments on the 
Committee on Ways and Means have heretofore been mentioned. In sum, the 
committee obtained jurisdiction over tax-exempt foundations and 
charitable trusts, and lost jurisdiction over: health care and 
facilities supported by general revenues; work incentive programs; 
general revenue sharing; and renegotiation (to the Committee on Banking 
and Currency).(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 
        1975.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agricultural Employment and the Social Security Act

Sec. 51.1 The Committee on Ways and Means and not the Committee on 
    Agriculture had jurisdiction of a bill to amend the Farm Credit Act 
    of 1933, as amended, and the Federal Farm Loan Act, as amended, to 
    provide that after a certain date, employment by production credit 
    associations and national farm loan associations would be covered 
    by the old-age and survivors insurance benefit provisions of the 
    Social Security Act.

    On June 18, 1947,(20) Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, obtained unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2415), and to have it referred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 7262, 7263, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 51.2 The Committee on Ways and Means and not the Committee on 
    Agriculture has jurisdiction of a bill to extend the period during 
    which income from agricultural labor and nursing services may be 
    disregarded by the states in making old-age assistance payments 
    without prejudicing their rights to grants-in-aid under the Social 
    Security Act

[[Page 3031]]

    On June 4, 1947,(21) Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, obtained unanimous consent to 
have his committee discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(S. 1072), and to have it rereferred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 93 Cong. Rec. 6344, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
22. S. 1072 was reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on June 26, 
        1947 (H. Rept. No. 713).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Service Retirement Act and Annuity Taxation

Sec. 51.3 The Committee on Ways and Means and not the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service has jurisdiction of a bill to amend the 
    Civil Service Retirement Act approved May 29, 1930, as amended, so 
    as to exempt annuity payments under such act from taxation.

    On Feb. 15, 1951,(23) Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, 
Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2575), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 97 Cong Rec. 1294, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. See 93 Cong. Rec. 209, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1947, where a 
        similar bill (H.R. 738), in an earlier Congress was directly 
        referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Codification of Internal Revenue Laws

Sec. 51.4 The Committee on Ways and Means and not the Committee on the 
    Revision of the Laws (now the Committee on the Judiciary), was, by 
    unanimous consent, granted jurisdiction of a bill to consolidate 
    and codify the internal revenue laws of the United States.

    On Jan. 18, 1939,(2) Robert L. Doughton, of North 
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, introduced the 
bill (H.R. 2762), and asked unanimous consent that it be referred to 
his committee. In so doing, he noted that the Chairman of the Committee 
on Revision of the Laws (now the Committee on the Judiciary), had no 
objection to this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 449, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous 
consent.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 2762 was reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on Jan. 
        20, 1939 (H. Rept. No. 6).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3032]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: At the time, the Committee on Ways and 
Means had jurisdiction over matters relating ``to the revenue and such 
measures as purport to raise revenue and the bonded debt of the United 
States,'' (4) while the Committee on the Revision of the 
Laws had jurisdiction over subjects relating to ``the revision and 
codification of the statutes of the United States.'' (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Jour. 1118, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. (1939).
 5. Id. at p. 1119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foreign Trade Information--Resolutions of Inquiry

Sec. 51.5 The Committee on Ways and Means and not the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs had jurisdiction of a resolution of inquiry 
    directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House 
    information touching upon the failure of the Republics of Brazil 
    and Colombia to ratify certain trade agreements.

    On June 3, 1935,(6) Mr. Harold Knutson, of Minnesota, 
offered the resolution (H. Res. 236), which was referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 79 Cong. Rec. 8604, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.

Tax Incentives to Improve Economic Circumstances of Indians

Sec. 51.6 In the 88th Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means and not 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had jurisdiction of a 
    bill to improve the economic circumstances of Indians by, inter 
    alia, providing tax incentives (including deductions from gross 
    income under the Internal Revenue Code) for persons investing in 
    Indian property or furthering industrialization on Indian 
    reservations.

    On Feb. 1, 1964,(7) Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, obtained 
unanimous consent to have his committee discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 980), and to have it rereferred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 1582, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3033]]



                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 52. History and Role


    The Committee on Rules has existed as part of the House committee 
structure since the First Congress.(8) It was established in 
1789 as a select committee; in the early years of the House, the 
Speaker appointed the committee in each Congress and the committee 
varied in size from three to nine members.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Some early Congresses created no Committee on Rules (the 6th, 15th, 
        16th, 18th, and 19th).
 9. Kravitz, Walter and Oleszek, Walter, ``A Short History of the 
        Development of the House Committee on Rules,'' Congressional 
        Research Service (June 18, 1995), Multilith JK 1015 I, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It became a standing committee of the House in 1880 and was 
constituted as a committee of five members with jurisdiction over ``all 
proposed action touching rules, joint rules, and order of business.'' 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 1858 until 1910, the Speaker served as a member of the 
committee.(11) In 1910, the rules were amended to prohibit 
this practice,(12) but the prohibition was removed from the 
rules in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at 4321.
12. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2047.
13. Pub. L. No. 79-610, 60 Stat. 812, Aug. 2, 1946, effective Jan. 2, 
        1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The size of the committee was increased to 15 members in the 87th 
Congress, and this size was maintained through the 92d 
Congress.(14) Effective Jan. 3, 1975, the rules of the House 
were amended to eliminate all reference to committee 
size,(15) and in the 94th Congress 16 members were elected 
to the committee from nominations submitted to the House from the 
respective party caucuses.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 127, 107 Cong. Rec. 1589, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 31, 
        1961. This increase in the committee's size was made part of 
        the rules in the 88th Congress. H. Res. 5, 109 Cong. Rec. 22, 
        88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963.
15. Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 8, 1974.
16. H. Res. 76, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 20, 1975; H. Res. 101, 94th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 28, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The essential portion of the present jurisdiction of the committee 
as set forth in Rule X clause 1(q) (over the rules, joint rules, order 
of business of the House, and recesses and final adjournments of the 
House) was first made effective Jan. 2, 1947,

[[Page 3034]]

by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.(17) The 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 gave the committee jurisdiction over 
emergency waivers of the reporting date required by that act for bills 
and resolutions authorizing new budget authority,(18) and 
this change was incorporated into the rules of the House effective Jan. 
3, 1975, by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Pub. L. No. 79-601, Sec. 121 [amending Rule XI (1) (p)], 60 Stat. 
        812, 828. Previous to the jurisdiction of the committee as 
        stated in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Sec. 53 
        of Rule XI provided ``All proposed action touching the rules, 
        joint rules, and order of business shall be referred to the 
        Committee on Rules.'' 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4321.
18. Pub. L. No. 93-344, Sec. 402(b), 88 Stat. 297, 318, July 12, 1974; 
        the provisions of Sec. 402 were made effective by that act with 
        respect to the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 1976.
19. H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules considered and reported the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, major portions of which were enacted as an exercise 
of the rulemaking power of the House (and of the Senate); 
(1) therefore proposals to amend that Act, as well as 
special orders waiving provisions of that Act, are within the 
jurisdiction of the committee. Since the committee has original 
jurisdiction over the ``rules and joint rules (other than rules or 
joint rules relating to the Code of Official Conduct)'', it has the 
authority to report to the House as privileged proposals to amend the 
standing rules. Propositions to make or change the rules of the 
House,(2) to create committees,(3) and to direct 
committees to undertake certain investigations (4) fall 
within
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Pub. L. No. 93-344, Sec. 904, 88 Stat. 297, 331.
 2. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6770, 6776: 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2047.
 3. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4322: 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2048.
 4. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4322-4324; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2048. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Pub. L. 
        No. 79-601, 60 Stat. 812, retained the traditional authority of 
        the Committee on Rules to report resolutions authorizing 
        investigations by House standing (as well as select) committees 
        and conferring subpena authority on those committees; during 
        consideration of that legislation in the House an amendment was 
        rejected to grant permanent subpena authority to all standing 
        committees. See 92 Cong. Rec. 10073, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 
        25, 1946. The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, H. Res. 988, 
        93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974, did however grant to all 
        standing committees the authority to conduct studies and 
        investigations and to issue subpenas, whether or not the House 
        was in session [Rule XI clause 2(m), effective Jan. 3, 1975].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3035]]

this jurisdiction. The committee also has general jurisdiction over 
statutory provisions changing the procedures of the House for 
consideration of resolutions or bills disapproving or approving 
proposed action by the executive branch or by other governmental 
authorities.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See the compilation of statutory provisions entitled ``A. 
        Resolutions which are privileged for consideration in the 
        House'' in `` `Congressional Disapproval' Provisions contained 
        in public laws'', House Rules and Manual Sec. 1013 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Committee on Rules has standing jurisdiction over 
permanent changes in the rules of the House, major changes in the rules 
have not always emanated from the committee but have on occasion been 
developed by other institutions within the House. For example, the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1346,(6) and the Committee 
Reform Amendments of 1974,(7) were reported or considered by 
select or joint committees created for that purpose (by resolutions 
reported from the Committee on Rules) and not directly by the Committee 
on Rules itself. In the 96th Congress, a Select Committee on Committees 
was created,(8) by a resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Pub. L. No. 79-601, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., 60 Stat. 812, Aug. 2, 
        1946. H. Con. Res. 18, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., reported by the 
        Committee on Rules on Jan. 16, 1945, created a joint committee 
        on the organization of Congress and was agreed to by both 
        Houses. S. 2177, which became the Legislative Reorganization 
        Act of 1946, was reported in the Senate and passed the House 
        (with amendments) on July 25, 1946. The Senate bill and House 
        amendment were the product of the joint committee, which filed 
        its report in the House on Mar. 4, 1946 (H. Rept. No. 79-1675).
 7. H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1974 (effective Jan. 3, 
        1975). H. Res. 132, reported from the Committee on Rules on 
        Jan. 30, 1973, created a select committee to study the 
        operation and implementation of Rules X and XI (relating to 
        committees) of the House of Representatives; the resolution 
        passed the House on Jan. 31, 1973, and the select committee 
        considered and reported the Committee Reform Amendments (H. 
        Rept. No. 93-916).
 8. H. Res. 118, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., was reported from the Committee 
        on Rules on Feb. 28, 1979, and passed the House on Mar. 20, 
        1979; the resolution created a Select Committee on Committees, 
        which filed several reports with the House on proposed changes 
        in committee jurisdiction and procedure. The only proposal 
        reported by the committee to reach House consideration was H. 
        Res. 549, to create a new standing Committee on Energy; the 
        House adopted the resolution on Mar. 25, 1980, with substantial 
        changes (rejecting the creation of a new standing committee but 
        clarifying instead the current energy jurisdiction of existing 
        committees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3036]]

reported from the Committee on Rules at the informal direction of the 
Democratic Caucus, to recommend changes in the rules relative to 
committee jurisdiction and procedure. As stated above, however, the 
Committee on Rules did consider and report the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974,(9) which 
created a congressional budget process and a mechanism for disapproving 
or approving impoundment and rescission proposals of the President. The 
Committee on Rules also reported the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970, which made major changes in the rules of the 
House.(l0) Of course, even in the case where a select 
committee and not the Committee on Rules reports changes in the rules, 
Rules Committee action is ordinarily necessitated to provide an order 
of business resolution for consideration in the House.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Pub. L. No. 93-344, 88 Stat. 297, July 12, 1974, contains the text 
        of both acts and was reported as one measure by the Committee 
        on Rules (H. Rept. No. 93-658).
10. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140, Oct. 26, 1970; see H. Rept. No. 
        91-1215, June 17, 1970, the report of the Committee on Rules on 
        H.R. 17654.
11. The Committee on Rules reported a special order for consideration 
        of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 on July 20, 1946 
        (H. Res. 717, adopted by the House on July 25, 1946), a special 
        order for consideration of the Committee Reform Amendments of 
        1974 on Sept. 25, 1974 (H. Res. 1395, adopted Sept. 30, 1974), 
        and a special order for consideration of a resolution reported 
        from the Select Committee on Committees in the 96th Congress 
        (to amend the rules relative to committee jurisdiction over 
        energy) on Mar. 12, 1980 (H. Res. 607, adopted by the House on 
        Mar. 18, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, substantive changes in the rules of the House may 
occur at the beginning of each Congress, when the resolution adopting 
the rules of the House, offered by the direction of the majority party 
caucus, may include changes recommended by the caucus. Such a 
resolution is privileged and does not require action by the Committee 
on Rules, which at the time the resolution is offered is not 
constituted.(12) While the resolution has traditionally been 
offered by the (prospective) Chairman of the Committee on Rules, at the 
direction of the majority party caucus, the resolution has on occasion 
been offered by the Majority Leader. A review of the resolutions 
adopting the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Deschler's Precedents, Ch. 1, for discussion of the procedure 
        at the commencement of Congress and the procedure for adoption 
        of rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3037]]

rules of the House demonstrates that the majority party caucus in 
recent years has become more active in recommending substantial changes 
in the rules at the beginning of the Congress.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. In the 96th Congress, the majority party caucus even continued to 
        propose further changes in the rules to the Committee on Rules 
        after the adoption of the rules, the caucus not having 
        completed its consideration of rules changes during the 
        organizational caucus of December 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules is subject to discharge, upon a petition 
signed by a majority of the House membership, from the further 
consideration of certain special orders of business, which have been 
referred to that committee at least seven (legislative) days prior to 
the filing of a discharge motion (Rule XXVII clause 4). In some 
previous Congresses, the rules contained a special discharge rule 
relative to the Committee on Rules. In 1949, the House adopted for the 
first time the so-called 21-day rule; the 81st Congress version read as 
follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 5, 95 Cong. Rec. 10, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1949 
        [paragraph (2)(c) of Rule XI].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . If the Committee on Rules shall adversely report, or fail 
    to report within twenty-one calendar days after reference, any 
    resolution pending before the committee providing for an order of 
    business for the consideration by the House of any public bill or 
    joint resolution favorably reported by a committee of the House, on 
    days when it shall be in order to call up motions to discharge 
    committees it shall be in order for the chairman of the committee 
    which reported such bill or joint resolution to call up for 
    consideration by the House the resolution which the Committee on 
    Rules has so adversely reported or failed to report, and it shall 
    be in order to move the adoption by the House of said resolution 
    adversely reported, or not reported, notwithstanding the adverse 
    report, or the failure to report, of the Committee on Rules, and 
    the Speaker shall recognize the Member seeking recognition for that 
    purpose as a question of the highest privilege. Pending the 
    consideration of said resolution the Speaker may entertain one 
    motion that the House adjourn; but after the result is announced he 
    shall not entertain any other dilatory motion until the said 
    resolution shall have been fully disposed of.

    This rule restricted the power of the Committee on Rules to prevent 
floor consideration of a measure reported by a legislative committee. 
It made in order as privileged a motion to call up a resolution 
providing for the consideration of a public bill favorably reported by 
a committee, which had been before the Committee on Rules for 21 days. 
During the 81st Congress, the rule was utilized to pass eight bills. In 
the 82d Congress, when the majority party held a smaller majority in 
the

[[Page 3038]]

House, the rule was not incorporated into the rules.
    A version of the 21-day rule was again adopted in 
1965.(15) This version of the rule in the 89th Congress 
differed in two respects from that of the 81st Congress. First, the 
Speaker was under no mandatory obligation to recognize the individual 
seeking the special order, and the matter was entirely within his 
discretion. Secondly, the individual who could be recognized was not 
limited solely to the chairman of the committee which had reported the 
measure out, but could be ``the chairman or any member of the committee 
. . . who has been so authorized by the committee.'' At the beginning 
of the 90th Congress, the resolution adopting the rules of the House 
was amended to delete the 21-day rule, and the provision has not been 
included in the rules since that time.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Res. 9, 111 Cong. Rec. 25, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965.
16. H. Res. 7, 113 Cong. Rec. 28-33, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 
        1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 1967 and 1970, the committee forfeited whatever 
jurisdiction it might have had over measures relating to the Code of 
Official Conduct, measures relating to financial disclosures of House 
Members, officers, and employees, measures relating to lobbying 
activities, and measures relating to the raising, reporting, and use of 
campaign contributions for House candidates. Jurisdiction over these 
subjects was granted to the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct.(17) In the 94th Congress, the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct lost jurisdiction over the raising and 
reporting of campaign contributions (to the Committee on House 
Administration),(18) and in the 95th Congress jurisdiction 
over lobbying activities and over financial disclosure was removed from 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.(19) Since 
the latter committee retained jurisdiction in the 95th Congress only 
over the Code of Official Conduct (Rule XLIII), other rules relating to 
conduct of Members which were adopted in the 95th Congress were 
considered and reported to the House by the Committee on Rules (Rule 
XLIV on financial disclosure, Rule XLV prohibiting unofficial office 
accounts, Rule XLVI limiting the use of the frank, and Rule XLVII 
limiting outside earned income).(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Res. 1099, 114 Cong. Rec. 8803, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 3, 
        1968.
18. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-22, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 
        1975.
19. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977.
 1. See H. Res. 287, 123 Cong. Rec. 5885, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 
        1977.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3039]]

    The most important function of the Committee on Rules in the 
contemporary practice of the House is its authority to report special 
orders providing for the consideration of legislation. This function of 
the committee, which had its origins in 1883,(2) enables the 
House by majority vote to vary the order of business, to proceed with 
particular measures or matters, to waive any rule of the House which 
impedes consideration, and to provide whatever special procedures may 
be appropriate. This authority includes but is not limited to, 
recommendations temporarily waiving specific House rules, discharging 
legislation not reported from other committees, permitting or 
precluding consideration of certain amendments, disposing of 
differences between the two Houses, and reconciling differences among 
committees reporting the same measure. This aspect of the role of the 
Committee on Rules is treated exhaustively in Chapter 21 (Order of 
Business), infra, of this work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3152; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules is among those committees which can report 
matters directly to the floor as privileged under Rule XI clause 4. 
Matters reported from the committee concerning the rules, joint rules, 
and order of business are privileged; under clause 4(b) of that rule, 
such reports may be called up for consideration by the House on the 
same day reported if the House by a two-thirds vote permits such 
consideration. The report of the committee may be called up on the day 
following its filing in the House and the question of consideration 
cannot be raised at that time. Clauses 4(c), 4(d), and 4(e) of Rule XI 
also specifically deal with reports from the Committee on Rules, their 
content, the procedures for filing such reports, and voting on such 
reports.
    Subjects treated elsewhere include: special rules and the order of 
business (Ch. 21), infra, motions to discharge special orders from the 
Committee on Rules (Ch. 18), infra, consideration and debate (Ch. 29), 
infra, and adoption of the rules of the House on recommendation of the 
majority party caucus (Chs. 1, 3), 
supra.                          -------------------

Role of the Committee on Rules

Sec. 52.1 The failure of the Committeeon Rules to grant a particular 
    rule having resulted in debate, Members discussed the role of the 
    committee at the turn of the century and its purpose as formulated 
    in that era.

[[Page 3040]]

    On July 14, 1955,(3) a supplemental appropriations bill 
(H. R. 7278) under consideration in the Committee of the Whole became 
subject to innumerable points of order, all of which Chairman Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, was obliged to sustain.(4) Several 
Members attributed the bill's vulnerability to inaction by the 
Committee on Rules which did not report a rule waiving points of order 
against the measure. In the course of debate, Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,(5) 
made the following observations about the history of the Committee on 
Rules: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 101 Cong. Rec. 10572-625, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. See Sec. 52.5, infra.
 5. Mr. Cannon served as Clerk at the Speaker's Table from 1915 to 
        1921, became a Member of the House in 1923, and compiled 
        Cannon's Precedents by 1936.
 6. 101 Cong. Rec. 10609, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon: . . . [T]he session this afternoon is reminiscent 
    of the good old times when I first came to the floor 34 years ago. 
    In those days it was estimated that a third of the time of the 
    House was taken up in the discussions of points of order. We had 
    long sessions, during which all the parliamentary authorities and 
    would--be parliamentary authorities of the House rose and expressed 
    themselves practically every day, taking up a large part of the 
    daily program.
        And in those halcyon days the Committee on Rules governed the 
    House. There were three men on the Committee on Rules in those 
    days. And the Speaker of the House was a member of the committee. 
    As I recall it, the Committee on Rules in the 61st Congress 
    consisted of Speaker Cannon; John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, on the 
    part of the majority; and James Richardson, of Tennessee, on the 
    part of the minority. Every day or so they would send around and 
    tell Richardson to ``Come on out to the Speaker's room, we are 
    going to have a meeting of the Committee on Rules.'' They would go 
    into session for about 3 minutes and tell him what the report of 
    the committee would be. Then when they came out on the floor with 
    the resolution Richardson would take up his portion of the time 
    telling what an outrage it was, until finally Speaker Cannon would 
    beckon Dalzell up to the Speaker's stand and say, ``John, go down 
    there and tell Jim Richardson to come out to the Speaker's room--we 
    are going to commit another outrage.''
        Eventually the reaction against the government of the House by 
    the Committee on Rules became so pronounced that in the election of 
    1910 it was the sole issue before the country in the congressional 
    campaign. The Committee on Rules dominated the House of 
    Representatives. No measure could be considered unless the 
    committee sponsored it. Finally, the reaction against the Committee 
    on Rules became so great that it resulted in an overturn of the 
    House and for the first time in 16 years, the people elected a 
    Democratic Congress.

[[Page 3041]]

    Several days later, there still being some discord between Members 
over the fate of H.R. 7278, Mr. Cannon discussed (7) the 
role of the Committee on Rules, as he perceived it and as he believed 
former ``Parliamentarian'' Hinds (8) perceived it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 101 Cong. Rec. 11059, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 1955.
 8. Asher C. Hinds served the House as Clerk at the Speaker's Table 
        from 1895 to 1911, at which time he became a Member of the 
        House from Maine. Hinds' Precedents, the first compilation of 
        the parliamentary precedents of the House, was published in 
        1907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        What is the function of the Committee on Rules? We have 
    traveled far afield in the interpretation and adaptation of the 
    functions of the Committee on Rules. Let us get back to the 
    fundamentals. There have been two great revisions of the rules of 
    the House in modern times, the first one in 1880 and the last one 
    in 1911. If you will read the debates on those two revisions with 
    relation to the duties of the Committee on Rules you will find that 
    committee was not intended to retard legislation. Wherever there 
    was a conflict as to priority the Committee on Rules was designed 
    to resolve the conflict. They were to make possible the 
    consideration of a bill which otherwise could not be considered. 
    They were never authorized, it was never intended, that they should 
    deny the House the right to pass upon any proposition reported by 
    other committees.
        . . . [M]ay I quote from the great Parliamentarian, Asher C. 
    Hinds, who knew more about the procedure of the House than any man 
    who ever lived. Asher Hinds excelled in parliamentary knowledge 
    anyone who has ever served the United States Congress since 1789.
        Here is what he said:

            The Committee on Rules officiates as to the consideration 
        of bills only when, for some reason, the ordinary method 
        prescribed by the rules for the order of business is not 
        satisfactory or produces delay.

        The purpose of the rules was to put the matter before the House 
    and put it before the House now.
        Hinds further said:

            The number of bills in relation to which it officiates by 
        reporting special orders is relatively few.

        It never occurred to him that the time would ever come when the 
    Committee on Rules would arrogate to itself the authority to pass 
    on every bill reported out by a committee of the House. And to deny 
    it consideration as it has denied the House the right and 
    opportunity to consider . . . items objected to in the 
    supplementary appropriation bill.

Sec. 52.2 A controversy having arisen over the failure of the Committee 
    on Rules to report a special rule waiving points of order against 
    and thus protecting the provisions in a supplemental appropriations 
    bill, the chairman and the ranking majority member discussed their 
    concepts of the committee's role and its reason for inac

[[Page 3042]]

    tion in the particular instance.

    On July 14, 1955,(9) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 7278), 
reported by the Committee on Appropriations making supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other 
purposes. In the course of the bill's consideration, however, points of 
order were raised against virtually every paragraph (10) by 
a Member who had unsuccessfully urged the Committee on Rules to report 
a rule which would have waived all points of order. This, in turn, 
prompted discussion of the propriety or impropriety of the Rules 
Committee action,(11) as well as the role of the committee 
in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 10572, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. See Sec. 52.5, infra.
11. See Sec. 52.1, supra, in which Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, then 
        Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and a former Clerk 
        at the Speaker's Table of the House, discusses his perception 
        of the proper role of the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At one juncture in the discussion, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, recognized William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, the ranking 
majority member of the Committee on Rules, who made the following 
remarks, among others: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 101 Cong. Rec. 10609, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I am not going into anything that transpired in the executive 
    session in the Rules Committee and I am not going to either praise 
    or criticize any member of that committee, but I think I can lay my 
    finger on the trouble here.
        I know that the Rules Committee becomes a whipping boy at one 
    or more sessions of this Congress, and usually more than once. I 
    know we are patted on the back sometimes because we prevent the 
    Members from having to vote on some controversial matter, and then 
    again I know that we are the recipients of brickbats that come our 
    way because we have offended somebody with a pet measure.
        If I am any judge of this situation, the trouble is in section 
    1301 on page 32 of this bill, where the Committee on Appropriations 
    set out to legislate the salaries of their employees, and other 
    committees were left out. . . .
        . . . [T]here were other committees represented that thought 
    that if the thing was going to be done, it ought to be done across 
    the board.
        Then there was opposition, it has been shown here, from the 
    Veterans' Affairs Committee. The chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
    Committee appeared before our committee and objected to waiving 
    points of order on an item setting up a study committee, 
    duplicating the work his committee was doing.
        Other committees were represented as objecting to certain items 
    in the bill which were considered as encroaching

[[Page 3043]]

    on the prerogatives of their respective committees.
        . . . I say to you that this is an unfortunate situation. Those 
    who want to raise points of order against everything in the bill, 
    of course, are permitted to do so. But maybe there was some reason 
    or some justification not aimed at agriculture or at the armed 
    service or at these other agencies that guided the Committee on 
    Rules in taking the action that it did.
        I am sure the members of the Committee on Rules need no defense 
    at my hands. They can and will bear their share of the 
    responsibility. But those responsible for mutilating the bill here 
    today must likewise take their full share of the responsibility.

    Several days later, on July 19, 1955,(13) Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, Chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, who obtained unanimous consent to proceed out 
of order and thereupon made the following remarks, among others:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 101 Cong. Rec. 10944, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I asked permission to speak out of order this 
    morning because I was unfortunately not on the floor Thursday [Judy 
    14, 1955] when the Rules Committee got its kicking around by the 
    Appropriations Committee. . . . I realize that the time of the 
    session has come when nobody loves the Rules Committee, and 
    particularly when they do not get exactly what they want from the 
    Rules Committee. I am also cognizant of the philosophy around here 
    on the part of some Members that the Rules Committee is just a 
    traffic cop and supposed to joyfully and gladly give everybody a 
    rule who asks for one. But my people did not elect me to Congress 
    to be a traffic cop, and I think that is true of the other members 
    of the Rules Committee. I think that committee feels they have some 
    functions of a discretionary nature to perform. . . .
        To begin with when the Committee on Appropriations appeared 
    before us they told us they had a bill of 38 pages and that all but 
    4 pages was in violation of the rules of the House. Of course 
    everybody set up and took notice about that time. A great many 
    questions were asked about it.
        Since I have been chairman of the Rules Committee there has 
    been much complaint from legislative committees that the 
    Appropriations Committee invades their field and then goes to the 
    Rules Committee and gets a rule waiving points of order. So I made 
    the rule that when that occurred in any appropriation bill we would 
    do the chairman of the Legislative Committee the courtesy of 
    letting him know and giving him an opportunity to be heard. It 
    appeared that there were at least three instances there that I 
    thought the chairman of the respective legislative committees ought 
    to be heard on. One of them involved matters of a legislative 
    character with respect to the Agricultural Committee; another one 
    was with respect to the House Administration Committee; also the 
    chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs appeared in 
    opposition to the rule on the ground that the bill invaded the 
    jurisdiction of that committee.

[[Page 3044]]

        The Rules Committee did not refuse anybody a rule. The 
    committee just adjourned without acting on it. . . .
        . . . [I] do not think the Rules Committee or any member of it 
    has any apologies to offer about what happened. We were pursuing 
    our policy and we were under the impression that the same rules 
    applied to the Appropriations Committee as to any other committee 
    in the House. We expect to pursue the same policy in the future 
    that we have in the past. I think I can speak for the entire 
    committee when I make that statement.

Increase in Committee Membership

Sec. 52.3 The House adopted a resolution increasing the membership of 
    the Committee on Rules from 12 to 15 for the duration of the 87th 
    Congress.

    On Jan. 31, 1961,(14) Mr. James W. Trimble, of Arkansas, 
called up House Resolution 127 and asked for its immediate 
consideration. The resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 1573, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the Eighty-seventh Congress the Committee 
    on Rules shall be composed of fifteen members.

    Following lengthy debate on the history, role, and power of the 
Committee on Rules, the House agreed to the resolution by yeas--217, 
nays--212.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 1589, 1590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 52.4 The 88th Congress adopted the rules of the 87th Congress with 
    an amendment increasing from 12 to 15, the membership of the 
    Committee on Rules.

    On Jan. 9, 1963,(16) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, who offered and 
asked for the immediate consideration of the following privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 5):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 14, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
    Eighty-seventh Congress, together with all applicable provisions of 
    the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, be, and 
    they are hereby, adopted as the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives of the Eighty-eighth Congress, with the following 
    amendment therein as a part thereof, to wit:
        Strike out subsection (p) of rule X and insert in lieu thereof 
    the following:
        ``(p) Committee on Rules, to consist of fifteen members.''

    Following debate on the proposal, the resolution was agreed to by 
yeas--235, nays--196.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 21, 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3045]]

Expediting House Business--Effect of Failure to Report Special Rule 
    Waiving Points of Order

Sec. 52.5 The Committee on Rules having adjourned without acting on a 
    requested special rule waiving all points of order against 
    provisions of a supplemental appropriations bill, a member of the 
    Committee on Appropriations subsequently raised points of order 
    against virtually every paragraph when the bill was read for 
    amendment in order to demonstrate what may happen where points of 
    order are not waived in such circumstances.

    On July 14, 1955,(18) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 7278), 
making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1956, and for other purposes. Shortly thereafter, Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who controlled 
half of the time allotted for debate, yielded to Mr. Louis C. Rabaut, 
of Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 10572, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Rabaut then made the following remarks, among others: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 10572, 10573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman,(20) with malice toward nobody but with 
    determination to do my duty as I see it, I want to report to this 
    House that yesterday I appeared before the Committee on Rules, as 
    was the request of the full Committee on Appropriations. I told the 
    Committee on Rules that this bill was filled with paragraphs that 
    were subject to points of order; that the bill probably contained 
    very few pages where a ruling could be denied against points of 
    order, and the bill would be bad. I said there were so few pages 
    that I limited it to about four pages that would not be subject to 
    a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I read to the committee a prepared statement and said the bill 
    contained many of the paragraphs that were in the final 
    supplemental bill as handled by the Committee on Appropriations 
    every year, and that a rule is usually granted.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Phillips], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
    Davis] were present and opposed a rule. Mr. Davis lent his moral 
    support.
        Past history always allowed a rule. To my surprise the 
    committee failed to act, and we find ourselves with 
    a bill involving approximately $1,650,000,000. Twelve subcommittees 
    of the Committee on Appropriations worked on this bill, practically 
    the entire membership of 50; the hearings comprise several volumes, 
    yet under the situation the House will not be able to work its will 
    as to accepting or rejecting the many provisions and amounts in 
    this bill before us because

[[Page 3046]]

    a point of order would lie in most instances.
        . . . So this is my notice that I intend to cite the paragraphs 
    that are subject to points of order and ask for their deletion from 
    this bill.

    Although several Members took exception (1) to Mr. 
Rabaut's stated intention, as the Clerk read the bill for amendment 
(2) Mr. Rabaut proceeded to raise points of order against 31 
paragraphs in the bill. Each point of order was based on the contention 
that the language in question constituted legislation in an 
appropriation bill.(3) In each instance the Chair sought 
comment from Mr. Cannon, who would concede the point of order--
whereupon the Chair would sustain it. When this process concluded, the 
total amount of funds to be appropriated was trimmed by more than $1.4 
billion,(4) a figure comprising 86 percent of the original 
total.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 52.2, supra, for comments from the Chairman and the 
        ranking majority member of the Committee on Rules. See also 
        Sec. 52.1, supra, in which Mr. Cannon discusses the historical 
        role of the Committee on Rules.
 2. 101 Cong. Rec. 10604-25, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. For information on legislation on appropriation bills generally, 
        see Ch. 26, infra.
 4. 101 Cong. Rec. 10949, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1955.
 5. For a comparable instance in an earlier Congress, see 94 Cong. Rec. 
        7603, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 9, 1948, where the Committee on 
        Rules reported out a rule [H. Res. 651], for the consideration 
        of a supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 6829), calling for 
        the waiver of all points of order against ``any provisions 
        contained therein'' as well as the waiver of all points of 
        order against ``any amendment offered by direction of the 
        Committee on Appropriations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 53. Jurisdiction and Scope of Authority

    Under the 1973 rules (6) the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Rules (7) extended to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XI clauses 17(a), 17(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 
        (1973).
 7. See Sec. 52, supra, for a brief history of the Committee on Rules, 
        touching upon the evolution of its powers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) The rules and joint rules (other than rules or joint rules 
    relating to the Code of Official Conduct or relating to financial 
    disclosure by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
    Representatives), and order of business of the House.
        (b) Recesses and final adjournments of Congress.

    This jurisdiction was made effective Jan. 2, 1947, as a part of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.(8) Effective July 
12, 1974, the Committee on Rules was given specific authority under 
section 402(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to report

[[Page 3047]]

emergency waivers of the required date under that act for bills and 
resolutions authorizing new budget authority; (9) that 
jurisdiction was incorporated into the rules in the 93d 
Congress.(10) The subject of recesses and final adjournments 
was formerly under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
Jurisdiction over rules relating to official conduct and financial 
disclosure was transferred to the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct on Apr. 3, 1968,(11) but in the 95th Congress, 
jurisdiction over rules relating to financial disclosure by Members, 
officers, and employees of the House was returned to the Committee on 
Rules (H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53-70, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 60 Stat. 812.
 9. Pub. L. No. 93-344, Sec. 402b.
10. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
11. H. Res. 1099, 114 Cong. Rec. 8811, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal jurisdiction of the committee is over propositions to 
make or change the rules,(12) for the creation of 
committees,(13) and directing them to make 
investigations.(14) It also reports resolutions relating to 
the hour of daily meeting and the days on which the House shall 
sit,(15) and orders relating to the use of the galleries 
during the electoral count.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6770, 6776; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2047.
13. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4322; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2048.
14. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4322-4324; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2048.
15. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4325.
16. Id. at Sec. 4327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the committee reports special orders providing the 
times and methods for consideration of public bills or classes of 
bills, thereby enabling the House, by majority vote, to determine the 
order and manner of consideration of measures on the House or Union 
Calendars. This special order jurisdiction also entitles the committee 
to bring a measure, not reported by legislative committee, directly 
before the House for its consideration,(17) and to report 
other resolutions to facilitate the disposal of business on the 
Speaker's table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The role of the Committee on Rules with respect to special orders 
        and order of business, generally, is treated in Ch. 21, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jurisdiction, Generally

Sec. 53.1 The Committee on Rules may consider any matter that is 
    properly before them.

    On July 30, 1959,(18) the Committee on Education and 
Labor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 14742, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3048]]

had received unanimous consent to have until midnight to file a report 
on a bill (H.R. 8342), pertaining to the prevention of abuses in labor 
organizations.

    Shortly thereafter, as the program for the forthcoming week was 
being discussed, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, initiated the 
following exchange with Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 14743.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: I ask the question, under the rules of 
    the House, can the Committee on Rules report out a bill before they 
    get a majority report from the committee?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Barden] 
    asked unanimous consent, which was obtained, to have until midnight 
    tonight to file a report of the Committee on Education and Labor on 
    the so-called labor bill.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: My question is, until a majority of 
    the committee sign the report, can the Committee on Rules consider 
    the bill?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules has the authority to 
    consider any matter which is properly before them. The Chair would 
    certainly hold that this is properly before the Committee on Rules.

Amending the House Rules

Sec. 53.2 The Committee on Rules has jurisdiction of a resolution 
    proposing amendments to the rules of the House, and the reporting 
    of such a measure is privileged under the rules.

    On Mar. 26, 1935,(20) John J. O'Connor, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 172, 
which was read by the Clerk as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 79 Cong. Rec. 4480, 4481, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That rule XXIV of the House of Representatives be, 
    and is hereby, amended by striking out paragraph 6 thereof and 
    inserting in lieu thereof the following:
        ``6. On the first Tuesday of each month after disposal of such 
    business on the Speaker's table as requires reference only, the 
    Speaker shall direct the Clerk to call the bills and resolutions on 
    the Private Calendar. Should objection be made by two or more 
    Members to the consideration of any bill or resolution so called, 
    it shall be recommitted to the committee which reported the bill or 
    resolution and no reservation of objection shall be entertained by 
    the Speaker. Such bills and resolutions, if considered, shall be 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. No other 
    business shall be in order on this day unless the House, by two-
    thirds vote on motion to dispense therewith, shall otherwise 
    determine. On such motion debate shall be limited to 5 minutes for 
    and 5 minutes against said motion.
        ``On the third Tuesday of each month after the disposal of such 
    business on

[[Page 3049]]

    the Speaker's table as requires reference only, the Speaker may 
    direct the Clerk to call the bills and resolutions on the Private 
    Calendar, preference to be given to omnibus bills containing bills 
    or resolutions which have previously been objected to on a call of 
    the Private Calendar. All bills and resolutions on the Private 
    Calendar so called, if considered, shall be considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole. Should objection be made by two 
    or more members to the consideration of any bill or resolution 
    other than an omnibus bill, it shall be recommitted to the 
    committee which reported the bill or resolution and no reservation 
    of objection shall be entertained by the Speaker.

        ``Omnibus bills shall be read for amendment by paragraph, and 
    no amendment shall be in order except to strike out or to reduce 
    amounts of money stated or to provide limitations. Any item or 
    matter stricken from an omnibus bill shall not thereafter during 
    the same session of Congress be included in any omnibus bill.
        ``Upon passage of any such omnibus bill, said bill shall be 
    resolved into the several bills and resolutions of which it is 
    composed, and such original bills and resolutions, with any 
    amendments adopted by the House, shall be engrossed, where 
    necessary, and proceedings thereon had as if said bills and 
    resolutions had been passed in the House severally.
        ``In the consideration of any omnibus bill the proceedings as 
    set forth above shall have the same force and effect as if each 
    Senate and House bill or resolution therein contained or referred 
    to were considered by the House as a separate and distinct bill or 
    resolution.''

    Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, then recognized Mr. Thomas 
L. Blanton, of Texas, who raised a point of order against the 
resolution, stating in part:

        Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order that this resolution is 
    not privileged from the Committee on Rules; that the Committee on 
    Rules has no authority, in the way that this rule was introduced 
    and passed upon by the committee and reported, to report such a 
    resolution to the House. Only a joint resolution passed by both the 
    House and Senate, and signed by the President, could authorize this 
    House to pass an omnibus bill, embracing the amounts carried in 
    many private bills, and then, after passage, send all of such 
    private bills to the Senate as bills regularly engrossed 
    (1) and passed by the House, as this rule proposes, when 
    they were not so engrossed and passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. An engrossed bill is the final copy of the measure as passed by the 
        House with the text as amended by floor action and certified to 
        by the Clerk of the House. See Ch. 24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Blanton continued to speak to his point of order, noting that 
for a century it had been House practice ``that all bills involving a 
charge upon the Treasury must be considered in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union, unless otherwise considered by 
unanimous consent. . . . [W]here bills are considered in the House as 
in the Committee of the Whole,'' (2) he ob

[[Page 3050]]

served, ``the rule changes entirely,'' for the person ``in charge of 
that legislation can move the previous question at any time and shut 
off debate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Ordinarily, procedure in the House as in Committee of the Whole is 
        only by unanimous consent since the rules governing the order 
        of business and admissions of motions make no provision for a 
        motion to consider a matter ``in the House as in Committee of 
        the Whole'' [4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4923]. The Committee on 
        Rules, however, may report a resolution providing a special 
        order for consideration of a measure in the House as in 
        Committee of the Whole [H. Res. 1515, 120 Cong. Rec. 40858, 93d 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 18, 1974]. In recent times, an order for 
        this procedure means merely that the bill will be considered as 
        having been read for amendment and will be open for amendment 
        and debate under the five minute rule [H.R. 18619, 116 Cong. 
        Rec. 28050, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1970; Rule XXIII 
        clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1979)] without 
        general debate [4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4924, 4925; 6 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 639; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2431, 2432] but with the motion for the previous 
        question in order. The Speaker remains in the chair, and when 
        the previous question has been ordered, he makes no report but 
        puts the question on the engrossment and third reading and on 
        the passage [Jefferson's Manual, Sec. 424 (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Blanton additionally expressed reservations as to the effect of 
the proposal, contending that ``old bills, hoary with age and time'' 
could be put back on the calendar and ``not a Member of this House 
would have an opportunity to even raise his voice to show why he made 
objection to their passage.'' (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. The rule which was then in effect provided that on each Saturday it 
        would be in order for the House to resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole to consider business on the Private 
        Calendar and that if there were objection or reservation of 
        objection after the Clerk read the bill, there would be ``10 
        minutes' general debate to be divided, five minutes controlled 
        by the Member offering the objection or reservation and five 
        minutes controlled by the chairman of the committee reporting 
        the bill, or in his absence by any Member supporting the 
        bill.'' [H. Jour. 879. 73d Cong. 2d Sess. (1934)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, he contended, ``Unless there be two Members 
simultaneously objecting to it, the bill would be passed.'' These 
changes he was convinced would render it ``impossible to prevent the 
passage of the numerous bad bills which have been favorably reported 
through the years gone by.''
    Mr. Blanton continued with the argument underlying his point of 
order (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 79 Cong. Rec. 4481, 4482, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair to hear me just a moment further 
    on the point of order.

[[Page 3051]]

        I make the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules 
    Committee, with all of its power, has no authority to bring in a 
    rule that will take away from all of the 435 Representatives of the 
    people in the House of Representatives their representative 
    capacity, their privilege of representing the people of the United 
    States as Members of different districts in Congress, with the 
    inherent right to be heard on public questions, especially upon 
    legislation coming up in the House that takes large sums of money 
    out of the Treasury.
        Now, if this rule is passed, it will take away from every 
    Member of this House, except the chairman of the committee in 
    charge of legislation on private bill day, the right to be heard, 
    the inherent right to be heard, in his representative capacity on 
    legislation and his right to protest against the passage of bad 
    bills that will wrongfully take large sums of money from the Public 
    Treasury. Why, the one in charge of legislation at that time could 
    move the previous question immediately if he wanted to, for such 
    bills are to be considered in the House.
        If the Rules Committee has authority to bring in this kind of 
    rule, Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Chair in all earnestness it has 
    authority to bring in a rule on the floor of this House that will 
    prevent any Member of the House of Representatives, except a member 
    of the Rules Committee, from being heard on any kind of bill that 
    comes up in the House. It would permit the Rules Committee, Mr. 
    Speaker, to bring in a rule that would force the consideration of 
    every supply bill, of every big appropriation bill, to be heard 
    without any debate in the House instead of in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union. Why, the chairman would have 
    the authority to move the previous question any time he wanted to 
    and prevent every Member on the floor except himself from being 
    heard.

        The Speaker: Of course, the gentleman knows that in passing on 
    a point of order the Chair cannot take into consideration the 
    effect of a resolution or bill that may be pending; that is a 
    matter that must be considered by the membership itself with 
    respect to the legislation in question.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, 
stated on the point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, rule XI, paragraph 45,(5) reads as 
    follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        The resolution under discussion is a resolution amending rule 
    XXIV of the House of Representatives. This disposes of the point of 
    order.

    After a brief exchange between Mr. Lehlbach and Mr. Blanton, the 
Speaker ruled on the point of order as follows:

        In disposing of a point of order it is not within the province 
    of the Chair to consider the effect, or what may be the effect, of 
    the passage of any rule or legislation which may be pending. After 
    all, rules reported by the Committee on

[[Page 3052]]

    Rules must be considered and acted upon by a majority of the House, 
    which action, of course, is controlling.
        The gentleman from New Jersey has read from clause 45 of rule 
    XI, which, with the permission of the House, the Chair will reread:

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

        The pending resolution proposes to amend the rules of the 
    House, it relates to the order of business in the House, and, under 
    the rule the Chair has just read, is made a matter of privilege
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 53.3 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules to amend the 
    House rules so as to permit any standing committee or subcommittee 
    thereof to fix a lesser number than a majority to constitute a 
    quorum for the purpose of taking sworn testimony was debated on the 
    floor and recommitted to the Committee on Rules by unanimous 
    consent.

    On Sept. 14, 1951,(6) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John E. Lyle, Jr., of Texas, who, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 386 and asked for its 
immediate consideration. The resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 97 Cong. Rec. 11394, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That rule XI (2)(f) of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is hereby amended to read as follows:
        ``(f) The rules of the House are hereby made the rules of its 
    standing committees so far as applicable, except that a motion to 
    recess from day to day is hereby made a motion of high privilege in 
    said committees, and except that each standing committee, and each 
    subcommittee of any such committee, is authorized to fix a lesser 
    number than a majority of its entire membership who shall 
    constitute a quorum thereof for the purpose of taking sworn 
    testimony: Provided, That such quorum shall consist of not less 
    than one member of the majority party and one member of the 
    minority party.''

    In the course of the ensuing debate, several Members expressed 
reservations about possible consequences of the rules amendment as 
drafted. Referring to the last clause of the resolution, Mr. Charles A. 
Halleck, of Indiana, for example, noted that: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 11397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [I]f this proviso stands as it is written, there would be 
    a complete bar available to either the majority or the minority to 
    prevent the taking of the testimony, through the simple operation 
    by which either all of the members of the majority or the minority, 
    whichever it might be, would absent themselves from the hearing. I 
    think

[[Page 3053]]

    that should be corrected. I want this resolution adopted, but I am 
    afraid, as a practical matter, if we write the rule in this fashion 
    we might create a circumstance that would effectively block action 
    by committees that should be taken.

    Although Mr. Lyle did propose an amendment to strike the offending 
language and his amendment was agreed to, he thereafter obtained 
unanimous consent that the resolution be recommitted to the Committee 
on Rules.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 11398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 53.4 In response to a point of order pertaining to the fixing of 
    debate in terms of days rather than hours, the Chair indicated that 
    the Committee on Rules may report a resolution to waive the rules 
    of the House on any matter (except where its authority is limited 
    by the Constitution or other rule).

    On Sept. 3, 1940,(9) Speaker pro tempore Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, recognized Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, who proceeded to call up House Resolution 586 which 
read, in pertinent part, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 11358, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill H.R. 10132, a bill to protect the integrity and 
    institutions of the United States through a system of selective 
    compulsory military training and service. That after general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to 
    exceed 2 days, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
    and ranking minority member of the Committee on Military Affairs, 
    the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.

    During debate, the Chair recognized Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New 
York, who raised the following point of order: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 11359, 11360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the resolution is 
    contrary to the unwritten law of the House. It has been the 
    universal practice, custom, and tradition of the House to have 
    debate fixed by hours. This resolution fixes general debate by 
    days. This is entirely meaningless, because a day may be terminated 
    by a motion that the Committee rise or by adjournment, and for that 
    reason I press my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the 
    resolution is contrary to the unwritten rules of the House in that 
    general debate is fixed by days instead of hours.
        In the first place, the point of order comes too 
    late.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. A point of order against a resolution reported from the Committee 
        on Rules must be made before debate begins. For more 
        information on points of order, in general, see Ch. 31, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3054]]

        In the second place, this is a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules to change the rules of the House, which is 
    permissible on anything except that which is prohibited by the 
    Constitution.
        The point of order is overruled.

Closed Rules

Sec. 53.5 In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill to 
    reorganize the legislative branch, an amendment to Rule XI clause 
    23, restricting the power of the Committee on Rules to report a 
    ``closed rule'' was held to change the jurisdiction of the 
    committee, which, under Rule XI clause 17, may report on ``rules, 
    joint rules and order of business,'' and was therefore ruled out of 
    order as in violation of a special rule prohibiting consideration 
    of amendments to that bill having the effect of changing House 
    committee jurisdictions.

    On July 29, 1970,(12) the House had resolved itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of H.R. 17654, 
a bill to improve the legislative branch of the federal government (the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970), and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 26413, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, recognized Mr. Andrew 
Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, who offered an amendment which read, in part, 
as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 26414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 123(a) Clause 23 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
    following: ``In addition, the Committee on Rules shall not report 
    any rule or order for the consideration of any legislative measure 
    which limits, restricts, or eliminates the actual reading of that 
    measure for amendment or the offering of any amendment to that 
    measure.''

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, raised a 
point of order against the amendment:

        Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order that this very 
    definitely limits the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee and would 
    prohibit us from issuing a closed rule and other types of rules. 
    The rule under which this measure was considered strictly prohibits 
    the changing of any jurisdiction of any committee.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Indiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the term 
    ``jurisdiction,'' it

[[Page 3055]]

    means the territory or subject matter over which legal power is 
    exercisable, not the rules by which such power proceeds.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to point out to the gentleman from Indiana 
    that under House Resolution 1093 we have the following language, 
    beginning in line 11:

            No amendments to the bill shall be in order which would 
        have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee 
        of the House listed in Rule XI.

        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Correcting the Record Through Motion

Sec. 53.6 A Member having made a motion to correct the Record so as to 
    show the language actually uttered in debate and not as extended 
    and revised, the motion, after debate, was referred to the 
    Committee on Rules.

    On July 5, 1945,(14) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, 
addressed Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, and offered the following 
motion (as a question of the privileges of the House):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 7221, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I move that the daily Record of July 2, 1945, 
    which contains in the Appendix on pages A3448 and A3449 a speech 
    entitled ``$120,000,000 for Rural Electrification,'' purporting to 
    have been delivered by the gentleman from Mississippi, Hon. John E. 
    Rankin, be corrected for the permanent or bound copy of the Record, 
    so as to show the exact stenographic report of the colloquy which 
    occurred between myself and the gentleman from Mississippi on that 
    date and as a part of that speech.

    Prior to offering the motion, Mr. Tarver had stated that under 
leave to revise and extend his remarks, the gentleman from Mississippi 
had so ``materially changed and enlarged'' (15) certain of 
the statements he made in the course of a colloquy with Mr. Tarver ``as 
to misrepresent materially the position assumed by me in the 
colloquy.'' A unanimous-consent request to effect the same result 
having been objected to by Mr. Rankin,(16) the quoted motion 
was then offered presumably as a question of the privileges of the 
House under Rule IX relating to the accuracy of the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 7220.
16. Id. at p. 7221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the debate which ensued, the propriety or impropriety of the 
revision and extension of the remarks in question was not immediately 
apparent, thereby prompting Mr. Matthew M. Neely, of West Virginia, to 
offer the following motion: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 7225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3056]]

        Mr. Speaker, in behalf of peace in the House and the orderly 
    progress of legislation, I move that the motion of the gentleman 
    from Georgia be referred to the Committee on Rules.

    Shortly thereafter, the Neely motion was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Although a motion to refer may specify 
reference to any committee, the Committee on House Administration, it 
should be noted, has jurisdiction over the correction of the 
Congressional Record.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule X clause 1(j), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishing Investigatory Committees

Sec. 53.7 The jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules over resolutions 
    establishing investigatory committees does not extend to provisions 
    in the resolution or in committee amendments thereto calling for 
    such committees' expenses to be paid from the contingent fund of 
    the House, and an amendment from that committee has been held not 
    germane as a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Accounts (now the Committee on House Administration).

    On June 21, 1944,(19) Mr. Joe B. Bates, of Kentucky, 
called up a resolution (H. Res. 551), reported from the Committee on 
Rules and asked for its immediate consideration. House Resolution 551 
provided for the establishment of a special committee to be appointed 
by the Speaker for the purpose of investigating and reporting back to 
the House with respect to the campaign expenditures of all candidates 
for the House. The resolution having been read earlier,(20) 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, directed the Clerk to report the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 90 Cong. Rec. 6393, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Id. at p. 6392.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 7 of the committee amendment contained the following 
language:

        For the purpose of this resolution, the committee, or any duly 
    authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold such public 
    hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the 
    sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Seventy-eighth 
    Congress, to employ such attorneys, experts, clerical, and other 
    assistants, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of 
    such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, 
    papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, to take such 
    testimony, and to make such expenditures, as it deems advisable. 
    The cost of sten

[[Page 3057]]

    ographic services to report such hearings shall not be in excess of 
    25 cents per hundred words. The expenses of the committee shall be 
    paid from the contingent fund of the House of Representatives upon 
    vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee or the chairman 
    of any duly authorized subcommittee thereof and approved by the 
    Committee on Accounts.

    Immediately after the Clerk read the committee amendment, the Chair 
recognized Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, who commenced the ensuing 
exchange:

        Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the amendment on 
    the ground that the Rules Committee has exceeded its authority, and 
    I respectfully request to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, I invite your special attention to 
    the language on page 6, beginning in line 15.

            The expenses of the committee shall be paid from the 
        contingent fund of the House of Representatives upon vouchers 
        approved by the chairman of the committee and the chairman of 
        any duly authorized subcommittee thereof and approved by the 
        Committee on Accounts.

        Also to the words on page 6, lines 12 and 13, ``and to make 
    such expenditures.''
        Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Accounts was set up by this House 
    in 1803, long before the Rules Committee was ever heard of. This 
    all-powerful Rules Committee takes it upon itself to assume 
    jurisdiction over the contingent fund of the House. Not only do the 
    rules of the House (1) place that jurisdiction in the 
    Committee on Accounts, but your Committee on Accounts is subject to 
    several statutes, specifically referring to the activities of the 
    Committee on Accounts, and the contingent fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. At the time, Rule XI clause 36 provided that the jurisdiction of 
        the Committee on Accounts extended to subjects ``touching the 
        expenditure of the contingent fund of the House, the auditing 
        and settling of all accounts which may be charged therein by 
        order of the House, the ascertaining of the travel of Members 
        of the House and the reporting the same to the Sergeant at 
        Arms.'' [H. Jour. 699, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. (1944)]. Presently 
        such jurisdiction is vested in the Committee on House 
        Administration [Rule X clause 1(j), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 679(a) (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Continuing to address himself to the point of order, Mr. Cochran 
additionally voted: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 90 Cong. Rec. 6393, 6394, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If this precedent that the Rules Committee seeks to establish 
    is adopted by the House, the House will lose control over its 
    contingent fund. The language that I have read places absolutely no 
    limitation upon the amount this select committee can spend. 
    Vouchers are to be signed by the chairman of the select committee 
    or any subcommittee thereof, and the only jurisdiction the 
    Committee on Accounts has is to put its signature on the voucher 
    and pass it along for payment.
        Now, if you can do that with this select committee, you can do 
    it with

[[Page 3058]]

    every select committee and every special committee that this House 
    sets up. . . .

        The practice has always been for the Accounts Committee to hold 
    hearings and require the select or special committee to state its 
    needs and justify its request.
        If it is the desire of the House to pass this jurisdiction to 
    the Rules Committee, then change the rules, but do not let the 
    Rules Committee assume jurisdiction now or at any time in the 
    future unless you do. It is time this House assert itself and serve 
    notice on the Rules Committee to stay within its jurisdiction. . . 
    .
        I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Rules having taken 
    jurisdiction which did not belong to it, the language I object to 
    is subject to a point of order; and I hope the Chair will so hold.

    At the conclusion of Mr. Cochran's remarks, Mr. Bates asserted that 
he had ``no desire to usurp any of the rights of the Committee on 
Accounts,'' and expressed his belief that such a feeling was shared by 
``members on both sides of the Committee on Rules.''
    Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, also a member of the Committee 
on Rules, expressed his agreement to the point of order, and in so 
doing, delineated one of the key limitations of the Committee on Rules' 
jurisdiction over measures creating investigatory committees:

        I realize there is much truth in what the gentleman from 
    Missouri says. This amendment would bypass the Committee on 
    Accounts. To my knowledge that has never been done in the setting 
    up of an investigating committee. The Rules Committee has 
    jurisdiction over investigating committee resolutions, but the 
    Accounts Committee has jurisdiction over the funds with which the 
    committee operates. I have often said it is a good bit like when my 
    little boy used to ask his mother for a new football. She would 
    say: ``Yes, John, you may have the football, but you must go to 
    daddy and get the money.'' That is the way these investigations are 
    controlled; and, personally, I could not speak in opposition to the 
    point of order.

    Following Mr. Michener's remarks, Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
another member of the committee, stated also that ``It was never the 
desire of the Committee on Rules to usurp the authority of the 
Committee on Accounts.'' He added, however, that he believed that ``the 
language objected to is language that has been used in previous 
resolutions where no point of order has been raised to it.''
    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker rendered his decision as follows:

        The Chair has before it a case exactly in point, and the 
    interesting thing about it is that it begins with the statement:

            On May 3, 1933, Mr. Howard W. Smith of Virginia, by 
        direction of the Committee on Rules, and so forth, presented a 
        rule.

        A point of order was made against the rule and the Chair held 
    as fol

[[Page 3059]]

    lows--and it is exactly on all fours with the instant case:

            The Chair thinks that the provision incorporated in section 
        5 of the resolution authorizing the committee to employ 
        suitable counsel, assistants, and investigators in the aid of 
        its investigation, and also the provision authorizing all 
        necessary expenses of the investigation to be paid on vouchers 
        approved by the chairman of the committee, is a matter properly 
        within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Accounts.

        That is exactly the proposition that is before the Chair at 
    this time. The Chair could cite other precedents.
        The point of order, therefore, is sustained as against the 
    committee amendment.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For a comparable instance in a later Congress, see 95 Cong. Rec. 
        1617-19, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 28, 1949, where a 
        resolution (H. Res. 44), calling for a study of Panama Canal 
        tolls by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries was 
        reported out by the Committee on Rules with a provision 
        authorizing the former committee ``to make such expenditures as 
        it deems advisable'' [within a $15,000 limit] from the 
        contingent fund of the House, a matter within the jurisdiction 
        of the Committee on House Administration. The Member who called 
        the measure up, John E. Lyle, Jr. [Tex.], announced that ``the 
        resolution must be amended to comply with the rules of the 
        House'' and introduced an amendment to strike the contingent 
        fund provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This point of order against the amendment 
did not destroy the privilege of the resolution. This was a germaneness 
ruling against the amendment. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, then 
offered another substitute the same as the original amendment but 
without the language about the contingent fund. Compare this situation 
with those contained in 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4623, where it was 
held that a bill containing nonprivileged matter in the original text 
cannot be considered as privileged merely based on a committee 
amendment removing the nonprivileged matter, and in 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 2300, where a funding resolution reported from the 
Committee on Accounts and also containing legislative provisions within 
the jurisdiction of other committees was held not to be privileged.

Investigations Pertaining to Impeachment

Sec. 53.8 The Speaker has referred to the Committee on Rules 
    resolutions authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to 
    investigate the conduct of federal officials and directing that 
    committee to report its findings to the House ``together with such 
    resolutions of impeachment as it deems proper.''

[[Page 3060]]

    On Feb. 21, 1966,(4) pursuant to a previous order of the 
House, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. H. 
R. Gross. of Iowa:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 112 Cong. Rec. 3489, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on file in the U.S. Supreme Court, ignored and 
    gathering dust for nearly 4 years, is an official transcript that 
    sets forth in detail the shocking story of a bitter feud among 
    Federal judges in Oklahoma City, Okla.
        The transcript is the verbatim statement of Federal Judge 
    Stephen S. Chandler in which he accuses Federal Judges Alfred P. 
    Murrah and Luther Bohanon of persecution.

    Mr. Gross then elaborated on the contents of the transcript which 
included allegations of telephone tapping, attempted bribery, wrongful 
assertion of judicial power, and conduct unbecoming to the federal 
judiciary in general. He concluded his statement by observing: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 3490.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As a citizen and a Member of Congress, I cannot sit idly by and 
    watch while the respect and confidence in the Federal judiciary is 
    undermined in Oklahoma or any other area of the Nation. And I 
    submit that there are other areas that need attention.

        I urge in the strongest terms at my command that the proper 
    committees of Congress launch an immediate investigation.

    On Feb. 22, 1966,(6) the Record reveals that a measure 
(H. Res. 739), introduced by Mr. Gross ``authorizing the Committee on 
the Judiciary to conduct certain investigations'' was referred by 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, to the Committee on 
Rules.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 3665, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. For information on impeachment powers, generally, see Ch. 14, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 53.9 Resolutions directly calling for the impeachment or censure 
    of the President are referred by the Speaker to the Committee on 
    the Judiciary, whereas resolutions calling for an investigation by 
    that committee or by a select committee with a view toward 
    impeachment are referred to the Committee on Rule.

    On Oct. 23, 1973,(8) following dismissal of Special 
Prosecutor Archibald Cox by President Richard M. Nixon, and the 
resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Assistant 
Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus, numerous resolutions were 
offered by Members calling for a wide range of congressional ac

[[Page 3061]]

tion. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, referred these proposals either 
to the Committee on Rules or to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
depending upon the wording of each measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 34871-74, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the aforementioned resolutions directing the Committee on 
the Judiciary to investigate the President's conduct (H. Res. 644, H. 
Res. 645), or to investigate whether grounds for his impeachment 
existed (H. Res. 626, H. Res. 627, H. Res. 628, H. Res. 629, H. Res. 
630, H. Res. 641, H. Res. 642), were referred by the Chair to the 
Committee on Rules, as were those measures calling for such inquiries 
by a select committee (H. Res. 637, H. Res. 646), or without 
designating a committee (H. Res. 636). Precedents supporting such 
referrals (9) date from the 19th century, and are premised 
on the theory that the very act of directing a committee to undertake 
an investigation amounts to the adoption of a new rule; this is 
understood to be so regardless of whether the measure pertains to a 
standing committee or whether a select committee is created, in which 
case a ``rule'' establishing jurisdiction would be essential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4322-4324; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the resolutions directly calling for the impeachment (H. 
Res. 625, H. Res. 631, H. Res. 635, H. Res. 638, H. Res. 643, H. Res. 
648, H. Res. 649), or censure (H. Con. Res. 365), of the President were 
referred by the Chair to the Committee on the Judiciary in view of that 
committee's long-standing historical jurisdiction over the subject 
matter.

Resolution Proposing Special or Standing Committee Investigation

Sec. 53.10 A resolution proposing that a question of the privileges of 
    the House be investigated by a special committee or by a standing 
    committee was referred, by unanimous consent, to the Committee on 
    Rules.

    On June 1, 1939,(10) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, recognized Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, who rose to a 
question of the privilege of the House, and submitted a resolution (H. 
Res. 208), with respect thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 6531, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution recounted in the preamble certain events which took 
place on the floor of the House involving a colloquy between two 
Members and a unanimous-consent request by one of

[[Page 3062]]

those Members to have certain remarks of his deleted from the Record. 
Contending that the Record as ultimately published failed to reflect a 
true account of the events which took place, the resolution stated, in 
part:

        Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the Speaker 
    of the House, or, in the discretion of the Speaker, make reference 
    to a standing committee of the House, to ascertain from the 
    reporters of the House and from such other sources as they may deem 
    trustworthy a true and correct record of what did occur, deleting 
    from such record all such matters which the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    [Mr. Massingale] was given permission to delete, and retaining in 
    the Record all such other transactions and proceedings which 
    occurred on the floor of the House and for the withdrawal of which 
    permission was not given; and thereupon to report its conclusions 
    to the House, together with such recommendations as it may deem 
    desirable.

    After the Speaker indicated that matters stated in the resolution 
``probably'' raised a question of the privileges of the House, the 
following exchange ensued: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 6532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . Is it the desire of the gentleman to have 
    the resolution referred to a committee?
        Mr. Hoffman: Either to a special committee or to any standing 
    committee, in the discretion of the Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that in the opinion of the 
    Chair the Committee on Rules would have jurisdiction over the 
    resolution.
        Is there objection to referring the resolution of the gentleman 
    from Michigan to the Committee on Rules? [After pause.] The Chair 
    hears none, and it is so ordered.

Joint Resolutions to Establish Joint Committees

Sec. 53.11 Joint resolutions providing for the establishment of joint 
    congressional committees have been within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Rules.

    On June 2, 1937,(12) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, recognized Mr. Robert L. Doughton, of North Carolina, who 
sought unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider 
a joint resolution (S. J. Res. 155), to create a Joint Congressional 
Committee on Tax Evasion and Avoidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 5243, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution in question read as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 5243, 5244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That (a) there is hereby established a joint 
    congressional committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Tax 
    Evasion and Avoid

[[Page 3063]]

    ance (hereinafter referred to as the joint committee).
        (b) The joint committee shall be composed of six Members of the 
    Senate who are members of the Committee on Finance, appointed by 
    the President of the Senate, and six Members of the House of 
    Representatives who are members of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A vacancy 
    in the joint committee shall not affect the power of the remaining 
    members to execute the functions of the joint committee, and shall 
    be filled in the same manner as the original selection.
        Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the joint committee to 
    investigate the methods of evasion and avoidance of income, estate, 
    and gift taxes, pointed out in the message of the President 
    transmitted to Congress on June 1, 1937, and other methods of tax 
    evasion and avoidance, and to report to the Senate and the House, 
    at the earliest practicable date, and from time to time thereafter, 
    but not later than February 1, 1938, its recommendations as to 
    remedies for the evils disclosed by such investigation.
        Sec. 3. (a) The joint committee, or any subcommittee thereof, 
    shall have power to hold hearings and to sit and act at such places 
    and times, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of 
    such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and 
    documents, to administer such oaths, to take such testimony, to 
    have such printing and binding done, and to make such expenditures, 
    as it deems advisable. Subpenas shall be issued under the signature 
    of the chairman of said joint committee, and shall be served by any 
    person designated by him. Amounts appropriated for the expenses of 
    the joint committee shall be disbursed one-half by the Secretary of 
    the Senate and one-half by the Clerk of the House. The provisions 
    of sections 101 and 102 of the Revised Statutes shall apply in case 
    of any failure of any witness to comply with any subpena, or to 
    testify when summoned, under authority of this joint resolution.
        (b)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury and any officer or 
    employee of the Treasury Department, upon request from the joint 
    committee, shall furnish such committee with any data of any 
    character contained in or shown by any return of income, estate, or 
    gift tax.
        (2) The joint committee shall have the right, acting directly 
    as a committee or by or through such examiners or agents as it may 
    designate or appoint, to inspect any or all such returns at such 
    times and in such manner as it may determine.
        (3) The joint committee shall have the right to submit any 
    relevant or useful information thus obtained to the Senate, the 
    House of Representatives, the Committee on Ways and Means, or the 
    Committee on Finance, and shall have the right to make public, in 
    such cases and to such extent as it may deem advisable, any such 
    information or any such returns. The Committee on Ways and Means or 
    the Committee on Finance may submit such information to the House 
    or to the Senate, or to both the House and the Senate, as the case 
    may be.
        Sec. 4. The joint committee shall have power to employ and fix 
    the compensation of such officers, experts, and employees as it 
    deems necessary for

[[Page 3064]]

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

    Several Members commented on the resolution while reserving the 
right to object. Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas, announced 
(14) his intention to object after stating that he did not 
believe the House had the opportunity to give the measure ``mature 
consideration.'' Accordingly, unanimous consent was denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 5245.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 7, 1937,(15) the joint resolution having been 
referred in the interim to the Committee on Rules, and reported 
therefrom together with a special rule providing for its consideration, 
the Speaker recognized Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, who raised 
the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 5369, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I make a point of order with respect to the reference of Senate 
    Joint Resolution 155, to create a Joint Congressional Committee on 
    Tax Evasion and Avoidance. This resolution was referred 
    erroneously, in my judgment, to the Rules Committee. I will read 
    section 35, rule XI: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The equivalent of this provision is set forth in Rule X clause 
        1(q), House Rules and Manual Sec. 786(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            All proposed action touching the rules, joint rules, and 
        order of business shall be referred to the Committee on Rules.

        I appreciate the fact that in making this point of order I am 
    making it to the court who made the reference, and I am making this 
    point of order under no misapprehension. . . .

        I appreciate the fact that the average investigation resolution 
    goes to the Committee on Rules, because it has been determined that 
    that was simply a change in the rules of the House providing for a 
    new committee to make an investigation; but this Senate Joint 
    Resolution 155 goes much further than any resolution of this kind 
    that has ever come to my attention. This resolution is much more 
    than an investigation; it is just full of legislation. In the first 
    place, it authorizes an appropriation. It places new duties on the 
    Secretary of the Treasury. It provides for

[[Page 3065]]

    the repeal of the law for publicity of income-tax returns under 
    certain circumstances. It allows this committee to create 
    positions, fix compensation, and so forth. It also delegates new 
    authority to the employees of the Department of the Treasury. It is 
    so full of legislation that even the chairman of the Rules 
    Committee himself,(17) under a reservation to object to 
    the immediate consideration of the resolution last week, brought up 
    the question of the legislation contained in the resolution. There 
    are at least five definite legislative proposals in this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As we all know, Rules Committee is not a legislative committee, 
    and it has never been the custom of the House to refer legislative 
    proposals to this committee. If the Chair needs any further proof 
    that this is legislation, I refer to the fact that even the 
    Parliamentarian of the House has placed this Senate Joint 
    Resolution 155 on the Union Calendar and I expect he did so because 
    it authorized an appropriation of funds out of the Treasury of the 
    United States.

    After addressing himself to the anticipated issue of tardiness in 
the making of his point of order, Mr. Snell concluded his initial 
remarks by stating:
    . . . This [S.J. Res. 155] in reality, is nothing but a legislative 
    proposal. I think it was erroneously referred to the Rules 
    Committee and that the Rules Committee had no jurisdiction whatever 
    over matters of this character.

        I ask a ruling from the Chair.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily a motion to rerefer a bill 
erroneously referred is in order under Rule XXII clause 4 on motion of 
a committee either claiming or relinquishing jurisdiction, but when a 
bill has been reported such a motion comes too late and a point of 
order against the Speaker's referral does not lie.
    The Speaker then recognized Mr. O'Connor, who indicated it was his 
understanding that the ``primary ground'' for the referral of Senate 
Joint Resolution 155 was that it ``proposed an investigation.'' He 
described the language of the joint resolution as:

        . . . practically identical with the joint resolution which 
    created the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of the Executive 
    Branches of the Government and which was likewise referred to the 
    Committee on Rules and reported out by the Rules Committee.
        This Senate Joint Resolution 155, not being a privileged 
    matter, because it contains provisions as to expenditures required 
    the reporting of a separate House resolution for its consideration. 
    While the joint resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 155, is on the 
    Union Calendar, No. 328, the other resolution from the Rules 
    Committee, House Resolution 226, for the consideration of the joint 
    resolution has been placed on the House Calendar No. 113.

    Mr. Snell and Mr. O'Connor debated the matter from their different 
perspectives: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 5369, 5370, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3066]]

        Mr. Snell: . . . Would the gentleman maintain that the Rules 
    Committee would have jurisdiction over matter such as is contained 
    in Senate Joint Resolution 155?
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Oh, no; of course it would not. It 
    would not have jurisdiction over appropriations. That is the only 
    big question that I see.
        Mr. Snell: There is authorization for appropriation, also 
    delegation of authority in the resolution and new duties for the 
    Secretary of the Treasury. It also creates new positions. There are 
    at least five definite subjects of legislation contained in the 
    joint resolution.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: As to the delegation of duties to the 
    employees of the Treasury Department, I do not believe that is any 
    different than permitting this joint committee to employ the 
    services of persons connected with those departments. Strictly 
    under the rules, of course, under subsection 35 of rule XI, nothing 
    is said about the Rules Committee having jurisdiction of 
    investigations, but as far as I remember--and I served for at least 
    8 years under the distinguished chairmanship of the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Snell]--as far back as I can remember, all of these 
    investigating resolutions went to the Rules Committee. I think that 
    is the basis of referring this resolution, that is based on 
    precedent. It is a custom, a practice, that has grown up in the 
    House.

    Mr. Snell continued to argue that the joint resolution contained 
legislative matter, contending that the language granting the joint 
committee power ``to make such expenditures as it deems advisable'' 
amounted to authorization for an appropriation from the Committee on 
Appropriations. While Mr. O'Connor did not agree, he conceded the 
language was ``not usual, I confess.''
    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, stated on the point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, there are few bills of all the thousands that are 
    introduced in the House of Representatives which do not contain 
    material that would warrant their being sent to any one of a number 
    of committees. Some of them carry provisions which come within the 
    jurisdiction of as many as six or eight committees of the House; 
    and on the other hand few bills are referred to any committee which 
    do not contain material which, if presented alone, would come 
    within the jurisdiction of some other committee or committees of 
    the House. It naturally follows that decision as to which one of a 
    number of committees having some claim of jurisdiction [to which] 
    bills are to be referred is a daily occurrence at the Speaker's 
    table. But the rule followed in such references is that the bill 
    goes to that committee having jurisdiction of the principal 
    objective for which the bill was introduced. The primary purpose of 
    the bill is to secure an investigation, and bills providing for 
    investigations in effect propose changes in the rules, and 
    therefore are referred to the Committee on Rules.

    The Speaker then made his ruling as follows: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 5370, 5371.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3067]]

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

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

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

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

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

            It has been the common practice of the occupant of the 
        chair, and I think of many of his predecessors, to

[[Page 3068]]

        invariably refer bills and joint resolutions which create a 
        joint commission, particularly composed of Members of the 
        House, to the Committee on Rules. There is no other committee 
        to which they could possibly go. It is a change in the rules, 
        insofar as it permits and provides that Members of the House 
        shall serve on the commission which it creates.

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under the provisions of Rule X in the 94th 
Congress,(20) such matters may now be referred 
simultaneously to more than one committee, sequentially, or even 
divided into two or more parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule X clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 700 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Bill to Amend Nonexisting Act

Sec. 53.12 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution making in 
    order the consideration of a bill to amend a nonexisting act 
    (another bill not yet signed into law), and a point of order with 
    respect thereto is a question for the House, and not the Chair, to 
    decide.

    On May 13, 1953,(1) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Leo E. Allen, of Illinois, Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, who called up House Resolution 233 and asked for 
its immediate consideration. The resolution provided that upon its 
adoption it would be in order to move that the House resolve itself 
into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 
5134), to amend the Submerged Lands Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 99 Cong. Rec. 4877, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the Clerk read the resolution, the following 
exchange took place:

        Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Feighan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of this rule because it attempts to make in order the 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 5134, which is a bill to amend a 
    nonexisting act.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order that 
    has been raised by the gentleman from Ohio is not one within the 
    jurisdiction of the Chair, but is a question for the House to 
    decide, whether it wants to consider such legislation.

    Although further discussion ensued regarding the necessity and 
rationale for this legislation (2) the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at pp. 4877-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3069]]

resolution was agreed to by voice vote.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 4881.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: After it passed the House, H.R. 4198, the 
initial bill providing for a Submerged Lands Act, was passed by the 
Senate with amendments. H.R. 5134, an effort to amend the as yet 
nonexistent Submerged Lands Act, was intended to counter the Senate's 
removal of title III from the provisions of H.R. 4198. Ultimately, both 
measures became part of the Submerged Lands Act.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 43 USC Sec. 1301. H.R. 4198, approved May 22, 1953, became Pub. L. 
        No. 83-31. H.R. 5134, approved Aug. 7, 1953, became Pub. L. No. 
        83-212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request to Senate

Sec. 53.13 In the House, a resolution raising a question of the 
    privileges of the House requesting the Senate to expunge debate as 
    well as certain rollcall votes of the House, and an editorial 
    critical of the House, inserted in the Record by a Senator, was, on 
    motion, referred to the Committee on Rules.

    On July 12, 1956,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, who rose to a question of 
personal privilege which he later consolidated (6) by 
unanimous consent with a question of the privilege of the House. Mr. 
Hoffman took exception to certain matter inserted in the Record by a 
Senator including the Houses' rollcall votes on H.R. 7535, the 
``Federal aid to education bill,'' and the ``Powell amendment'' 
thereto, along with the state and political affiliation of each Member 
voting, certain critical excerpts from a press editorial, and remarks 
from the floor of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 12522, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Id. at p. 12523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reading some of the offending material, Mr. Hoffman offered 
House Resolution 588, which read as follows:

        Resolved, whereas in the Congressional Record of July 9, 1956, 
    certain articles appear which reflect upon the integrity of the 
    House as a whole in its representative capacity, and upon 
    individual Members of the House; and
        Whereas such statements tend to disgrace, degrade, and render 
    ineffective the actions of the Members of the House; and
        Whereas the statements so made and carried in the Record 
    adversely affect the rights of the House collectively, its safety, 
    dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings: Now, therefore, be 
    it
        Resolved, That the House hereby by the adoption of this 
    resolution most re

[[Page 3070]]

    spectfully requests that the other body expunge from its records 
    the rollcall votes and remarks appearing on pages 11016-11017 and 
    the remarks appearing on page A5384 of the daily Congressional 
    Record of July 9, 1956, under the caption ``Ignoring the 
    Children''; and be it further
        Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the 
    Presiding Officer of the other body.

    Following some additional remarks by Mr. Hoffman, the Speaker 
recognized Mr. John W. McCormack of Massachusetts, who moved that the 
resolution be referred to the Committee on Rules. The motion was agreed 
to.

Special Rules

Sec. 53.14 A point of order against a special order reported from the 
    Committee on Rules, alleging lack of jurisdiction by the committee 
    reporting the bill made in order, will not lie, the Committee on 
    Rules having authority to report a resolution making any properly 
    or improperly referred bill a special order of business.

    On May 2, 1939,(7) Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization (now the 
Committee on the Judiciary), raised a point of order against a 
resolution (H. Res. 175), reported by the Committee on Rules providing 
that upon its adoption, the House would resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 5643), 
investing U.S. circuit courts of appeals with original and exclusive 
jurisdiction to review certain alien detention orders. The basis of Mr. 
Dickstein's point of order as Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
later phrased it (8) was that ``the Committee on the 
Judiciary, to which it was referred, had no jurisdiction or authority 
under the rules of the House to consider the bill; therefore it had no 
legal right to report the bill to the House for its consideration under 
the rules of the House.'' The substance of this argument was not 
essential to the Chair's decision, however, since the point of order 
was overruled as being untimely.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Id. at p. 5054.
 9. Id. at p. 5055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding this result, Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, sought 
to examine the ``jurisdictional defects'' issue as the following 
exchange attests:

        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, in order to protect the rights of the 
    Committee on Rules, will the Chair permit this obser

[[Page 3071]]

    vation? The gentleman from New York slept on his rights further 
    until the Committee on Rules reported a rule making the 
    consideration of this measure in order. Even though the reference 
    had been erroneous and the point of order had been otherwise made 
    in time, the Committee on Rules has the right to change the rules 
    and report a rule making the legislation in order. This point also 
    might be taken into consideration by the Speaker, if necessary.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the statement 
    made by the gentleman from Michigan, although not necessary to a 
    decision of the instant question, is sustained by a particular and 
    special decision rendered by Mr. Speaker Garner on a similar 
    question. The decision may be found in the Record of February 28, 
    1933. In that decision it is held, in effect, that despite certain 
    defects in the consideration or the reporting of a bill by a 
    standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a special rule 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion to consider 
    such bill. The Chair thinks that that decision by Mr. Speaker 
    Garner clearly sustains the contention made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        Mr. Mapes: I call attention to the point, Mr. Speaker, only for 
    the purpose of future reference. I agree fully with the ruling of 
    the Speaker.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, it does not seem that the 
special rule cured any defect since no waivers of points of order were 
stated in the rule. Failure to move rereferral under Rule XXII clause 4 
prior to the report of the Committee on the Judiciary conferred 
jurisdiction on that committee over the bill in question.

Sec. 53.15 The rules of the House give the Committee on Rules the 
    authority to report resolutions providing for special orders of 
    business; and a point of order does not lie against such a 
    resolution because its adoption would have the effect of abrogating 
    another standing rule of the House.

    On Nov. 28, 1967,(10) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, called up House Resolution 985 
and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution provided that 
upon its adoption, the House would concur in Senate amendments to a 
House bill (H.R. 2275) with a further amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 34032, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H.R. 2275 was originally a private bill providing relief for an 
individual. The Senate passed the bill with an amendment which 
basically provided that all seats in the House of Representatives shall 
be filled by election of Members from districts. House Resolution 985 
provided for the amendment of that Senate amendment

[[Page 3072]]

in order to permit those states which had always elected their 
Representatives at--large to continue to do so for one more Congress.
    In the course of discussion, Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, made 
the point of order that the proceedings were in violation of a House 
rule.(11) The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 34033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: All right, we will start with rule XX. I 
    will take it under rule XX, which provides--and I can read the 
    English language, though I cannot give you a legal interpretation--

            Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be 
        subject to the point of order that it shall first be considered 
        in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
        if, originating in the House--

        Which this one did not--
        it would be subject to that point--

        Then they give a proviso--
        That a motion to disagree with the amendments--

        And there is no motion to disagree. The motion in the 
    resolution is to agree with the amendment, not to disagree with it. 
    I think at that point someone slipped up. I said I am not a lawyer, 
    but I think I can read the English language, and I have a pretty 
    good idea of what the intention was. I think I have a pretty good 
    idea of what the intentions of the Members of the House were. I ask 
    the Members of the House to give this matter consideration. We are 
    voting now upon a principle and not upon some specific bill that 
    has never been considered, in this House and which rule XX provides 
    should be considered in the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker [John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts]: The Chair is 
    prepared to rule. The Chair has given serious consideration to the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri. The Committee 
    on Rules has reported out a special rule. It is within the 
    authority of the rules, and a reporting out by the Rules Committee 
    is consistent with the rules of the House. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Discussion proceeded, and the previous question was 
moved.(12~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at o. 34038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this juncture, Mr. Jones again raised his point of order, and 
the following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against a vote on this resolution and I make the point of order 
    based entirely on rule XX, which says that any amendment of the 
    Senate to any House bill shall be subject to a point of order that 
    it shall first be considered in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union if it originated in the House it would be 
    subject to that point of order. I believe there is no question 
    about it being subject to a point of order should it originate here 
    in this House. Until that issue is debated in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the

[[Page 3073]]

    Union I believe that we are violating rule XX of the House rules.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has previously 
    ruled on the point of order raised by the gentleman, and the matter 
    is one that is now before the House for the consideration of the 
    House, and the will of the House.
        For the reasons heretofore stated and now stated, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me under 
    what authority the House can consider this in the House rather than 
    in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, in 
    view of rule XX which says it shall first be considered in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House can change its 
    rules at any time upon a resolution that is properly before the 
    House reported by the Committee on Rules. The present resolution 
    has been put before the House by the Committee on Rules within the 
    authority of the Committee on Rules, therefore the matter presents 
    itself for the will of the House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Special rules from the Committee on Rules and their effect on the 
        order of business are treated in Ch. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 54. Committee Procedure

    The rules expressly grant privileged status to certain actions of 
the Committee on Rules. It may sit, without special leave, even while 
the House is reading a measure for amendment under the five-minute 
rule.
    While the Committee on Rules is unique among the House's standing 
committees, it is subject to most of the rules' provisions affecting 
them.
    The committee is completely exempt, however, from a number of 
provisions affecting most standing committees. Thus, the Committee on 
Rules is not obliged to provide time for, or even to include at all, in 
its reports any supplemental, minority, or additional views of its 
members.(14) Similarly, the committee is under no obligation 
under House rules ``to make public announcement of the date, place, and 
subject matter of any hearing'' it plans to conduct.(15) 
Moreover, the committee is exempt from certain rule provisions which 
pertain solely to standing committees with legislative jurisdiction. 
For example, the requirements of Rule XIII clause 7 (16) 
pertaining to the inclusion, in reports accompanying public bills, of

[[Page 3074]]

certain estimates of costs arising under said bills are specifically 
made inapplicable to the Committee on Rules. Similarly, privileged 
reports from the Committee on Rules are exempted from the provisions of 
Rule XI clause (2)(l)(6) (17) requiring that measures 
reported by committees not be considered in the House until the third 
calendar day on which the committee report on such measure has been 
available to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Rule XI clause 2(1)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979).
15. See Rule XI clause 2(g)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 708 (1979).
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 748(b) (1979).
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Rules

Sec. 54.1 The Committee on Rules having adopted rules of procedure, the 
    chairman of the committee inserted them in the Record.

    On Feb. 28, 1967,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, Chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, who then stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 4774, 4775, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, rule XI of the House provides that all committees 
    of the House of Representatives other than the Committee on 
    Appropriations shall have regular meeting days during the sessions 
    of the Congress.
        The same rule also provides that the committees of the House 
    may adopt additional rules not inconsistent with the rules of the 
    House.
        In conformity with and carrying out the provisions of rule XI, 
    the Committee on Rules today unanimously adopted the following 
    rules of procedure for the Committee on Rules:

        Rules for the Committee on Rules, Adopted Unanimously February 
                                    28, 1967

                                rule 1. meetings

            The Committee on Rules shall meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday 
        of each week while the Congress is in session. Meetings shall 
        be called to order and presided over by the Chairman or, in the 
        absence of the Chairman, by the ranking Majority Member of the 
        Committee present as acting chairman.
            Meetings and hearings of the Committee shall be open to the 
        public except when a majority of the Committee determine that 
        testimony received may bear upon matters affecting the national 
        security. Executive sessions of the Committee shall be closed.
            For the purpose of hearing testimony, a majority of the 
        Committee shall constitute a quorum.
            A printed transcript of any hearing or public meeting of 
        the Committee may be had if the Chairman decides it is 
        necessary, or if a majority of the Members request it.
            A Tuesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with 
        where, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need 
        therefor, and additional meetings may be called by the Chairman 
        or by written request of a majority of the Committee duly filed 
        with the counsel of the Committee.

                                 rule 2. voting

            No measure or recommendation shall be reported or tabled by 
        the Committee unless a majority of the Committee is actually 
        present.

[[Page 3075]]

            A roll call vote of the Members of the Committee may be had 
        upon the request of any Member.

                               rule 3. reporting

            Whenever the Committee authorizes the favorable reporting 
        of a bill or resolution from the Committee, the Chairman or 
        acting Chairman shall report the same or designate some Member 
        of the Committee to report the same to the House, as provided 
        in the Rules of the House.

                           rule 4. committee staffing

            The professional and clerical staffs of the Committee shall 
        be under the general supervision and direction of the Chairman, 
        who shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities 
        of the members of the staffs and delegate such authority as the 
        Chairman deems appropriate, with the exception of the Minority 
        staff, who shall be selected by and under the general 
        supervision and direction of the Ranking Minority Member of the 
        Committee.

                             rule 6. miscellaneous

            The Committee shall prepare, maintain, and publish for the 
        Members of the Committee, so far as practicable, a calendar 
        listing all matters formally before it. Information on the 
        Calendar shall include the numbers of the bills or resolutions, 
        a brief description of a bill's contents, including the 
        legislative committee reporting it and the name of the 
        principal sponsoring Member. For purposes of this rule, matters 
        formally before the Committee include: bills or resolutions 
        over which the Committee has original jurisdiction, and bills 
        or resolutions from other committees concerning which the 
        chairman or designated member of such committee has requested a 
        hearing in writing and forwarded to the Committee on Rules a 
        copy of such bill or resolution as reported, together with the 
        final printed committee report.
            Upon adoption of the rules and procedures of the Committee 
        at the opening of each Congress, the Chairman may have these 
        rules and procedures printed in an early issue of The 
        Congressional Record.

Calling Meetings

Sec. 54.2 The Chairman of the Committee on Rules is under no obligation 
    to call a meeting thereof, but where he declines to call a meeting, 
    a majority of the committee members may do so pursuant to those 
    rules applicable to all standing committees.

    On May 27, 1946,(19) the House received a message from 
the Senate to the effect that that body had passed an amended version 
of the so-called Case bill (H.R. 4908), which was entitled, ``An act to 
provide additional facilities for the mediation of labor disputes, and 
for other purposes.'' The message also requested House concurrence in 
the Senate's amended version of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 92 Cong. Rec. 5848, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later in the day, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. 
Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, a member of the Committee on Rules, who 
asked the following question: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 5863.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3076]]

        Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules all day long has been 
    seeking to get a meeting of that committee. This morning I made the 
    unanimous-consent request that the Committee on Rules be given 
    until tomorrow night to file its report on the so-called Case bill. 
    Objection was made by the gentleman from New York to that request. 
    So that the situation now is that unless the committee meets this 
    afternoon it will not be possible to carry out the previously 
    agreed upon schedule of the House to take up the Case bill on 
    Wednesday morning. My parliamentary inquiry is whether when the 
    chairman of the Committee on Rules absents himself from the floor 
    of the House and from the office of the committee and declines to 
    call a meeting of the committee to transact important business for 
    the country it is within the province of a majority of the members 
    of the committee to themselves call a meeting and report whatever 
    legislation they desire to the floor of the House.

    The Speaker responded by stating:

        The Chair will read clause 48 of rule XI: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. This provision has changed very little in substance since 1946. The 
        1979 rules [Rule XI clause 2(c)(2), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 705 (1979)], require that the committee chairman be 
        notified of the filing of a request for the meeting and that he 
        be provided with three calendar days within which to call it 
        himself, before the committee majority may file its notice 
        mandating such a meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A standing committee of the House shall meet to consider 
        any bill or resolution pending before it: (1) on all regular 
        meeting days selected by the committee; (2) upon the call of 
        the chairman of the committee; (3) if the chairman of the 
        committee, after 3 days' consideration, refuses or fails, upon 
        the request of at least three members of the committee, to call 
        a special meeting of the committee within 7 calendar days from 
        the date of said request, then, upon the filing with the clerk 
        of the committee of the written and signed request of a 
        majority of the committee for a called special meeting of the 
        committee, the committee shall meet on the day and hour 
        specified in said written request. It shall be the duty of the 
        clerk of the committee to notify all members of the committee 
        in the usual way of such called special meeting.

        That is the answer of the Chair to the parliamentary inquiry of 
    the gentleman from Virginia.

    Mr. Smith then elaborated on his initial inquiry, prompting the 
following exchange: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 5863, 5864, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, may I submit a further 
    inquiry?
        Under those circumstances, is it possible for the chairman of 
    the committee of his own volition to prevent the House from taking 
    action on legislation vital to the Nation until the time set forth 
    in the rule has elapsed?
        The Speaker: Under the rules of the House, the chairman of a 
    committee does not have to call a meeting of the committee. The 
    answer to the question as to how the committee can get together if 
    the chairman does not desire

[[Page 3077]]

    to call the committee together or refuses to call them together is 
    contained in the rule just read.

Sec. 54.3 Any Member may request that the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules call a meeting of that committee to consider reporting a 
    resolution making in order the disposition of a House bill with 
    Senate amendments thereto.

    On Aug. 13, 1957,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, who requested unanimous 
consent to take a civil rights bill (H.R. 6127), from the Speaker's 
desk, with Senate amendments thereto, and to disagree to the amendments 
of the Senate and ask for a conference. This request being objected to, 
Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, asked unanimous consent that the House 
concur in the Senate amendments--a request to which Mr. Keating 
objected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 103 Cong. Rec. 14568, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Keating: Would the Speaker recognize me to move to send the 
    bill to the Rules Committee?
        The Speaker: The Chair would not. It is not necessary to do 
    that.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keating: Would the Speaker advise what action is necessary 
    now in order to get the bill to the Committee on Rules?
        The Speaker: Anyone can make the request of the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules to call a meeting of the committee to consider 
    the whole matter.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, if that were done, would the bill 
    which is now on the Speaker's desk be before the Rules Committee?
        The Speaker: It would not be before the Committee on Rules. The 
    Committee on Rules could consider the matter of what procedure to 
    recommend to the House for the disposition of this whole matter.

Absence of a Quorum

Sec. 54.4 The Chairman of the Committee on Rules has withdrawn a report 
    presented from the floor where a question arose as to whether a 
    quorum of the committee was present at the time the resolution was 
    ordered reported.

    On Feb. 2, 1951,(4) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath of Illinois, a 
member of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 97 Cong. Rec. 876, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3078]]

the Committee on Rules, sought to file a privileged report (H. Res. 
95), authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct studies and 
investigations relating to matters within its jurisdiction.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, made the point 
of order that the resolution was not properly reported by the committee 
whereupon the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I think an inquiry by the Chair will 
    determine there was not a quorum present, and that the resolution 
    was not before the committee at that time.
        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: That is right. That is a 
    correct statement.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I must protest, Mr. Speaker, and I must make 
    the point of order inasmuch as I regret to do so.
        Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, even if a quorum was not present, no 
    point of order has been made. But a quorum was present, and I can 
    give you the names of the seven Members who were present. They were 
    Mr. Cox, Mr. Colmer, Mr. Madden, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. 
    Latham, and myself. Seven of twelve makes a quorum. But I withheld 
    it because the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] objected due to some 
    misunderstanding with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler]. 
    Since that time I have learned that the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Celler] has agreed with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] on 
    the assignment of committees and because the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Celler] assured me that an agreement has been reached 
    with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] as to the number of 
    subcommittees, I present it today. A quorum was present. The 
    committee had jurisdiction.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield there, the 
    gentleman will recall that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] 
    and the gentleman from Texas were not present. There was not a 
    single Republican present.
        Mr. Sabath: There was a Republican present.
        Mr. Cox: Not a single Republican was present. This was not on 
    the agenda but it was called up after the Republicans left, and 
    there was not the majority present.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Sabath withdrew the report.

Presumption of Procedural Regularity

Sec. 54.5 A point of order against a special rule, presumably reported 
    at a properly convened meeting of the Committee on Rules, will not 
    lie on the ground that the measure made in order by the special 
    rule was not properly reported by a standing committee and was the 
    subject of misrepresentations before the Committee on Rules.

    On July 23, 1942,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recog

[[Page 3079]]

nized Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who called up House Resolution 528. The resolution provided for 
a special rule, the adoption of which would enable the House to resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider a bill (H.R. 7416), 
providing a means to vote for wartime servicemen absent from their 
states of residence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 6542, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the Clerk's reading, the following exchange took 
place:

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the rule.
        I make the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that this rule was 
    obtained by fraud; that it was represented to the Rules Committee 
    that the Committee on Election of [the] President, Vice President, 
    and Representatives in Congress [now, the Committee on House 
    Administration] had held a meeting and reported this bill. No such 
    meeting was ever held. The chairman of the committee was in New 
    York, sick, and a majority of the rest of the members was not even 
    notified that any such meeting was contemplated. Fraud vitiates 
    everything, and I cannot believe that the Rules Committee would 
    report this rule out knowing that they were being defrauded. If 
    they did not know it, the fraud vitiates the rule. That is a well-
    known legal maxim that every lawyer is familiar with. So I make the 
    point of order, Mr. Speaker, that this proposition is not legally 
    before the House because it was never legally reported. The members 
    of the Rules Committee were misled into believing it had been 
    reported and therefore were defrauded into reporting this rule, 
    which vitiates the whole proceeding.
        The Speaker: The only thing that interests the Chair is whether 
    or not the Committee on Rules had a formal meeting and reported 
    this resolution. The Chair has no right, as the Chair thinks, in 
    the absence of some evidence to the contrary, to assume that the 
    Committee on Rules had anything but a formal session and reported 
    this special rule. Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order 
    of the gentleman from Mississippi.

Three-day Rule for Filing Reports

Sec. 54.6 The Committee on Rules must present to the House reports 
    concerning rules, joint rules, and orders of business within three 
    legislative days of the time when ordered reported by the 
    committee.

    On Jan. 25, 1944,(6) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, who initiated the 
following exchange in the course of asking a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 675, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on day before yesterday the Committee on Rules 
    voted, I understand unanimously, to report to the

[[Page 3080]]

    House a rule on the soldiers' vote bill, S. 1285. This rule has not 
    been reported to the House.
        My parliamentary inquiry is whether if the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules declines further, or delays further, to report 
    this rule to the House so we may proceed with this legislation, 
    some other member of the Committee on Rules may do so without a 
    resolution.

        I may say to the Chair that it is my definite understanding 
    that unless the chairman of the Committee on Rules does report it, 
    a motion will be in order under the privilege of the House to 
    require the resolution to be brought to the floor of the House, but 
    what I am trying to find out is whether or not some other member of 
    the committee would have the right to report this rule and let us 
    proceed with the legislation.
        The Speaker: The rule provides that the Committee on Rules 
    shall present to the House reports concerning joint resolutions and 
    other business within 3 legislative days of the time when ordered 
    reported by the committee.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Rule XI clause 4(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair does not feel it necessary at this time to answer the 
    parliamentary inquiry further because the Chair believes that 
    action will provide the answer.



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 55. Reports From the Committee

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

[[Page 3081]]

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

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

Privileged Status of Reports

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

[[Page 3082]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                H. Res. 472

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

[[Page 3083]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3084]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3085]]

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

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

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

[[Page 3086]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3087]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3088]]

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

Discharging Resolution From the Committee by Petition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3089]]

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

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

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

    The Chair replied, as follows:

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

Ramseyer Rule and Reports of the Rules Committee

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

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

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

[[Page 3090]]

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

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

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

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

    The Speaker ruled as follows:

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

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

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

    Following a point of order pertaining to the privileged status of

[[Page 3091]]

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

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

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

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

Typographical Error in Report

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

[[Page 3092]]

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

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

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

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

Supplemental Reports by Legislative Committees

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

[[Page 3093]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3094]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3095]]

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

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

Multiple Reports

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3096]]

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

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

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

Calling Up Report Providing for Special Order

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3097]]

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

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

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

Discharging Measure Not Yet Reported by Committee to Which Referred

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

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

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

[[Page 3098]]

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

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

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

[[Page 3099]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3100]]



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 56. Same-day Consideration of Reported Resolution

Rule as to Same-day Consideration

Sec. 56.1 A vote of not less than two-thirds of the Members voting is 
    required for the consideration of a resolution on the same day that 
    it is reported by the Committee on Rules [except during the last 
    three days of a session].

    On Aug. 16, 1962,(12) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, who, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, was about to report a privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 763, H. Rept. No. 87-2242), and then to ask for its 
immediate consideration when the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 16759, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that the 
    gentleman from California is moving for the consideration of the 
    rule, and if this is approved by a two-thirds vote, then we wil1 
    consider the rule. . . .
        The Speaker: The resolution has not been reported as yet, and 
    the gentleman from California has not yet made a motion; but, 
    assuming the gentleman from California offers a motion for the 
    present consideration of the resolution, the question of 
    consideration would be submitted to the membership without debate 
    and a two-thirds vote would be necessary to consider the 
    resolution.(13) If the question of consideration was 
    decided in the affirmative the resolution would then be considered 
    under the regular rules of the House, providing 1 hour of debate, 
    one-half of the time to be assigned to the member of the Rules 
    Committee on the minority side in charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The rules provide that the calling up for consideration of a report 
        from the Committee on Rules on the same day presented is not in 
        order ``unless so determined by a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting''; this provision, however, does 
        not apply during the last three days of the session. See Rule 
        XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979), and 
        Sec. 56.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Sisk called up House Resolution 763, which 
was read by the Clerk, and the Speaker put the question on its 
consideration. The question was taken; and two-thirds having voted in 
favor thereof, the House considered the resolution.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For similar examples, see 97 Cong. Rec. 10479, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Aug. 21, 1951 [H. Res. 397]; 95 Cong. Rec. 12287, 81st Cong. 
        1st Sess., Aug. 25, 1949 [H. Res. 346, H. Res. 319]; and 92 
        Cong. Rec. 5746, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., May 25, 1946 [H. Res. 
        640].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3101]]

Consideration During Last Three Days of a Session

Sec. 56.2 The requirement that a report from the Committee on Rules may 
    not be called up for consideration on the same day it is reported 
    without an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members voting 
    does not apply during the last three days of a session.

    On Thursday, Dec. 31, 1970,(15) Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, Chairman of the Committee on Rules, who, by direction of 
that committee, reported a privileged resolution (H. Res. 1337, H. 
Rept. No. 91-1804), prescribing a rule for the consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 1421, making further continuing appropriations for the 
fiscal year 1971. Mr. Colmer then called up House Resolution 1337 and 
asked for its immediate consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 44292, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this juncture Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, initiated the 
following exchange with the Speaker: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 44292, 44293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this is a rule that 
    was reported by the Committee on Rules today.
        In view of rule XI, section 22,(17) will approval of 
    this rule require a two-thirds vote, in view of the fact that the 
    rule provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        The parliamentary inquiry I address to the Chair is: Are we 
    within the last 3 days of the session or without them and is this 
    rule subject to approval by a majority vote or a two-thirds vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair is holding that we are within the last 3 
    days of the session and that consideration of this resolution is 
    not subject to the two-thirds vote requirement.
        Mr. Yates: Rather than a two-thirds vote?
        The Speaker: In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, a two-thirds 
    vote is not required to consider the resolution during the last 3 
    days of a session of Congress.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The last three days of a session are 
determined either by adoption by both Houses of a sine die adjourn

[[Page 3102]]

ment concurrent resolution or by remaining in session until within 
three days of the constitutional termination at noon on Jan. 3. In this 
instance, House Concurrent Resolution 799 providing for a sine die 
adjournment on Jan. 2, 1971, was adopted by the House on Dec. 31, 1970, 
but was not agreed to in the Senate until Jan. 2.

Determining the Last Three Days of a Session

Sec. 56.3 Where a session of Congress is required by the 20th amendment 
    to the Constitution to end at noon on Sunday, Jan. 3, that Sunday 
    is considered a ``non dies'' under the rules in computing the final 
    three calendar days within which the Committee on Rules may call up 
    a resolution on the same day it is reported.

    On Thursday, Dec. 31, 1970,(18) William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up and asked 
for the immediate consideration of a rule (H. Res. 1337), providing for 
the consideration of a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1421), making 
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1971. Since the 
Committee on Rules had just reported House Resolution 1337 moments 
earlier, Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, inquired of Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, whether or not a two-thirds vote would be 
required to consider the resolution.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 44292, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
19. See Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979); 
        see also Sec. Sec. 56.1, 56.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker replied as follows: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 44293, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, a two-thirds vote is not 
    required to consider the resolution during the last 3 days of a 
    session of Congress.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Under the provisions of the 20th amendment, ``the terms of Senators 
        and Representatives [shall end] at noon on the 3d day of 
        January,'' [U.S. Const. amend. 20, Sec. 1].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair's response elicited a further inquiry from Mr. Yates:

        Will the Chair enlighten me by defining the 3-day period? Are 
    they 3 legislative days or 3 calendar days?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Illinois in response to his parliamentary inquiry that there are 
    only 3 days remaining; which would be Thursday, Friday, and 
    Saturday
        Mr. Yates: Well, it is not within the 3 days end under that 
    definition, is it, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that Sundays 
    are not

[[Page 3103]]

    counted within the purview of the rule. Former Speaker Longworth 
    held that Sunday was ``non dies'' (2) in a ruling in 
    1929--see also Cannon's Precedents, vol. VII, 994 and 995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. ``Non dies,'' literally nonday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker considered both of the 
precedents cited, as well as several other critical factors in arriving 
at his decision. The first precedent [7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 994] 
states that ``In counting the three days required by the Consent 
Calendar rule,(3) holidays or days on which the House is not 
in session are not construed as legislative days and are not 
included.'' The second precedent [7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 995] 
declares that ``In counting the three days required under the consent 
rule, Sunday is not included.'' Also, Sundays are not counted in 
determining a constitutional adjournment ``for not more than three 
days'' (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.  6673). Thus, these ``legislative 
days'' precedents were persuasive on this ``calendar day'' issue 
insofar as they accorded a ``non dies'' status to Sundays. Moreover, 
the House met daily at noon, pursuant to a standing order; the 91st 
Congress could not then meet on Sunday, Jan. 3, 1971, unless it changed 
this standing order. Finally, at the time Mr. Yates made his 
parliamentary inquiry on Thursday, Dec. 31, there were less than 72 
hours remaining in the 91st Congress even if it did meet on the morning 
of Sunday, Jan. 3, and chose to remain in session up to the 
constitutional limit (4) of noon on that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1979). 
        This rule, it should be noted, expressly refers to 
        ``legislative days.''
 4. U.S. Const. amend. 20, Sec. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver of Two-thirds Vote Requirement by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 56.4 The House has agreed by unanimous consent that it would be in 
    order on the following day to consider a report from the Committee 
    on Rules without the rules-prescribed requirement of a two-thirds 
    vote.

    On Jan. 24, 1955,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 625, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on 
    tomorrow to consider a report from the Committee on Rules as 
    provided in clause 21, rule XI,(6) except that the 
    provision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Rule XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973), 
        which provides, in part, that ``It shall always be in order to 
        call up for consideration a report from the Committee on Rules 
        (except it shall not be called up for consideration on the same 
        day it is presented to the House, unless so determined by a 
        vote of not less than two-thirds of the Members voting.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3104]]

    requiring a two-thirds vote to consider said reports is hereby 
    waived.

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous consent.

Sec. 56.5 The House has agreed by unanimous consent that during the 
    remainder of a session it would be in order to consider reports 
    from the Committee on Rules without a two-thirds vote.

    On July 30, 1955,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, who made the 
following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 101 Cong. Rec. 12362, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the remainder 
    of this session it shall be in order to consider at any time 
    reports from the Committee on Rules as provided in clause 21, rule 
    XI,(8) except that the provision requiring a two-thirds 
    vote to consider such reports shall be waived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Rule XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973), and 
        Sec. 56.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the House granted unanimous 
consent.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For a similar instance in a later Congress, see 104 Cong. Rec. 
        19174, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 22, 1958, where the House 
        granted unanimous consent that reports from the Committee on 
        Rules could be considered at any time ``during the remainder of 
        the week.'' Where unanimous consent has not been obtainable, 
        the House has, on occasion, waived the two-thirds vote 
        requirement by adoption of a special rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 57. Consideration and Adoption by House of Resolutions Reported 
    From the Committee

Hour Rule for Debate on Resolutions and on Amendments

Sec. 57.1 Debate on resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules 
    providing for investigations is under the hour rule and no 
    amendments are in order [unless the Member in charge yields for 
    that purpose or the House votes down the previous question when 
    moved at the expiration of the hour].

[[Page 3105]]

    On Apr. 8, 1937,(10) Mr. Arthur H. Greenwood, of 
Indiana, a member of the Committee on Rules, called up for immediate 
consideration a resolution that would have authorized the Speaker to 
appoint a special committee to investigate subversive activities of 
groups or individuals operating within the United States. Mr. Carl E. 
Mapes, of Michigan, immediately propounded the following parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 3283, 3290, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, this resolution and the one to follow it, the Dies 
    resolution, provide for the appointment of investigating 
    committees. Each resolution is somewhat extensive and contains 
    separate paragraphs and sections that relate to different subject 
    matters. My inquiry is, Will there be opportunity to read the 
    resolutions section by section and to offer amendments to them?
        The Speaker: (11) The resolution is being considered 
    in the House under the rules and precedents, and it will be 
    considered in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mapes: To construe the Speaker's ruling----
        The Speaker: If the previous question is ordered, of course, 
    there will be no opportunity to offer amendments to the resolution.
        Mr. Mapes: There will be no opportunity for amendments?
        The Speaker: Not if the previous question is agreed to.
        The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Greenwood] is recognized.

    Following an hour of debate on the merits of the resolution, Mr. 
Greenwood then moved the previous question, which was defeated. In 
response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker pro tempore Fred M. 
Vinson, of Kentucky, had stated that this left the resolution open to 
amendment, but the House immediately agreed to a motion to lay the 
resolution on the table. A motion to reconsider the vote to table the 
resolution was also laid on the table.
    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. Greenwood: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Malley: If the motion for the previous question is 
    defeated, the resolution will then be open for amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is well informed.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: If we vote down the motion for the previous 
    question, then, the Speaker states, the resolution will be open for 
    amendment. Will we then be under the 5-minute rule? Will the rest 
    of us who are opposed to the reso

[[Page 3106]]

    lution be enabled to speak on it or offer amendments?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Being in the House, its consideration 
    will be under the 1-hour rule.
        Mr. Rankin: Then every Member who rose to speak would be 
    recognized for 1 hour? I am for that.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Any Member recognized by the Chair 
    would be entitled to recognition for 1 hour.
        The gentleman from Indiana moves the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    the noes seemed to have it.
        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to lay the resolution upon the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is upon the preferential 
    motion of the gentleman from North Carolina to lay the resolution 
    on the table.
        The question was taken; and there were on a division (demanded 
    by Mr. Greenwood)--ayes 184, nays 38.
        So the motion to lay the resolution on the table was agreed to.
        On motion of Mr. Warren, a motion to reconsider the vote by 
    which the resolution was tabled was laid on the table.

Offering Amendment by Direction of Committee

Sec. 57.2 By direction of the Committee on Rules, the Member who called 
    up the resolution offered an amendment.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(12) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, a Member called up a resolution creating a select committee and 
promptly offered an amendment to the resolution, also by direction of 
the Committee on Rules. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713, 27714, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1013) 
    creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, and ask for 
    its present consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution. . . .
        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the able 
    gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for the purpose of debate, 
    and to myself such time as I shall consume.
        Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Rules, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Pepper: Page 2, line 24, strike 
        out the semicolon and insert a period.
            Page 2, line 24, after the word ``occurred'', insert ``any 
        allegation referred to in paragraph (1) shall be made under 
        oath and shall specifically state the facts on the basis of 
        which it is made.''
            Page 2, line 25, capitalize the first word ``The''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Without objection, the 
    committee amendment is agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Technical amendments to resolutions 
reported from the Committee on Rules are normally offered and disposed 
of immediately before debate proceeds under the hour rule.

[[Page 3107]]

Germaneness of Amendments

Sec. 57.3 A resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
    consideration of a measure relating to a certain subject may not be 
    amended by a proposition providing for consideration of another 
    nongermane subject.

    On Sept. 14, 1950,(14) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, who called up House 
Resolution 842 from the Committee on Rules as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 14832, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 842 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill (H.R. 8920) to reduce excise taxes, and for 
        other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the 
        same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate 
        amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to; that the 
        conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of 
        the two Houses on the said bill be, and hereby is, agreed to; 
        and that the Speaker shall immediately appoint conferees 
        without intervening motion.

    Following debate, Mr. Sabath moved the previous question on the 
resolution, which was rejected by a yea and nay vote. Thereupon, Mr. 
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 14842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Eberharter: Strike out all after the 
    word ``Resolved'' and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        ``That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
    bill H.R. 8920 with Senate amendments thereto be, and the same is 
    hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end--
        ``(1) That all Senate amendments other than amendment No. 191 
    be, and the same are hereby, disagreed to and the conference 
    requested thereon by the Senate is agreed to; and
        ``(2) That Senate amendment No. 191 be, and the same is hereby, 
    agreed to with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
    proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert the following:

                     `` `title vii--excess-profits tax

     `` `Sec. 701. Excess-profits tax applied to taxable years ending 
                            after June 30, 1950

        `` `Notwithstanding section 122(a) of the Revenue Act of 1945, 
    the provisions of subchapter E of chapter 2 of the Internal Revenue 
    Code shall apply to taxable years ending after June 30, 1950.

    `` `Sec. 701. Computation of tax in case of taxable year beginning 
            before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950

        `` `Section 710(a) (relating to imposition of excess-profits 
    tax) is hereby

[[Page 3108]]

    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
        `` ` ``(8) Taxable years beginning before July 1, 1950, and 
    ending after June 30, 1950: In the case of a taxable year beginning 
    before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950, the tax shall 
    be an amount equal to that portion of a tentative tax, computed 
    without regard to this paragraph, which the number of days in such 
    taxable year after June 30, 1950, bears to the total number of days 
    in such taxable year.''

             `` `Sec. 703. Specific exemption reduced to 5,000

        `` `Paragraph (1) of section (b) (relating to definition of 
    adjusted excess profits net income) is hereby amended by striking 
    out ``$10,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$5,000.''

                  ``Sec. 704. Unused excess-profits credit

        `` `(a) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: Section 
    710(c)(2) (relating to definition of unused excess-profits credit) 
    is hereby amended to read as follows:
        `` ` ``(2) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: The term 
    `unused excess-profits credit' means the excess, if any, of the 
    excess-profits credit for any taxable year ending after June 30, 
    1950, over the excess-profits net income for such taxable year, 
    computed on the basis of the excess-profits credit applicable to 
    such taxable year. The unused excess-profits credit for a taxable 
    year of less than 12 months shall be an amount which is such part 
    of the unused excess-profits credit determined under the preceding 
    sentence as the number of days in the taxable year is of the number 
    of days in the 12 months ending with the close of the taxable year. 
    The unused excess-profits credit for a taxable year beginning 
    before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950, shall be an 
    amount which is such part of the unused excess-profits credit 
    determined under the preceding provisions of this paragraph as the 
    number of days in such taxable year after June 30, 1950, is of the 
    total number of days in such taxable year.''
        `` `(b) Computation of carry-over: Section 710(c)(4) is hereby 
    amended to read as follows: . . .' ''

    Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, made a point of order against the 
amendment and the following transpired: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 14843, 14844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that the amendment is neither germane to 
    the resolution sought to be amended, nor to the Senate amendment 
    No. 191. The language of the Senate amendment would direct the 
    Committee on Ways and Means of the House and the Finance Committee 
    of the Senate to conduct a study of excess-profits-tax legislation 
    during the Eighty-second Congress, ostensibly to report back to the 
    House and Senate for passage with a retroactive date of July 1, 
    1950, or October 1, 1950.
        The provision of the bill does not in any way attempt to 
    legislate an excess-profit tax in connection with H.R. 8920. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania proposes an 
    excess-profits tax in connection with

[[Page 3109]]

    H.R. 8920. The amendment is a specific provision for an excess-
    profits tax. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not in 
    order, that it is not germane either to the resolution before the 
    House or to the section of the bill on which the instructions are 
    sought to be given. . . .

        Mr. Eberharter: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, this amendment 
    seeks to amend the resolution reported out by the Committee on 
    Rules. This resolution waives points of order with respect to other 
    rules of the House. Under the rules of the House when a bill comes 
    from the other body with amendments containing matter which would 
    have been subject to a point of order in the House then the 
    amendments must be considered in the Committee of the Whole. The 
    resolution reported out by the Committee on Rules seeks to waive 
    that rule.
        If a resolution reported out by the Committee on Rules can 
    waive one rule of the House, why cannot the House by the adoption 
    of a substitute resolution, which this is, waive other rules? I 
    contend, Mr. Speaker, that this substitute for the resolution 
    reported out by the Committee on Rules is just as germane and just 
    as much in order as the actual resolution reported out by the 
    Committee on Rules; they are similar.
        Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is to waive a rule requiring that matter subject 
    to a point of order in the first place in the House if put in the 
    Senate shall be considered in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union. The resolution of the Committee on Rules 
    waives that. It is our contention, Mr. Speaker, that this being so 
    the House has a right by its vote on this substitute resolution to 
    waive the rule pertaining to germaneness, which my substitute 
    amendment attempts to do. It refers to a specific amendment, 
    amendment No. 191. I call the Speaker's attention to the fact that 
    on page 252 of the bill the last heading is ``Excess-profits tax.''
        Mr. Speaker, there is an excess-profits tax Senate amendment in 
    the bill.
        All I seek to do is to amend the provision calling for 
    different language in respect to excess-profits taxation. I 
    believe, Mr. Speaker, that if the point of order is sustained that 
    in the future the Committee on Rules will be so bound by this 
    precedent that its authority will be very, very much restricted. It 
    seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that for years the Committee on Rules has 
    been reporting out resolutions waiving points of order. When you 
    come down to the last analysis this is the same thing. If the 
    Committee on Rules can waive a point to order, a substitute 
    amendment can waive a point of order. That is all I seek to do. I 
    say in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, if a point of order is sustained, 
    the authority of the Committee on Rules is going to be very, very 
    much restricted in the future.
        I hope the point of order will be overruled and that the 
    membership of the House will be permitted to express their decision 
    on the question of the imposition of an excess-profits tax 
    effective July 1, 1950.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair agrees with a great deal that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania

[[Page 3110]]

    and the gentleman from Colorado say about history, but that is not 
    the question before the Chair to decide at this time.
        It is a rule long established that a resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill 
    relating to a certain subject may not be amended by a proposition 
    providing for the consideration of another and not germane subject 
    or matter.
        It is true that in Senate amendment No. 191 to the bill, which 
    came from the Senate, there is a caption ``Title VII,'' which 
    states ``Excess Profits Tax.'' But in the amendment which the 
    Senate adopted to the House bill there is no excess-profits tax.
        The Chair is compelled to hold under a long line of rulings 
    that this matter, not being germane if offered to the Senate 
    amendment it is not germane here. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Majority Vote Required for Adoption

Sec. 57.4 Only a majority vote is required for the adoption of a 
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules whether or not such 
    vote is taken on the same day the resolution is reported.

    On Aug. 16, 1962,(17) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, who by 
direction of the Committee on Rules was about to offer a privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 763), and to ask for its immediate consideration 
when the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 16759, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that the 
    gentleman from California is moving for the consideration of the 
    rule,(18) and if this is approved by a two-thirds vote, 
    then we will consider the rule, which also has to be approved by a 
    two-thirds vote. Also is the rule granted by the Committee on Rules 
    in reference to H.R. 12333 a closed rule with a motion to recommit 
    with instructions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Reference to ``the rule,'' in this context, actually denotes the 
        resolution since its purpose was to prescribe the framework 
        within which the House would consider a bill (H.R. 12333), to 
        amend title 38, United States Code, to permit the granting of 
        national service life insurance to certain veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The resolution has not been reported as yet, and 
    the gentleman from California has not yet made a motion; but, 
    assuming the gentleman from California offers a motion for the 
    present consideration of the resolution, the question of 
    consideration would be submitted to the membership without debate 
    and a two-thirds vote would be necessary to consider the 
    resolution. If the question of consideration was decided in the af

[[Page 3111]]

    firmative the resolution would then be considered under the regular 
    rules of the House, providing 1 hour of debate, one-half of the 
    time to be assigned to the member of the Rules Committee on the 
    minority side in charge. At the termination of the hour, there 
    would be a majority vote on the adoption of the 
    rule.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. For a similar instance, see 92 Cong. Rec. 5924, 79th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., May 29, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.5 The Speaker indicated that a majority vote and not a two-
    thirds vote would be required for the adoption of a resolution 
    reported by the Committee on Rules providing a special order of 
    business, despite provisions in that resolution which were 
    inconsistent with the standing rules and procedure of the House.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(20) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, who, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 661 and asked for its 
immediate consideration. The measure provided that upon its adoption, 
it would be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 7248), to 
amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts 
dealing with higher education. Among the provisions of the resolution 
was the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 37765, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education 
    and Labor now printed in the bill as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, said substitute 
    shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections . . . 
    and further, all titles, parts, or sections of the said substitute, 
    the subject matter of which is properly within the jurisdiction of 
    any other standing committee of the House of Representatives, shall 
    be subject to a point of order for such reason if such point of 
    order is properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 7248.

    As discussion on the resolution proceeded, Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, 
of Hawaii, addressed the following question to Mr. Bolling: 
(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at p. 37767.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When a bill containing matters belonging properly to the 
    jurisdiction of two committees is referred to one of the two 
    committees, and that committee does act upon the bill and reports 
    such bill out on to the floor of the House, the House rules as they 
    now exist provides that jurisdiction was properly exercised over 
    all matter in the bill by the committee to which the bill was 
    referred.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1973), 
        where the commentary provides, in part, that ``According to the 
        later practice the erroneous reference of a public bill, if it 
        remains uncorrected, in effect gives jurisdiction to the 
        committee receiving it (4 [Hinds' Precedents] Sec. Sec. 4365-
        4371; 7 [Cannon's Precedents] Sec. Sec. 1489, 2108-2113; 8 
        [Cannon's Precedents] Sec. 2312). And it is too late to move a 
        change of reference after such committee has reported the bill 
        (7 [Cannon's Precedents] Sec. 2110; 8 [Cannon's Precedents] 
        Sec. 2312).''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3112]]

        Now, my question is: Because the rule, now being proposed by 
    House Resolution 661, in effect contravenes that House rule and in 
    effect is an amendment to the House rules, would it not take a two-
    thirds majority for the passage of the resolution,(2) in 
    order that the section pertaining to jurisdiction might be legally 
    effective?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XXVII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1973) 
        which provides, in part, that ``No rule shall be suspended 
        except by a vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum 
        being present.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Bolling yielded, at Mr. Matsunaga's request, for the following 
parliamentary inquiry:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 37768, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Speaker, at this point is it proper for the 
    Speaker to determine whether a two-thirds veto would be required 
    for the passage of this resolution, House Resolution 661, or merely 
    a majority?
        The Speaker: The resolution from the Committee on Rules makes 
    in order the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7248) and a majority 
    vote is required for that purpose.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Even with the reference to the last section, Mr. 
    Speaker, relating to the raising of a point of order on a bill 
    which is properly reported out by a committee to which the bill was 
    referred, which would in effect contravene an existing rule of the 
    House?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules proposes to make in order 
    in its resolution (H. Res. 661) the opportunity to raise points of 
    order against the bill on committee jurisdictional grounds, but as 
    is the case with any resolution reported by the Committee on Rules 
    making a bill a special order of business, only a majority vote is 
    required.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. It should be noted, however, that a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting (a quorum being present), is 
        required for the consideration of a resolution on the same day 
        that it is reported by the Committee on Rules (except during 
        the last three days of a session). See Sec. Sec. 56.1, 56.2, 
        supra, and Rule XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Recommit

Sec. 57.6 A motion to recommit a resolution reported by the Committee 
    on Rules is not in order after the previous question has been 
    ordered.

    On Feb. 2, 1955,(5) Speaker pro tempore Robert C. Byrd, 
of West
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 1076, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3113]]

Virginia, recognized Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, who, acting by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up a resolution (H. Res. 
63), and asked for its immediate consideration. House Resolution 63 
authorized the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to conduct an 
investigation into various programs benefiting veterans, their 
survivors and dependents. The proposed committee amendment to the 
resolution contained language intended to prevent any duplication of 
investigatory work undertaken by other House committees.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p.1077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the measure's consideration, time allocated to Mr. 
Madden was yielded to Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts,(7) who sought an amendment striking out the 
language relating to investigatory duplication. Mr. Madden then 
indicated, however, that it was not his intent to yield to Mrs. Rogers 
for the purpose of an amendment. Debate resumed, the previous question 
was ordered, and the Chair put the question on the committee amendment 
which was agreed to. The Chair then recognized Mrs. Rogers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 1079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a motion to recommit 
    striking out the language on line 15 beginning with ``The 
    committee'' and ending with ``House.'' (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The language proposed to be struck was that segment of the 
        committee amendment which stated: ``The committee shall not 
        undertake any investigation of any matter which is under 
        investigation by another committee of the House.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) Under the rules, a motion to 
    recommit a resolution from the Committee on Rules is not in 
    order.(10)

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rules (11) provide that ``It 
shall always be in order to call up for consideration a report from the 
Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule, or the order of business . . 
. and, pending the consideration thereof, the Speaker may entertain one 
motion that the House adjourn; but after the result is announced the 
Speaker shall not entertain any other dilatory motion until the report 
shall have been fully disposed. . . .'' The motion to commit or 
recommit after the ordering of the previous question has been excluded 
in the later practice, based upon the initial ruling of Speaker
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
10. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2753. See also 97 Cong. Rec. 11398, 
        82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 14, 1951, for a similar ruling.
11. Rule XI clause 4 (b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3114]]

Charles F. Crisp,(12) of Georgia, to the effect that this 
rule requires the House to vote directly on the report of the Committee 
on Rules since the previous question has been ordered. But earlier 
rulings were to the contrary.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5594, as affirmed by 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5597, 5601, and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2750-
        54.
13. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5593, 5595, 5596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.7 A motion to recommit a joint resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules, creating a joint committee of Congress, can be 
    made in order by a special order reported by that committee, 
    whether or not the joint resolution is privileged under Rule XI 
    clause 23 (prohibiting a motion to recommit).

    On May 25, 1970,(14) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up as privileged House 
Resolution 1021, which resolution provided as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 16973, 16994, 16995, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1117) to establish a Joint 
    Committee on Environment and Technology. After general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall continue 
    not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the 
    joint resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the joint 
    resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    joint resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
    on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    After the House agreed to the adoption of the preceding resolution, 
Mr. Sisk then moved that the House resolve into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 1117 and the 
House agreed to the motion. At the conclusion of consideration and 
amendment in the Committee of the Whole, the Committee rose and the 
House agreed to the amendments and adopted the joint resolution.

Voting Down Previous Question on Privileged Resolution; Effect

Sec. 57.8 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised 
    that if the

[[Page 3115]]

    previous question of a privileged resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules were voted down: (1) the resolution would be 
    open to further consideration, amendment, and debate; (2) a motion 
    to table would be in order and would be preferential; and (3) the 
    Chair, under the hour rule, would recognize the Member who appeared 
    to be leading the opposition.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(15) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, called up House Resolution 
1013, creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. After an 
hour of debate on the resolution, Mr. Pepper moved the previous 
question. Prior to putting the question, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered several parliamentary inquiries as to the 
effect of defeating the motion for the previous question. The 
proceedings were as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Id. at p. 27725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is refused, is 
    it true that then amendments may be offered and further debate may 
    be had on the resolution?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the 
    resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, is it 
    not equally so that a motion to table would then be in order?
        The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a 
    preferential motion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the previous question is rejected, the 
motions specified in Rule XVI clause 4 are in order in the order 
specified.
    Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, then sought recognition for a 
further parliamentary inquiry:

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Chair would suggest that parliamentary inquiries be in the 
    nature of inquiries seeking information as to the parliamentary 
    procedure. Of course, the statement of the Chair is not directed to 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the previous 
    question is re

[[Page 3116]]

    fused and the resolution is then open for amendment, under what 
    parliamentary procedure will the debate continue? Or what would be 
    the time limit?
        The Speaker: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be 
    the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
        The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in 
    opposition would have 1 hour at his disposal, or such portion of it 
    as he might desire to exercise.
        Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gallagher: If the previous question is voted down we will 
    have the option to reopen debate, the resolution will be open for 
    amendment, or it can be tabled. Is that the situation as the Chair 
    understands it?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down on the 
    resolution, the time will be in control of some Member in 
    opposition to it, and itwould be open to amendment or to a motion 
    to table.

    Ultimately, the previous question was refused on House Resolution 
1013, and, after an unsuccessful motion by Mr. Waggonner to lay the 
resolution on the table, the Speaker recognized Mr. Hays for one hour 
of debate on the resolution. The House subsequently agreed to an 
amendment offered by Mr. Hays to the resolution and adopted the 
resolution as Amended.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 27725-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.9 Where the previous question was voted down on a resolution 
    reported by the Committee on Rules providing for an investigation 
    of sit-down strikes, a motion to lay the resolution on the table 
    was agreed to.

    On April 8, 1937,(18) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, 
called up a resolution from the Committee on Rules, which resolution 
provided for an investigation of an ``epidemic of sit-down strikes . . 
. sweeping the Nation. . . .'' At the conclusion of debate on the 
resolution, Mr. Cox moved the previous question on the resolution, but 
the motion was defeated. The House agreed to a subsequent preferential 
motion to lay the resolution on the table. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 3291, 3301, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(19) The question is on 
    ordering the previous question on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Fred M. Vinson (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Dies) there were--ayes 117, noes 179.

[[Page 3117]]

        Mr. [Dewey J.] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move the resolution be laid on the table.
        Mr. [Martin] Dies [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Malley: This vote is on ordering the previous question 
    and not on the resolution?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The vote is on ordering the previous 
    question.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 150, nays 236, not 
    voting 44 . . . .
        So the motion to order the previous question was rejected.
        The Clerk announced the following pairs: . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
        Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution (H. Res. 162) upon 
    the table.
        The motion to lay the resolution (H. Res. 162) on the table was 
    agreed to.

Use of Special Rule Following Defeat of Motion to Suspend Rules

Sec. 57.10 The failure of a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
    does not prejudice the status of a bill and the Committee on Rules 
    may subsequently bring in a special rule providing for its 
    consideration and requiring only a majority vote for its passage.

    On June 5, 1933,(20) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 5767, to authorize 
the appointment of the Governor of the Territory of Hawaii without 
regard to his residency or citizenship there. At the conclusion of 40 
minutes' debate, the yeas and nays were ordered upon demand and there 
were less than two-thirds voting, in favor of the motion to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill. The motion having been rejected, Mr. Thomas L. 
Blanton, of Texas, then inquired as to whether the Committee on Rules 
could nevertheless bring in a rule to take up consideration of H.R. 
5767. Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, assured him that the 
Committee on Rules could report such a rule.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 77 Cong. Rec. 5015, 5022, 5023, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
21. Parliamentarian's Note: On June 6, 1933, the following day, the 
        Committee on Rules reported out a special rule [H. Res. 176], 
        providing for the consideration of H.R. 5767, which was adopted 
        by the House. The bill itself was passed by a majority of the 
        House on June 7, 1933.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3118]]

Sec. 57.11 The Committee on Rules may report a special rule making in 
    order the consideration of a joint resolution previously defeated 
    the same day on a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Aug. 24 (legislative day of Aug. 23), 1935,(1) 
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. Schuyler Otis 
Bland, of Virginia, who moved to suspend the rules and pass Senate 
Joint Resolution 175, which read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 1. 79 Cong. Rec. 14593, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That section 5 of the Independent Offices 
    Appropriation Act, 1934, as amended, be amended by striking out 
    ``October 31, 1935,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``March 31, 
    1936'': Provided That the right of the United States to annul any 
    fraudulent or illegal contract or to institute suit to recover sums 
    paid thereon is in no manner affected by this joint resolution.

    After debate, however, the question was taken, and on a roll call 
vote, the motion to suspend the rules was lost.(2) The House 
then moved to other business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 14600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later in the day, the Speaker recognized Mr. John J. O'Connor, of 
New York, who by direction of the Committee on Rules, presented a 
privileged report on House Resolution 372 and asked for its immediate 
consideration. The resolution read as follows:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 14652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of (S.J. Res. 175), a 
    joint resolution to extend the time within which contracts may be 
    modified or canceled under the provisions of section 5 of the 
    Independent Offices Appropriation Act 1935, and all points of order 
    against said joint resolution are hereby waived.

    Mr. O'Connor then proceeded to explain the measure, leading to the 
following discussion and resultant response from the Speaker:

        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which was 
    considered today under suspension of the rules but failed of 
    passage. It is a matter about which there was some confusion. It is 
    a very simple matter and has nothing to do with ship subsidies. It 
    merely extends the time within which the President can determine 
    whether or not to cancel or modify the contracts. The President has 
    before him this important situation: Many of these contracts will 
    expire between October of this year and January of next year. I am 
    authorized to say that the President feels he needs this authority.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page 3119]]

        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Maverick: After a bill has been passed on, can it be 
    brought up again the same day? What about the Puerto Rico bill, 
    which failed? If we can again bring up the bill made in order by 
    this resolution, we can do it with the Puerto Rico bill, or with 
    any other bill that has been defeated once duringthe day. This bill 
    was defeated a few hours ago.
        The Speaker: The Chair will answer the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry. This is an effort on the part of the 
    gentleman from New York, Chairman of the Rules Committee, to bring 
    this bill up under a special rule.
        The question is up to the House as to whether or not that can 
    be done.
        Mr. Maverick: I did not hear the Chair.
        The Speaker: This is a special rule which is under 
    consideration and is in order.

    Parliamenitarian's Note: Under Rule XI clause 4, the two Houses 
having agreed to a sine die adjournment resolution and the last three 
days of the session being in effect, the requirement of a two-thirds 
vote to consider the rule the same day reported was inapplicable.



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 58. In General


    This division takes up the subject of committee reports as used in 
the reporting of bills and resolutions to the House for floor 
consideration.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Commentary and editing by John T. Fee, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House rules provide that ``. . . [A]ll bills, petitions, 
memorials, or resolutions reported from a committee shall be 
accompanied by reports in writing. . . .'' (5) It is the 
duty of each committee chairman to promptly report approved measures to 
the House.(6) Moreover, by virtue of a change brought about 
by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act,(7) if the report 
is not filed by the chairman of the committee, the report may be filed 
by special direction of the committee. The rules provide that a 
majority of the members of a committee may sign a written request for 
the filing of a report on a measure it has approved. This request is 
filed with the committee clerk, who then imme
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 821 (1979).
 6. Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a (1979).
 7. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3120]]

diately notifies the committee chairman of the request. Within seven 
calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is not in session) 
after the filing of the request, the committee report itself is to be 
filed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(B), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a (1979). 
        The rule also provides that it does not apply to a report of 
        the Committee on Rules, whose reports are to be presented to 
        the House within three legislative days after being ordered 
        reported by the committee, under Rule XI clause 4(c), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a record vote is taken in committee on a motion to report a 
public bill or resolution, the total number of votes cast for and 
against the reporting of such bill or resolution is to be included in 
the committee report.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. This requirement was added by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization 
        Act, Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970). It is 
        incorporated in Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(B), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 713d (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A change brought about by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act 
is the requirement that reports accompanying a public bill or joint 
resolution contain an estimate, made by the committee, of the costs 
anticipated in carrying out the measure, over a specified time, and a 
comparison of this estimate with that submitted by a government 
agency.(10) However, a bill may be reported without specific 
recommendations on the part of the reporting committee as to the 
passage or defeat of the proposed bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XIII clause 7(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 748(b) (1979). 
        See Sec. 61, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act also added the requirement 
that the committee report include supplemental, additional or minority 
views of any committee member who gives notice, at the time of the 
committee approval of the report, of his intent to file such views 
within three days.(11) Previously, such views were published 
either through informal agreements within the committee or by obtaining 
the unanimous consent of the House to have them included after the 
report was filed.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979). 
        This provision does not apply to the Committee on Rules.
12. See Sec. Sec. 64.1-64.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A further requirement for committee reports is that they comply 
with the Ramseyer rule, which provides that changes in existing law 
that would be brought about by the proposed measure are to be printed 
or shown in the report in distinctive typography.(l3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 60, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3121]]

    Unless a report is privileged for immediate 
consideration,(14) it is delivered to the Clerk for printing 
and reference to the proper calendar under the direction of the 
Speaker. Privileged reports are filed from the floor while the House is 
in session (unless filed by unanimous consent while the House is not in 
session), and referred to the appropriate calendar and ordered printed 
by the Speaker.(15) Assuming that the report is apparently 
valid and shows nothing on its face to impeach its 
authenticity,(16) the Speaker assigns the report, with its 
accompanying bill, to one of three calendars, for consideration in the 
future.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Privileged reports are discussed in Sec. 63, infra.
15. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1979).
16. See 111 Cong. Rec. 27407, 27481, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 
        1965, where a report on a bill (S. 1698), was referred to the 
        Union Calendar, although the Chairman of the Committee on 
        Banking and Currency, Wright Patman (Tex.), later expressed 
        reservations about irregularities in the manner in which the 
        committee had considered and filed a report on the bill
17. Rule XIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 742 (1979). See Ch. 
        22 (calendars), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair does not rule on the sufficiency, insufficiency, or legal 
effect of reports.(18) However, the Chair does rule on 
points of order against consideration of a measure based on an alleged 
failure of a committee report to comply with the Ramseyer rule, the 
cost estimate requirement, or raising some question as to the alleged 
privileged status of the report. Even if it appears that a point of 
order would lie, defects in the reporting of a bill by a standing 
committee may be remedied in a proper case by adoption of a special 
rule from the Committee on Rules waiving that point of 
order.(19) Alternatively, the House may grant unanimous 
consent for the consideration of a bill and thereby waive all points of 
order against consideration of the bill and its
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sec. Sec. 58.3, 58.4, infra.
19. Sec. 58.6, infra. report or consider the bill under suspension of 
        the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 imposed, effective Jan. 3, 
1975, several new requirements for inclusion of matter in committee 
reports [Rule XI clause 2(l)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(e) 
(1975); Rule XI clause 2(l)(4), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(f) 
(1975)]: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (3) The report of any committee on a measure which has been 
    approved by the committee (A) shall include the oversight findings 
    and recommenda

[[Page 3122]]

    tions required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X separately set 
    out and clearly identified; (B) the statement required by section 
    308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out 
    and clearly identified, if the measure provides new budget 
    authority or new or increased tax expenditures; (C) the estimate 
    and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
    Office under section 403 of such Act, separately set out and 
    clearly identified, whenever the Director (if timely submitted 
    prior to the filing of the report) has submitted such estimate and 
    comparison to the committee; and (D) a summary of the oversight 
    findings and recommendations made by the Committee on Government 
    Operations under clause 4(c)(2) of Rule X separately set out and 
    clearly identified whenever such findings and recommendations have 
    been submitted to the legislative committee in a timely fashion to 
    allow an opportunity to consider such findings and recommendations 
    during the committee's deliberations on the measure.
        (4) Each report of a committee on each bill or joint resolution 
    of a public character reported by such committee shall contain a 
    detailed analytical statement as to whether the enactment of such 
    bill or joint resolution into law may have an inflationary impact 
    on prices and costs in the operation of the national] economy.

    Furthermore, Rule XI clause 2(l)(5) [House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 714 (1979)], as amended by the Committee Reform Amendments 
requires that a report bear upon its cover a recital that any 
supplemental, minority, or additional views, and any material submitted 
pursuant to Rule XI clause 2(l)(3)(C) from the Congressional Budget 
Office and (D) from the Committee on Government Operations, are 
included as part of the 
report.                          -------------------

Form and Content of Report

Sec. 58.1 The form and content of a committee report is governed by the 
    rules of the House and not by a law requiring the submission of 
    certain reports by executive agencies. Thus, a point of order will 
    not lie against a committee report on the ground that an executive 
    agency has failed to report to Congress in accordance with law.

    On July 12, 1967,(1) following a motion by Mr. Harold T. 
Johnson, of California, that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill establishing a 
commission, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of order against 
consideration of the bill. Mr. Gross con
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 18558, 18559, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was S. 20, to establish a National Water 
        Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3123]]

tended that an executive communication found in the report failed to 
comply with executive agency reporting requirements with respect to the 
legislation. Thereupon Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, sought 
recognition to be heard on the point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from Iowa.
        The point of order, if it is a point of order at all, should 
    have come at the time the Executive communication was received. It 
    should not be made against the report which is now before the 
    Congress. The bill which we are considering is a bill from the 
    other body, received by this body in due course, and referred to 
    the committee which has jurisdiction over these matters, and it was 
    properly before the committee. It is now here in conformity with 
    the rules of the House.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of 
    order?
        The Speaker: (2) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the issue is plain.
        That is the issue in the point of order. No report accompanying 
    the bill conforms to the requirement of Public Law 801.
        Mr. Speaker, I do not know how, as suggested by the gentleman 
    from Colorado, a point of order could be made against a committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The law referred to by the gentleman from Iowa places the 
    obligation upon the executive departments or agencies or 
    independent offices to prepare their recommendations with respect 
    to the information contained in the law referred to. However, this 
    does not change any rule of the House of Representatives, and this 
    matter is before the House in accordance with the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Filing of Multiple Reports

Sec. 58.2 Two reports may not be filed from the Committee on Rules on 
    the same resolution.

    On Jan. 17, 1950,(3) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, 
attempted to report a resolution proposing an amendment to Rule XI to 
repeal the 21-day rule, which resolution had just been filed by the 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois. 
However, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated that the second 
report was not necessary, and said that two reports could not be filed 
on the same resolution at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 499-501, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendment of Paragraph (2)(c) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House 
                             of Representatives

        Mr. Sabath, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 133, Rept. No. 1477), which was 
    referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

[[Page 3124]]

            Resolved, That paragraph (2)(c) of Rule XI of the Rules of 
        the House of Representatives is hereby amended to read as 
        follows:
            ``(c) The Committee on Rules shall present to the House 
        reports concerning rules, joint rules, and order of business, 
        within three legislative days of the time when ordered reported 
        by the committee. If such rule or order is not considered 
        immediately, it shall be referred to the calendar and, if not 
        called up by the Member making the report within seven 
        legislative days thereafter, any member of the Rules Committee 
        may call it up as a question of privilege and the Speaker shall 
        recognize any member of the Rules Committee seeking recognition 
        for that purpose. If the Committee on Rules shall make an 
        adverse report on any resolution pending before the committee, 
        providing for an order of business for the consideration by the 
        House of any public bill or joint resolution, on days when it 
        shall be in order to call up motions to discharge committees it 
        shall be in order for any Member of the House to call up for 
        consideration by the House any such adverse report, and it 
        shall be in order to move the adoption by the House of said 
        resolution adversely reported notwithstanding the adverse 
        report of the Committee on Rules, and the Speaker shall 
        recognize the Member seeking recognition for that purpose as a 
        question of the highest privilege.''

        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution concerning which 
    instructions were given by the Rules Committee this morning to the 
    effect that I should file it. I am stepping aside with the 
    understanding that the chairman file it and that he will ask the 
    Speaker to recognize him on Thursday to call it up, and in the 
    event he the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath] is not present 
    that I may call it up or some member of the committee favorable to 
    the resolution shall call it up. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Sabath: To be candid, I did not hear the statement. I did 
    not hear the gentleman's statement.
        Mr. Cox: I said that the understanding between the chairman and 
    the committee is that I am stepping aside as the member designated 
    to file the report, leaving it to the chairman to file it and he 
    files it with the understanding that he will ask the Speaker to 
    recognize him on Thursday to call it up; and in the event the 
    chairman is not present, the understanding is that I shall call it 
    up or some other member of the committee favorable to the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has considered 
    the rule on the fair employment practices bill today. The committee 
    ordered reported the resolution, House Resolution 133, introduced 
    by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox], on Friday, January 13, 
    which would eliminate the procedure under the rule which we adopted 
    on the first day of this Congress giving the committees the right, 
    when the Committee on Rules fails to act within 21 days, to file a 
    resolution to discharge the Committee on Rules.
        Today we were considering a rule for the FEPC bill, this being 
    the third day of its deliberations on this measure. The rule on the 
    Cox resolution was granted, over my protest, of course, last 
    Friday. Under the rules of the House, the chairman of the Committee 
    on Rules has 3 days within which to file a report on a rule. I 
    intended to file the report within this time because I have never 
    violated the rules of the

[[Page 3125]]

    House in my 44 years of service and 20 years as a member of the 
    Committee on Rules.
        But today some members of the Committee on Rules thought the 
    report on the Cox resolution should be filed immediately and that 
    the right to file should be taken away from the chairman, and that 
    the rule should be called up by the gentleman who introduced it, 
    the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox]. I felt that that was a 
    violation of the rules of the House, because the Rules of the House 
    plainly state as follows:

            It shall be the duty of the chairman of each such committee 
        to report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate or 
        House of Representatives, as the case may be, any measure 
        approved by such committee--

        The word ``promptly'' means within the rules--within 3 days--
    which I did intend to do. I thought originally that the motion of 
    the gentleman from Georgia was out of order and so ruled, but it 
    being 12 o'clock we adjourned, but nevertheless some of the members 
    remained and wanted to act upon it.
        In order to avoid any controversy that might develop I agreed 
    to file it today instead of tomorrow, and I am filing the report 
    today on the resolution.
        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] approached me on 
    the floor and wanted to know if I was not present Thursday, whether 
    the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] could call up the resolution. 
    I said if I were not here Thursday, I would have no objection to 
    Mr. Cox calling it up.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Sabath: I yield.
        Mr. Cox: I have no desire to air publicly what took place in 
    the Rules Committee this morning. It is the understanding that the 
    gentleman will file the rule today and will ask the Speaker to 
    recognize him on Thursday to call it up, and, in the event he is 
    not here, it is agreeable that some other member of the committee 
    do so.
        Mr. Sabath: That was an afterthought. I do not know. I know 
    that the committee agreed and the House agreed to take up another 
    bill in which I and the House are very much interested. I have 
    filed my report. As to the other procedure, I do not know whether 
    it would be in order for me to agree to call it up Thursday, 
    because I do not know whether that will give time enough for 
    Members to be here on this important question.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, that is not in accord with the agreement. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules I file a privileged resolution; and permit 
    me to make this statement; these differences may be ironed out 
    later.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Georgia if 
    it is the same resolution that has already been reported to the 
    House.
        Mr. Cox: I presume it is the same resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair doubts very seriously whether two 
    reports on the same resolution can be filed at the same time.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the filing of this rule at this time.

[[Page 3126]]

        The Speaker: Permit the Chair to handle this matter.
        Mr. Marcantonio: But I am making a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair was clarifying the situation. The Chair 
    is of opinion that two reports cannot be filed on the same 
    resolution at the same time. . . .
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Members are 
    fully informed as to the rule governing the calling up of 
    resolutions reported by the Rules Committee. Am I correct in my 
    understanding that the gentleman from the Rules Committee who files 
    a rule is the only one permitted to call up the resolution for a 
    period of seven legislative days?
        The Speaker: That is true unless the committee directs 
    otherwise.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, do not the rules of the House 
    provide that the gentleman who files a resolution with the Speaker 
    is the only one permitted to call up the resolution and does the 
    Speaker mean that the Committee on Rules can by a majority vote 
    override what is provided in the rules of the House?
        The Speaker: Of course, the chairman could request another 
    member of the committee to call up a resolution in his absence. 
    That certainly could be done. Otherwise, if the chairman of the 
    Rules Committee were out of town continuously the Committee on 
    Rules could not offer a resolution and, as a matter of fact, the 
    House could not function either.
        Mr. Eberharter: I beg the Chair's pardon?
        The Speaker: If it were otherwise, and if the chairman of the 
    committee were out of town the whole session, the Committee on 
    Rules could not operate, neither could the House.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, my point is that the gentleman who 
    files a petition has the privilege for seven legislative days to 
    call up the resolution and failing to call it up within that time, 
    after the 7 days any member of the Rules Committee can call it up; 
    is that correct?
        The Speaker: That is what the rule says but that is not what we 
    have been talking about for the last half hour. The Chair trusts no 
    more parliamentary inquiries will be addressed to the Chair for the 
    simple reason that he would like to see these misunderstandings 
    composed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this case, Mr. Cox was authorized to 
file the report because it was evidently feared that the Chairman of 
the Rules Committee, Mr. Sabath, would not immediately do so, and, if 
he did file it, would not call it up within the seven days allowed him 
under the rule. Mr. Cox stepped aside to permit Mr. Sabath to file the 
rule under an alleged understanding that the chairman would call it up 
on a specified day. During discussion of the matter, Mr. Cox attempted 
to file a report on the same resolution and the Speaker expressed 
serious doubt whether two reports

[[Page 3127]]

on the same resolution could be filed at the same time and declined to 
recognize Mr. Cox. The question then arose as to whether the resolution 
could be called up in the seven-day period in the absence of the 
chairman by any other member of the committee. The Speaker stated that 
in this event the chairman could designate another member of the 
committee to call it up or the Committee on Rules could otherwise 
provide.

Sufficiency of Report

Sec. 58.3 The sufficiency of a report of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities relating the contempt of a witness was for the House and 
    not the Speaker to decide.

    On June 26, 1946,(4) after Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, 
by direction of the Committee on Un-American Activities, presented a 
privileged report declaring that a witness, Corliss G. Lamont, was in 
contempt of the House of Representatives. Mr. Vito Marcan- tonio, of 
New York, made a point of order against the report on the ground that 
it did not contain all of the transcript of what transpired before the 
committee with respect to the witness, but only what the committee 
determined to be material. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that it 
was for the House to determine the sufficiency, not the Speaker, and 
overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 7589-91, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against 
    the report on the ground that it does not contain all of the 
    transcript of what transpired before the committee with respect to 
    this witness. On page 2 of the report, at the end of the first 
    paragraph, the committee concedes that this is not a full 
    transcript. It states: ``The material parts of his testimony 
    follow.'' In other words, the House has before it only that portion 
    of the testimony which the committee conceives to be material. This 
    deprives the House of having the full proceedings before it; 
    consequently, the House will be asked to vote on whether or not 
    this witness is to be cited for contempt and whether or not the 
    House is to recommend prosecution of this witness, without having 
    the full story before it, without having all of the testimony 
    before it. All that is given is part of the testimony which the 
    committee describes as material.
        I respectfully submit in support of my point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker, that what is material and what is not material should be 
    determined by the House, because the House has to pass on this 
    question and the majority of the Members of this House must vote in 
    the affirmative in order to rec

[[Page 3128]]

    ommend these contempt proceedings. To do so it must have the entire 
    transcript before it. Consequently I submit that the report is 
    defective and that the report should be referred back to the 
    committee by the Speaker, directing it to produce the full 
    transcript of what transpired so that the House may have the entire 
    proceedings before it before the House Members cast their votes.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks that the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Marcantonio] has stated the point exactly, and that is that 
    this is not a matter for the Chair to pass upon but is a matter for 
    the House to pass upon. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Construing Restrictions in Report

Sec. 58.4 The Chair does not pass on the legal effect of restrictions 
    set forth in a report on an appropriations bill, but not spelled 
    out in the bill itself. This is a matter for the Committee of the 
    Whole to decide in its considerations of the bill.

    On Apr. 14, 1955,(5) Mr. Robert C. Wilson, of 
California, questioned certain limitations on spending for various 
programs, which limitations were contained in the report on an 
appropriation bill but not in the bill itself. Mr. Wilson questioned 
whether such limitations would be legally effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 4463, 4464, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 5502, an appropriations bill for the Department of 
        State and certain other agencies for fiscal 1956. The committee 
        report contained recommendations as to maximum amounts to be 
        available to the U.S. Information Agency for certain specified 
        functions, as, for example, not to exceed $200,000 for exhibits 
        for which $334,000 was requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, replied that the omission of 
the limitations from the bill was unimportant because the limitations 
were expected to become law, Mr. Wilson inquired of Chairman Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, whether the limitations were binding. As the 
following exchange shows, Chairman Cooper was of the opinion that the 
question was one to be resolved by the Committee of the Whole.

        Mr. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wilson of California: Are limitations written in a 
    committee report such as this, but not written into the wording of 
    the legislation, binding?
        The Chairman: That is not a parliamentary inquiry. That is a 
    matter to be settled by the members of the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Wilson of California: I merely wanted it for my own 
    understanding and information, for I am fairly new here. It seems 
    to me rather unusual to

[[Page 3129]]

    consider matter written into a report of the same finding effect on 
    an administrator as though written into the law itself.
        The Chairman: It is not the prerogative of the Chair to pass 
    upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of a committee report.

Separate Committee Approval of Report

Sec. 

     58.5 A point of order that a committee did not vote to approve a 
    report accompanying a bill as required by its rules is properlymade 
    in the committee and not in the House, since no rule of the House 
    requires committees to separately approve legislative reports, and 
    because such reports are in the nature of argument and are not 
    directly acted upon by the House.

    On Oct. 12, 1971,(6) after Mr. Chet Holifield, of 
California, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of a bill to establish an office of 
consumer affairs, Mr. Benjamin S. Rosenthal, of New York, made a point 
of order against the consideration of the bill. Speaker pro tempore 
Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, heard the point of order, which Mr. Rosenthal 
stated was based on a rule of the Committee on Government Operations 
providing that every committee report be approved by majority vote of 
the committee at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Mr. Rosenthal 
stated that the accompanying report was not approved by a majority vote 
of the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 117 Cong. Rec. 35820-24, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 10835, the Consumer Protection Act of 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rosenthal: . . . Mr. Speaker, it is my humble view that 
    implicit in that House rule is the requirement that the report 
    accompanying the legislation be a valid report and if that report 
    is in violation of the rules of the committee and, thus, invalid, 
    the report being deficient, the entire legislative package is 
    deficient and thus cannot be considered by the House. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, to restate my point as concisely and clearly as I 
    can, the Committee on Government Operations has a specific rule 
    requiring specific approval of every report. This legislative 
    package is deficient by virtue of the powers of that rule, and I 
    raise a point of order against the consideration of this 
    legislation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard?
        Mr. Holifield: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        The Spearer Pro Tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Holifield: Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Rosenthal) has no valid basis for his argument. I shall 
    make my points briefly:

[[Page 3130]]

        First. The gentleman from New York does not validly interpret 
    the committee rule in question. . . .
        Second. The action of the committee in approving H.R. 10835 and 
    directing the chairman to bring it to the floor governs in the 
    present situation. The motion to approve and report H.R. 10835 
    occurred as follows:

            Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill H.R. 10835, 
        as amended, be reported to the House and that the Chairman take 
        the necessary steps to bring it to the floor.
            Chairman Holifield: Is there a second?
            Mr. Erlenborn: Second.
            The Chairman: It has been moved and seconded that the bill 
        be approved and that the Chairman take the usual steps to bring 
        it up for consideration on the floor. We will have a roll call 
        vote on this.

        The motion was made and voted upon without objection and 
    thereafter arrangements were made to allow Members 3 calendar days 
    to file additional views, again without objection.
        The motion and the other arrangements reflect the committee's 
    longstanding understanding that House Rule XI, 27(d)(1) governs the 
    reporting of legislation rather than Committee Rule 4.
        In any event, the motion was accepted and voted upon without 
    any objection having been made and with a quorum present and 
    voting. Every provision of the House rules was complied with. The 
    chairman is bound by the terms of the motion adopted by the 
    committee. Even if a timely point of order on the failure to vote 
    on the report under the committee rule would have been in order, it 
    was not raised until 3 days after the committee accepted and 
    adopted the motion without objection.
        The precedents of the House hold that where a motion not in 
    order under the rules is made without objection and agreed to by 
    the House by majority vote, the action is binding on the House and 
    the Speaker and is no longer subject to a point of order. In fact, 
    it is the duty of the Speaker to proceed to the business as 
    indicated by the House--IV Hinds' sec. 3177; V Hinds' sec. 6917.
        These precedents are applicable to the committee action on H.R. 
    10835.
        Third. Where a committee action violates certain rules of the 
    House, for example-voting to report a measure without a quorum 
    being present, Rule XI, 27(e)--a point of order may be made at an 
    appropriate time on the House floor. In some situations such as 
    violation of a House rule governing the conduct of hearings, the 
    rules specifically require that the point of order be first made in 
    the committee (House Rule XI, 27(f)(5)).
        In the present instance, if any rule was violated--and we 
    believe this did not occur--it was a committee rule and not a House 
    rule. Under these circumstances the point of order should have been 
    made before and decided upon by the committee. All House rules 
    having been met, the forum for deciding the issue is the committee, 
    not the House.
        The Speaker has repeatedly ruled against points of order based 
    upon alleged irregularities in Committee procedures which did not 
    violate a rule of the House. See IV Hinds' Precedents sections 
    4592, 4593, and 4594.
        Fourth. Finally, I would not want it to be thought that the 
    desires of the

[[Page 3131]]

    committee members are ignored in the preparation of the chairman's 
    report. The suggestions of at least four Members, including the 
    gentleman from New York, were taken into account and included in 
    the report. Very often points to be included in the report are 
    discussed at the subcommittee and full committee meetings and 
    almost always the suggestions are adopted. I note that other 
    committees of the House have various types of procedures to allow 
    members to make similar suggestions. In no case, however, have I 
    found that the committees actually vote on the reports themselves. 
    As the precedents point out--IV Hinds' sec. 4674--the report of a 
    committee is in the nature of an argument or explanation and does 
    not come before the House for amendment or other action. There is 
    wisdom behind the rule and precedents here, because if the 
    committee had to come to agreement on every word in the legislative 
    report, very little business would get done. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Rosenthal) care to be heard further?
        Mr. Rosenthal: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard 
    further on this, briefly.
        Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that as I interpret the rules, 
    there is no burden on me, on this Member or any other Member, to 
    see to it that the rules are appropriately enforced. It would seem 
    to me that that burden rightfully is placed on the chairman of the 
    respective committee and it is his obligation to abide by the 
    rules.
        Second, my distinguished chairman said that this rule has been 
    in existence since 1953 and we have been violating it since 1953--
    we have never complied with it since 1953. So far as I am concerned 
    that is most regrettable.
        The chairman went on to say that what the committee rule means 
    is that only investigative reports should be voted on by the 
    committee. . . .

        Mr. Speaker, I again assert the position I have stated that the 
    rule is precise and clear and that no Member of the Congress has 
    the right to waive that rule.
        If the rule needs to be changed, then the change ought to have 
    been made at the appropriate time and place.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York has raised a point of order against 
    the consideration of H.R. 10835 on the ground that the Committee on 
    Government Operations did not meet to approve the report on that 
    bill, House Report No. 92-542, as allegedly required by rule 4 of 
    that committee.
        The Chair has listened carefully to the arguments on this point 
    of order and has referred to the committee rule cited by the 
    gentleman from New York. The Chair has also reexamined the 
    provisions of rule XI of the rules of the House with respect to the 
    procedures for reporting bills to the House. He has also examined 
    the precedents cited in the argument. The ruling of the Chair is in 
    three parts:
        First, the right of members of the Committee on Government 
    Operations to file minority views, as guaranteed by clause 27(d)(4) 
    of rule XI, was protected in this instance. The bill was ordered 
    reported on Monday, September

[[Page 3132]]

    27. The chairman did not file the report until late on Thursday, 
    September 30. Those members wishing to file minority views were 
    afforded the opportunity to do so.
        Second, the gentleman from California has stated that in the 
    more than 18 years since this rule was first adopted in the 
    Committee on Government Operations, the consistent interpretation 
    of the committee has been that while investigative reports require 
    committee approval, legislative reports on bills or resolutions do 
    not. This interpretation conforms with that of the House, where the 
    report accompanying a bill or resolutions is in the nature of an 
    argument or explanation of the reported measure, the committee 
    report itself is not brought before the House for action or 
    amendment.
        The Chair might also add that even if the committee wishes to 
    put a different interpretation of its rule, it is a matter which 
    should be decided in the committee. The record seems clear that the 
    point was not raised at the time this bill was ordered reported. 
    Finally, the Chair would like to point out that even if the 
    committee rule were to be construed as applicable to reports on 
    legislative matters, the motion directing the chairman of the 
    committee to report the bill to the House was a later expression of 
    the committee's will. The chairman of the Committee on Government 
    Operations before submitting the motion to the committee, stated 
    the question as follows:

            It has been moved and seconded that the bill be approved 
        and that the Chairman take the usual steps to bring it up for 
        consideration on the floor.

        This motion carried in the committee by a vote of 24 to 4. 
    Subsequently, the Chair did, in fact, take the usual steps to bring 
    the matter to the floor. His actions were in accord with the 
    established practices of the committee and were taken in compliance 
    with the rules of this House.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Remedying Defects in Reporting of Bill

Sec. 58.6 Defects in reporting a bill by a standing committee may be 
    remedied by adoption of a special rule from the Committee on Rules 
    making in order consideration of such bill and waiving appropriate 
    points of order.

    On May 2, 1939,(7) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
made a point of order against House Resolution 175, which provided that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House for 
consideration of H.R. 5643 (a bill giving federal circuit courts 
jurisdiction over orders of deportation of aliens). Mr. Dickstein 
contended that the bill did not have a hearing before the appropriate 
legislative committee, and that there was no proper report from the 
committee authorized to conduct the hearings. Mr. Dickstein argued that 
although the bill was
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052-55, 76th Cong. 1st Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3133]]

``100 percent immigration,'' it was referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary instead of the Committee on Immigration.

    Following debate on the point of order, Speaker William B. Bank 
head, of Alabama, overruled the point of order on the ground that Mr. 
Dickstein had ``slept upon his rights'' and should have provoked a 
motion to rerefer the bill from the Committee on the Judiciary to the 
Committee on Immigration before it was reported. An additional basis 
for overruling the point of order was then suggested by Mr. Carl E. 
Mapes, of Michigan, who stated:

        Mr. Speaker, in order to protect the rights of the Committee on 
    Rules, will the Chair permit this observation? The gentleman from 
    New York slept on his rights further until the Committee on Rules 
    reported a rule making the consideration of this measure in order. 
    Even though the reference had been erroneous and the point of order 
    had been otherwise made in time, the Committee on Rules has the 
    right to change the rules and report a rule making the legislation 
    in order. This point also might be taken into consideration by the 
    Speaker, if necessary.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the statement 
    made by the gentleman from Michigan, although not necessary to a 
    decision of the instant question, is sustained by a particular and 
    special decision rendered by Mr. Speaker Garner on a similar 
    question. The decision may be found in the Record of February 28, 
    1933. In that decision it is held, in effect, that despite certain 
    defects in the consideration or the reporting of a bill by a 
    standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a special rule 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion to consider 
    such bill. The Chair thinks that that decision by Mr. Speaker 
    Garner clearly sustains the contention made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. For a full discussion of special rules, see Ch. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waivers of Points of Order

Sec. 58.7 Where the House grants unanimous consent for consideration of 
    a bill and provides that all points of order against the bill shall 
    be considered as waived, such waiver applies also to the committee 
    report on the bill.

    On July 19, 1947,(9) after Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of H.R. 4214, providing for a Secretary of 
Defense and other national defense measures, Mr. W. Sterling Cole, of 
New York, made a point of order against consideration of the bill on 
the ground that at least 24 hours had not intervened between the time 
the bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 93 Cong. Rec. 9396, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3134]]

was available and the time the bill was called up.

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, overruled the 
point of order, noting that all points of order against the bill had 
been waived by a unanimous-consent agreement by the 
House.(10) Mr. Cole then raised several parliamentary 
inquiries as to whether a point of order would lie against the 
committee report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 93 Cong. Rec. 9095, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1947, where 
        Mr. Charles A. Halleck (Ind.), asked unanimous consent, in 
        pertinent part, as follows: ``Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
        consent that it may be in order on Friday next and thereafter 
        to consider the bill H.R. 4214, that all points of order 
        against the said bill be considered as waived.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. I am further 
    advised that although the bill is available this morning, the 
    report accompanying the bill is not. Would it be in order to raise 
    a point of order against the motion of the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Hoffman] upon the ground that the report is not now available?
        The Speaker: It would not be in order because the same ruling 
    would apply. All points of order were waived under the unanimous-
    consent agreement.
        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Speaker a further parliamentary 
    inquiry. I am informed that the report does not comply with the 
    rules of the House in that it does not set forth alterations 
    proposed by the bill to existing law. My inquiry is whether the 
    request of the gentleman from Indiana, the majority leader, that 
    points of order against the bill be waived also carried with it the 
    waiving of points of order against the report which is supposed to 
    accompany the bill.
        The Speaker: The Chair is compelled to make the same ruling in 
    this instance also. All points of order were waived under the 
    unanimous-consent agreement and, therefore, the raising of that 
    point of order at this time would not be in order.
        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Speaker without undertaking to 
    dispute the decision, I call your attention to the fact that the 
    request for waiving points of order was directed to the bill 
    itself. Does the Speaker rule that the waiving of points of order 
    against the bill carried with it the waiving of points of order 
    against the report?
        The Speaker: Yes.                          -------------------

Improper Action in Committee as Affecting Reporting

Sec. 58.8 The Chair has overruled, on the ground that the Chair had no 
    information as to what occurred in a committee, a point of order 
    alleging that a bill was not properly before the House because it 
    had not been read for amendment in committee prior to reporting.

    On Apr. 23, 1934,(11) the Committee on Banking and 
Currency
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 78 Cong. Rec. 7151-61, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3135]]

reported a bill, H.R. 7908,(12) which was on the Calendar of 
Motions to Discharge Committees. Despite the reporting of the measure 
by the Committee on Banking and Currency, Mr. Clarence J. McLeod, of 
Michigan, attempted to call up the motion to discharge the committee of 
H.R. 7908. It developed in the debate that Mr. McLeod and Mr. Jesse P. 
Wolcott, of Michigan, viewed the reporting of the bill by the committee 
as void ab initio on the grounds that the committee ordered the 
reporting of the measure at a time when it sat during a session of the 
House without the permission of the House and also because the measure 
reported was not read before the committee. In fact, argued the 
proponents of the discharge motion, the bill that was reported by the 
committee was a committee substitute, the former H.R. 9175, which the 
committee had inserted after striking all but the enacting clause of 
the original bill that had been the subject of the discharge petition 
signed by the requisite number of Members.(13) After Speaker 
Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, sustained a point of order against the 
calling up of the motion to discharge the committee, on the basis that 
``inasmuch as the Committee on Banking and Currency has reported the 
bill, that the effect of that action nullifies the motion to discharge 
and makes it inoperative,(14) Mr. Carroll L. Beedy, of 
Maine, then raised a point of order against the bill as reported by the 
committee because it had never been read for amendment in the committee 
and was, he argued, not regularly before the House. Mr. Beedy stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The bill concerned payments of assets in closed banks.
13. At that time, only 145 signatures were required on a discharge 
        petition. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual (1934). 
        See also Ch. 18, infra.
14. 78 Cong. Rec. 7161, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 23, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment to 
    the McLeod bill, so called, was not introduced in the House until 
    the 17th of April subsequent to the time when any bill of the kind 
    was ever read for amendment in the committee. This fact is 
    undenied.
        The bill that was reported never was read for amendment in the 
    committee. It is not legally or validly upon the calendar of the 
    House. While the decision of the Chair well presents the fact, 
    assuming that the bill were legally before the House, the Chair has 
    not touched upon the question as to whether it may be in order to 
    call up the discharge rule if the bill attempted to be reported by 
    the committee concerned was not regularly before the House, not 
    having been considered according to the rules of the House.

[[Page 3136]]

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order, therefore, that the 
    bill alleged to have been reported is not legally reported, is in 
    violation of the rules of the House and of the committees of the 
    House and has no valid standing in the House.(l5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In overruling the point of order, the Speaker advised that he had 
no knowledge as to what had occurred in committee, stating:

        The House passed on that question a few moments ago in a 
    resolution raising the question of the privileges of the House, and 
    passed upon the question adversely to the position taken by the 
    gentleman from Maine.
        The Chair has no information as to what occurred in the 
    committee. The only thing the Chair knows is that the McLeod bill, 
    bearing the number it has always borne and with the same title, and 
    with some amendments in which the Chair is not interested, has been 
    reported out, is on the calendar, and can be taken up under the 
    general rules of the House when an opportunity presents itself.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An appeal from the Speaker's ruling was laid on the table.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Beedy's contention that the bill was 
not properly before the House, since it had not been read for amendment 
in committee prior to reporting, had been raised on the resolution 
referred to by the Speaker (see H. Res. 349, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 
23, 1934, H. Jour. 429). The contention was based on the requirement of 
Jefferson's Manual (see House Rules and Manual Sec. 412 [1979]) that, 
in the case of bills originating with or referred to committees, ``in 
every case the whole paper is read . . . by paragraphs, pausing at the 
end of each paragraph, and putting questions for amending, if 
proposed.''
    A point of order based on this requirement, however, lies only in 
committee, not in the House, in accordance with the general principle 
that a point of order does not ordinarily lie in the House against 
consideration of a bill by reason of defective committee procedures 
occurring prior to the time the bill was ordered reported to the House. 
Determinations as to proper committee procedure are for the committee 
to make, except where the House rules specifically permit such 
objections to consideration.



 
                               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.



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 60. Comparative Prints; The Ramseyer Rule

    The Ramseyer rule provides that whenever a committee reports a bill 
or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part thereof, 
the committee report is to include the text of the statute or part 
thereof to be repealed, as well as a comparative print showing the 
proposed omissions and insertions by stricken-through type and italics, 
parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
devices.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979). The 
        rule dates from Jan. 28, 1929, when the House passed H. Res. 
        278, 70 Cong. Rec. 2371-74, 70th Cong. 2d Sess.
            The rule is commonly known as the ``Ramseyer rule'' in 
        honor of its sponsor, Mr. Christian W. Ramseyer, of Iowa, who 
        served in the House from 1915 to 1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the Ramseyer rule is to inform Members of any 
changes in existing law to occur through proposed legislation. The rule 
was adopted by the House on Jan. 28, 1929, at which time Mr. Ramseyer 
explained its import and meaning as follows:

        The proposal in this new rule is simply this: Many bills which 
    are introduced are to amend statutes. Such bills are reported back 
    to the House, and there is nothing either in the bill or in the 
    report accompanying the bill to advise Members of the House just 
    what specific changes the bill proposes to make in the statute 
    under consideration. If this amendment to Rule XIII is adopted, 
    then hereafter a committee which reports a bill to amend an 
    existing statute must show in the report just what changes are 
    proposed. Suppose a bill is to amend a statute--we will just call 
    it section 100--by omitting some words and adding thereto other 
    words. The proposal is that the report shall show by stricken-
    through type the words to be omitted and by italics the words that 
    are added, so that a Member who is interested in knowing just what 
    changes it is proposed to make in the statute under consideration 
    can get the report, read it, and have before him exactly the 
    changes which are proposed to be made.

    Despite some criticism of the resolution on the basis that it did 
not go far enough,(14) the House adopted the measure and it 
has survived with only one change in the succeeding decades. That
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Mr. Henry Allen Cooper (Wisc.), preferred passing a bill that would 
        have amended the United States Code to require a comparative 
        printing of all bills and resolutions introduced in both the 
        House and Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3145]]

change, added Sept. 22, 1961,(15) provides that ``[I]f a 
committee reports such a bill or joint resolution with amendments or an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill, such 
report shall include a comparative print showing any changes in 
existing law proposed by the amendments or substitute instead of as in 
the bill as introduced.'' (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 20823, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. See Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the doctrine of ``substantial compliance,'' the Speaker has 
overruled points of order against committee reports, based on the 
Ramseyer rule, on the rationale that the committee had substantially 
complied with the requirements of the rule and the deviations were 
minor and inconsequential.(17) Also, the rules now provide 
that committees may submit supplemental reports to correct technical 
errors in a previous report.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sec. Sec. 60.11-60.14, infra.
18. Rule XI clause 2(1)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979). 
        This change in the rules was brought about by the 1970 
        Legislative Reorganization Act; see Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 
        Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Points of order based on the Ramseyer rule must be raised at the 
proper time. A point of order based on the rule must be made when the 
bill is called up in the House and before the House resolves itself 
into the Committee of the Whole.(19) The point of order 
comes too late after the House has resolved itself into the Committee 
of the Whole for the purpose of consideration of the measure and debate 
has begun.(20) Compliance with the Ramseyer rule may be 
waived by unanimous consent or by special rule. This can be 
accomplished either by a general waiver of all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, or by an express waiver of the provisions of 
the Ramseyer rule.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 60.16, infra.
20. Sec. 60.18, infra.
 1. Sec. Sec. 60.19, 60.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Ramseyer Rule Generally

Sec. 60.1 The Ramseyer rule requires that when reporting a bill 
    repealing or amending existing law, the committee must include a 
    comparative print showing, by italic or other typographical device, 
    the changes proposed; but if the reported measure does not 
    specifically amend existing law, a point of order based on the 
    Ramseyer rule will not lie.

[[Page 3146]]

    On Oct. 1, 1963,(2) after Mr. Armistead I. Selden, Jr., 
of Alabama, moved the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 7044), Mr. Frank T. Bow, of 
Ohio, raised a point of order that the report on the bill violated the 
Ramseyer rule. Mr. Bow stated that section 2 of the bill provided ``The 
Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission shall cease to exist upon 
completion of the construction authorized by this act, or on May 6, 
1967, whichever shall first occur.'' Mr. Bow stated that this language 
was not contained in the italic required under the Ramseyer rule, and 
did not show a change in the existing law. Mr. Bow further stated that 
the same language was in a 1958 law giving the time as to when the 
commission was to cease to exist, and that the present bill amended 
that law by setting a different date for the expiration of the 
commission. In response, Mr. Selden contended that section 2 did not 
make a specific change in the provisions of the law. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 109 Cong. Rec. 18412, 88th Cong.1st Sess. For other illustrations, 
        see 103 Cong. Rec. 8484, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 6, 1957 
        [H.R. 6127]; and 79 Cong. Rec. 11051, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 11, 1935 [H. Res. 240].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(3) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, the report on this bill violates rule 
    XIII, the so called Ramseyer rule. I shall not read the rule as I 
    know the Speaker is familiar with it.
        Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the bill, H.R. 7044, is a 
    bill to amend Public Law 193, 83d Congress, relating to the 
    Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission.
        I further point out in the bill under section (i) there is a 
    change in the plans for the memorial, changing it into the type 
    that is set forth in the bill; and that in the report under changes 
    in existing law made by the bill, as reported, the report does show 
    in italic that portion of the amendment.
        I further call the Chair's attention to the fact that section 2 
    of the bill now pending provides ``The Corregidor-Bataan Memorial 
    Commission shall cease to exist upon completion of the construction 
    authorized by this act, or on May 6, 1967, whichever shall first 
    occur.''
        I further call attention to the report of the committee in 
    which they attempt to comply with the Ramseyer rule and in that, 
    although they do comply in the one instance with the italics on the 
    construction, later, in the next paragraph of the report, is this 
    language: ``and the Commission shall cease to exist 90 days after 
    such submission of such final report.'' This is contained in roman 
    printing. It is not

[[Page 3147]]

    in the italic required under the Ramseyer rule. It does not show 
    that this is a change in existing law and, inasmuch as section 2 
    says that the Commission shall cease to exist upon the completion 
    of the construction authorized, the Speaker will find the same 
    language in the bill of 1958 giving the time as to when the 
    Commission will cease to exist. This bill does amend that law by 
    setting a different date for the expiration of the Commission and 
    it does not comply with the Ramseyer rule.
        I desire, if I may, to point out the precedents of the House 
    appearing in volume 8 from page 2236 on, and particularly that 
    precedent that says, ``Although a bill proposed one minor and 
    obvious change in existing law, the failure to indicate this 
    change'' is ``in violation of the law.'' Admittedly this is in a 
    minor and rather obvious position. Nevertheless the report of the 
    committee does not show in italic and it is a change in existing 
    law, and I submit it is a violation of the Ramseyer rule.

        Mr. Selden: Mr. Speaker, I contend that section 2 does not make 
    a specific change in the provisions of the law. Therefore the 
    report of the committee does comply with the Ramseyer rule....
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the gentleman from 
    Alabama?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
        Mr. Bow: . . . I further point out that there is a complete 
    change in the law as to the time of the expiration of the Bataan-
    Corregidor Commission.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. In connection with 
    section 2 that the gentleman from Ohio referred to, that is, 
    section 2 of the pending bill, the Chair will state that this 
    section does not amend existing law specifically and applies only 
    to this bill. Therefore, the report does not, in that respect, have 
    to meet the requirements of the Ramseyer rule. The portion of the 
    bill which specifically amends existing law, as the Chair sees it, 
    is paragraph (i) starting on page 1 and finishing on line 19 of 
    page 2 of that section, and it is very clear that the committee has 
    complied with the Ramseyer rule in connection with that paragraph. 
    So, for the reason stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Effect of Noncompliance With Rule

Sec. 60.2 Where a report failed to comply with the provisions of the 
    Ramseyer rule and a point of order is sustained on that ground, the 
    bill is recommitted to the committee reporting it.

    On May 3, 1937,(4) after the Clerk read the title of a 
bill about to be considered, Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, raised 
a point of order against the consideration of the bill on the ground 
that the report did not comply with the Ramseyer rule. When Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, sustained the point of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 4123, 4124, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was S. 709, a bill to incorporate the National Education 
        Association of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3148]]

order, the bill was recommitted to the Committee on Education, which 
had reported it.

        The Clerk called the next bill, S. 709, to amend the act 
    entitled ``An act to incorporate the National Education Association 
    of the United States'', approved June 30, 1906, as amended.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Speaker, if it appears from the report that 
    subsection 2 (a) of rule XXIII, commonly known as the Ramseyer 
    rule, has not been complied with, is the bill automatically 
    recommitted to the committee from which it was reported?
        The Speaker: If the point of order should be sustained, under 
    the provision governing such cases the bill would automatically be 
    recommitted to the committee from which it was reported.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill (S. 709) that the so-called Ramseyer rule 
    has not been complied with.
        The Speaker: A very casual reading of the report on the bill 
    indicates the Ramseyer rule has not been complied with. .
        Does the gentleman from Michigan insist on the point of order?
        Mr. Wolcott: I insist on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained, and the bill is 
    recommitted to the Committee on Education.

Purpose of Rule

Sec. 60.3 The purpose of the Ramseyer rule is to require that committee 
    reports furnish information relating to changes the bill proposes 
    to make in existing law.

    On Dec. 3, 1963,(5) following a motion by Mr. Harold D. 
Cooley, of North Carolina, that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for consideration of a bill (H.R. 6196), Mr. H. 
R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a point of order against consideration of the 
bill. Mr. Gross' point of order was that House Report No. 88-336 
accompanying the bill did not comply with the requirements of Rule XIII 
clause 3, the Ramseyer rule. Following debate on the point of order, 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled on the point of 
order and commented on the purpose of the Ramseyer rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 109 Cong. Rec. 23038, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6196, to encourage increased consumption of cotton; see H. 
        Rept. No. 88-366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the report of the committee 
    complies with the Ramseyer rule, the purpose of which is to give 
    Members information in relation to any change in existing law.
        If a report includes some other references to other laws which 
    in a sense would be surplusage or unnecessary, it is the Chair's 
    opinion that the committee was attempting to give to the

[[Page 3149]]

    Members of the House as full information as was possible.
        The Chair rules that the report does comply with the Ramseyer 
    rule, and the point of order is overruled.

Showing Changes Proposed by Bill as Amended

Sec. 60.4 In the 87th Congress, the Ramseyer rule was amended to 
    provide that where a committee reports a bill with amendments the 
    comparative print required by the rule must show the changes in 
    existing law proposed by the bill, as amended, instead of by the 
    bill as introduced.

    On Sept. 22, 1961,(6) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, called up House Resolution 407, 
amending Rule XIII clause 3. Following the Clerk's reading of the 
resolution Mr. Smith and Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, explained the 
purpose of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 20823, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

        Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives are 
    hereby amended as follows: In rule XIII, clause 3, strike out the 
    period at the end thereof, insert a colon, and add ``Provided, 
    however, That if a committee reports such a bill or joint 
    resolution with amendments or an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for the entire bill, such report shall include a 
    comparative print showing any changes in existing law proposed by 
    the amendments or substitute instead of as in the bill as 
    introduced.''
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] and at this time yield myself such 
    time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a change in the so-
    called Ramseyer rule of the House of Representatives. The Ramseyer 
    rule provides that when a bill is reported by a legislative 
    committee, the committee report on the bill shall contain a 
    statement in comparative print, setting forth the changes in 
    existing law that are supposed to be made by the new bill. The way 
    that that rule has been construed and the way it has operated in 
    the past has been that if a bill is introduced and referred to a 
    legislative committee, then when the bill is reported by that 
    committee, the changes in the law are pointed not at the bill which 
    is reported, but are pointed at the original bill, as introduced. 
    It, therefore, causes confusion and is not of any use to the 
    Members who are trying to find out what the changes are because, as 
    I said, the comparative print explaining the changes are not 
    pointed toward the bill you are really going to consider. So this 
    change which has been worked out by the Parliamentarian in 
    connection with the Committee on Rules and which has the unanimous 
    approval of the Committee on Rules would make it so that in order 
    to comply with the Ramseyer

[[Page 3150]]

    rule, the report would have to print in comparative columns or 
    italic or other distinguishing symbols the changes in existing law 
    which would be made by the bill which is under consideration and 
    not by the bill which was originally introduced
        Mr. Speaker, I hope that explanation is clear to the Members, 
    but if it is not, I will be glad to yield or any questions to any 
    Member who may wish to ask about it.
        If there are no questions, Mr. Speaker, I yield now to my 
    colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
        Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use.
        Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of 
    the Committee on Rules, Mr. Smith, has explained, this resolution 
    provides for an amendment to rule XIII, clause 3, through an 
    amendment which I believe is very much needed, has been requested 
    by many Members of the House, and which, as the gentleman from 
    Virginia has stated, would simply provide, instead of following the 
    present procedure of printing in a committee report the original 
    bill and the changes in the present law made by the original bill, 
    the report would carry the bill, as amended, and the differences 
    between the present law as provided in the final bill as presented.
        In other words, the adoption of this resolution making this 
    change in the rules will eliminate a great deal of confusion and 
    make it much easier for all Members of Congress, even members of 
    the Committee on Rules itself, in considering legislation to 
    understand just exactly what is in the bill that may be before them 
    and what changes are made by such legislation from existing law. 
    This has been long needed. It is a very good amendment of the rule.
        This resolution was reported unanimously from the Committee on 
    Rules, and I hope it will have the unanimous support of the House.
        Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no further requests 
    for time.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.

Supplemental Reports Complying With Rule

Sec. 60.5 By unanimous consent, a committee may be permitted to file a 
    supplemental report on a bill so as to conform to the Ramseyer rule 
    and show the changes in existing law proposed by the committee 
    amendments as well as by the provisions of the bill as introduced.

    On Jan. 11, 1962,(7) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Education 
and Labor be permitted to file a supplemental report on a bill 
(H. R. 8890). Mr. Powell stated to Speaker John W. McCormack, of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 67, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3151]]

Massachusetts, that he was making the request so that the committee 
report would comply with the Ramseyer rule, which Mr. Powell noted had 
been amended by the House since the filing of the original report on 
the bill.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Parliamentarian's Note: Today, unanimous consent is not required to 
        file a supplemental report correcting a technical error, such 
        as a violation of the Ramseyer rule, in a previous report. See 
        Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Rule to Subsections

Sec. 60.6 Where a bill amends one subsection of existing law but does 
    not affect other parts of the section, a comparative print which 
    shows only the affected subsection is in substantial compliance 
    with the Ramseyer rule.

    On July 25, 1966,(9~) Mr. John Bell Williams, of 
Mississippi, made a point of order against consideration of H.R. 14765, 
on the ground that the report of the Committee on the Judiciary 
accompanying the bill did not comply with the requirements of the 
Ramseyer rule. In response to the point of order, Mr. Emanuel Celler, 
of New York, stated that the report disclosed no information with 
respect to certain sections of the bill. Mr. Celler explained that 
there were no changes in or amendments to those provisions, so that 
there was no need to set forth explanatory material on them:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 16840-42, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 14765 (H. Rept. No. 89-1678), the Civil Rights Act of 
        1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Since there were no changes, there was no need to make 
    any comment. There was no ambiguity there. There was no 
    misinformation. There is nothing that is misleading. There is no 
    confusion. It is . . . substantial compliance.

    As debate on the point of order continued, Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, 
Jr., of Louisiana, questioned whether substantial compliance was 
sufficient to meet the requirements of the rule, stating:

        Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House of Representatives no 
    provision is made for use of the word ``substantial'' is it deemed 
    sufficient in this case that compliance is only substantial and not 
    technically complete?

    After studying the precedents of the House, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that there was substantial 
compliance, stating:

        Well, as the Chair states . . . the Chair cannot analyze every 
    word, but there are parts here apparent to the Chair that, of 
    course, are not only substantial compliance but which are cer

[[Page 3152]]

    tainly over compliance, which is not violative of the rule, as has 
    been advanced.

    The Chair therefore overruled the point of order.
    On a parliamentary inquiry following the Chair's ruling, Mr. 
Waggonner asked:

        Do I correctly understand the ruling of the Speaker that in 
    this instance . . . ``substantial compliance'' is all that is 
    necessary and technicalities are irrelevant? Is compliance in fact 
    with the rules to be ignored?

    The Speaker replied:

        The Chair will state that substantial compliance, as the Chair 
    is not in a position to analyze every word, would comply with and 
    be in conformance with the rule.

Showing Statutory Waivers and Exemptions

Sec. 60.7 Provisions in a bill, merely waiving certain statutory 
    requirements, were held not to be specially amendatory of existing 
    law and the Ramseyer rule did not apply to language in a bill 
    merely exempting personnel of a proposed agency from conflict of 
    interest statutes.

    On June 6, 1957,(10) after Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New 
York, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of H.R. 6127, a civil rights bill, Mr. 
Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, made a point of order against the bill on 
the basis of noncompliance with the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 8484-88, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The initial exchange went as follows:

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
    the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6127) to provide means of 
    further securing and protecting the civil rights of persons within 
    the jurisdiction of the United States.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against the bill.
        The Speaker:(11) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
    that the report on the bill does not comply with the provisions of 
    the Ramseyer rule, which is rule XIII, clause 3.
        I call the Speaker's attention to the provision of the bill 
    appearing on page 7, line 12, which reads as follows:

            Members of the Commission, voluntary and uncompensated 
        personnel whose services are accepted pursuant to subsection 
        (b) of this section, and members of advisory committees 
        constituted pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, shall 
        be exempt from the operation of sections 281, 283, 284, 434, 
        and 1914 of title 18 of the United States Code, and section 190 
        of the Revised Statutes.

[[Page 3153]]

        Now, Mr. Speaker, I also call attention to the provision of the 
    bill providing on page 9, line 8, for the appointment of another 
    and additional Assistant Attorney General, which changes existing 
    law and which fixes the number of Assistant Attorneys General and 
    which changes the provision of existing law that fixes the 
    qualification of Assistant Attorneys General in that it omits the 
    requirement that an Assistant Attorney General must be a member of 
    the legal profession.
        Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to discuss the matter in some detail 
    unless the gentleman from New York is prepared to concede the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not prepared to 
    concede anything.

        The point of order is not well taken. With reference to the 
    statement referring to the members of the Commission, the gentleman 
    called attention to page 7, lines 12 to 19. That is a waiver of the 
    conflict-of-interest statutes which involves no change whatsoever 
    in those statutes. It simply provides for the waiver of the 
    statutes. That is very frequently done. The Committee on the 
    Judiciary has jurisdiction over matters of that sort; namely, 
    waiver of conflict-of-interest statutes.
        With reference to the gentleman's opinion concerning the part 
    II provision for an additional Assistant Attorney General, lines 6 
    to 14 on page 9, I wish to state that no law is amended. We simply 
    provide for an additional Assistant Attorney General.

    While Mr. Smith and proponents of his view contended that any 
technical defect in the committee report for failure to comply with the 
Ramseyer rule was fatal to the bill, Mr. Celler responded that a waiver 
of conflict of interest statutes did not fall within the requirements 
of the Ramseyer rule. Mr. Celler stated: ``[W]hen you waive the 
provisions of a statute, you do not change the provisions of that 
statute and you do not amend the provisions of that statute.'' 
(12) Mr. Celler further stated that language in the bill 
adding a new assistant attorney general merely created a new position 
and did not amend a statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 8486, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After continued debate on the point of order, Speaker Rayburn 
overruled the point of order as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 8487, 8488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is prepared to rule.
        This question, or parallel questions, has been raised many 
    times. The rulings of the Chair have been uniform. . . .
        Turning to the first part of the bill on page 7, paragraph (d), 
    which reads as follows: ``(d) Members of the Commission, voluntary 
    and uncompensated personnel whose services are accepted pursuant to 
    subsection (b) of this section, and members of advisory committees 
    constituted pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, shall be 
    exempt from the operation of sections 281, 283, 284, 434, and 1914 
    of title 18 of the United

[[Page 3154]]

    States Code, and section 190 of the Revised Statutes (5 U.S.C. 
    99),'' the Chair holds that that is simply a waiver of the statute 
    and not a specific amendment to any existing law. Therefore, the 
    Chair overrules the point of order with respect to that.
        Section 111, page 9, which reads as follows: ``Sec. 111. There 
    shall be in the Department of Justice one additional Assistant 
    Attorney General, who shall be appointed by the President, by and 
    with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall assist the 
    Attorney General in the performance of his duties, and who shall 
    receive compensation at the rate prescribed by law for other 
    Assistant Attorneys General,'' does not amend any specific law, 
    because it does not refer to any. Congress has the right at any 
    time it pleases, the Chair thinks, to provide for an additional 
    Assistant Attorney General or an additional assistant in any other 
    department.
        Now then, we come to the part of the bill where specific 
    statutes are amended. And, the Chair might say here that Mr. Snell, 
    Speaker pro tem on February 7, 1931--Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    VIII, section 2235--made this ruling: In order to fall within the 
    purview of the rule requiring indication of proposed changes in 
    existing law by a typographical device, a bill must repeal or amend 
    the statute in terms, and general reference to the subject treated 
    in a statute without proposing specific amendment is not 
    sufficient.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York on April 13, 1932--Cannon's 
    Precedents, Volume VIII, section 2240--made a ruling on this 
    specific question, and the gist of that is that the bill is not 
    subject to the rule requiring comparative prints unless it 
    specifically amends existing law.
        Now, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Cooper] on April 15, 
    1940, as Speaker pro tempore, went just a little further than that. 
    The substance of his ruling was: In determining whether or not a 
    committee in reporting a bill has complied with the Ramseyer rule, 
    the duty does not devolve upon the Chair of analyzing every word of 
    existing law and the changes sought to be made. Hence, Mr. Cooper 
    held that an effort to substantially comply with the rule only was 
    necessary.
        Now, let the Chair read portions of part III and part IV of the 
    bill, where specific law is specifically amended: . . .
        Remembering what has gone before, the Chair finds on page 16 of 
    the committee report changes in existing law set forth as follows:

            In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the House of 
        Representatives, there is printed below in roman existing law 
        in which no change is proposed by enactment of the bill as here 
        reported; matter proposed to be stricken by the bill as here 
        reported is here enclosed in black brackets: new language 
        proposed by the bill as here reported is printed in italic.

        And there follows then the existing law proposed to be amended.
        The Chair has examined this bill carefully and has examined 
    this committee report very carefully, and must hold that the 
    committee did comply in substance and in fact with clause 3 of rule 
    XIII.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Changes in Court Rules

Sec. 60.8 The Ramseyer rule requirement that a compara

[[Page 3155]]

    tive print be provided in reports on bills reported by a committee 
    is not applicable to a bill changing the rules of evidence for 
    District of Columbia courts.

    On June 12, 1961,(14) Mr. John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, called up the bill (H.R. 7053), providing for the admission 
of certain evidence in the courts of the District of Columbia, and 
asked unanimous consent that the bill be considered in the House as in 
the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, objected 
to the consideration of the bill on the ground that it did not comply 
with the Ramseyer rule, and said that in the report of the committee no 
reference was made to the law which was being amended. In the debate on 
the point of order, Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, argued that the 
change was directed at court rules, not a statute. Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, then overruled the point of order, stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 10068, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For a similar ruling see also 83 Cong. Rec. 1147, 75th 
        Cong. 3d Sess., Jan. 26, 1938, involving H.R. 2890, fixing 
        annual compensation for postmasters of the fourth class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair in examining this bill cannot see where it amends any 
    law or repeals any law specifically, and therefore does not think 
    the report is in violation of the Ramseyer rule, and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

References to Laws Unaffected by Bill

Sec. 60.9 A point of order will not lie against a committee report 
    merely because the comparative print required by the Ramseyer rule 
    incorporates laws which are not affected by the reported bill but 
    which are included to give full information to the Members.

    On Dec. 3, 1963,(15) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a 
point of order against the consideration of H.R. 6196, alleging that 
House Report No. 88-366 accompanying the bill did not comply with the 
requirements of the Ramseyer rule. In debate on the point of order Mr. 
Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, acknowledged that there was 
extraneous and unneeded material in the report but this did not 
constitute a violation of the Ramseyer rule. Mr. Cooley stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 23036-38, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I want to make just one additional observation. I think the 
    Speaker of the House and the Parliamentarian will find that all 
    changes in existing law

[[Page 3156]]

    have been shown in our report under the Ramseyer rule. The rule 
    does not say that you cannot have something else in the report 
    which might be surplus and which might not be needed. But if you 
    will look at section 104 on page 25 that is a strict compliance 
    with the Ramseyer rule insofar as this legislation is concerned.
        The reference to section 330, I think, is irrelevant and 
    immaterial and is not even needed, perhaps, in this report. But we 
    believe this is a meticulous compliance with the Ramseyer rule and 
    we ask that the point of order be overruled.

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then overruled the 
point of order. The Speaker stated:

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the report of the committee 
    complies with the Ramseyer rule, the purpose of which is to give 
    Members information in relation to any change in existing law.
        If a report includes some other references to other laws which 
    in a sense would be surplusage or unnecessary, it is the Chair's 
    opinion that the committee was attempting to give to the Members of 
    the House as full information as was possible.

Application of Rule to Discharged Bills

Sec. 60.10 The Ramseyer rule applies only when a committee reports a 
    bill. Hence, a point of order alleging noncompliance with the rule 
    will not lie where a committee is discharged from consideration of 
    a bill.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(16) Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, 
made a point of order against the consideration of a bill on the ground 
it had not been properly reported and that it purported to amend title 
28 of the United States Code. He contended that there was no 
comparative print of the bill amending the statute. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled the point of order, noting that 
the Ramseyer rule applied only when a committee reports a bill. In this 
case, the Committee on the Judiciary, having been discharged from 
consideration of the bill, did not file a report, and a comparative 
print was not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 20221, 20222, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11926, limiting the jurisdiction of 
        federal courts in apportionment cases, considered pursuant to 
        H. Res. 845.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Substantial Compliance'' With Rule

Sec. 60.11 A point of order raised against a committee report alleged 
    to be in violation of the Ramseyer rule will not lie where there is 
    substantial compliance with the require

[[Page 3157]]

    ment that the report disclose changes in existing law. Thus, a 
    letter from the head of an agency in a committee report, setting 
    out proposed changes in existing law, was held to be a substantial 
    compliance with the Ramseyer rule.

    On Jan. 26, 1938,(17) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, made 
a point of order against H.R. 8176, a bill dealing with retirement pay 
for military officers, based on alleged violation of the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 83 Cong. Rec. 1143-46, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled the point of 
order, finding that the report was in substantial compliance with the 
rule. It appeared that a letter to the committee from an Army General, 
explaining certain changes that the bill would make in existing law, 
substantially satisfied the requirement, although Mr. Patman pointed 
out that the letter had been written a month before the committee 
reported the bill and that some changes in the bill had been made 
subsequent to the date of the letter.

        Mr. Patman: Mr. Speaker, I have a further point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Patman: That is, that the Ramseyer rule is not complied 
    with in the report of the committee in reporting the bill. Section 
    3 of the bill undertakes to amend existing law. The Ramseyer rule 
    requires that a committee report shall disclose where there is an 
    effort made specifically to change existing law and shall set out 
    in parallel columns or in some way make it clear and plain to the 
    Members of the House just exactly how the proposed amendment will 
    affect existing law. I know that rule does not require any 
    particular method to be used. I am aware of the fact that in the 
    committee's report, although the committee's report says nothing 
    about this amendment--that is, it is not set out specifically in 
    italics, brackets, or otherwise--but in the letter from General 
    Hines to the Honorable Lister Hill, commencing on page 4 of the 
    report, there is mention, on page 5 of the report, in that letter, 
    that a certain amendment is proposed but it does not say that that 
    is the only amendment in that particular section. I do not know; I 
    am unable to find out whether or not that is all or just a part 
    that General Hines happens to be discussing. He does not say that 
    is the only way that section is amended. He is just saying that it 
    is amended to that extent. I submit that is not a compliance with 
    the letter and spirit of the Ramseyer rule, which is part of the 
    parliamentary rules of this House, and I make the point of order 
    against the report on that ground.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order. The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order that the 
    report of the committee does not conform to the provisions of the 
    Ramseyer rule. . . .
        With reference to the particular point of order made by the 
    gentleman

[[Page 3158]]

    from Texas, the Chair has examined with some care the report of the 
    committee which accompanies this bill, and, indeed, the gentleman 
    from Texas has referred to the matter occurring in the letter on 
    page 4 of the report, the letter from General Hines to the then 
    chairman of the Military Affairs Committee, in which upon page 5 of 
    the report in subsection (b) of section 212, there is set out in 
    italics the only amendment to the existing law that is proposed in 
    the bill, as the Chair understands it. The Chair is of opinion that 
    if the rule itself had not provided that those changes might be 
    incorporated in the report by citing an accompanying document, very 
    probably the point of order made by the gentleman from Texas would 
    be good, but the Chair feels, upon examination of this matter, 
    inasmuch as the only amendment to existing law is set out in 
    italics in an accompanying document to the report of the committee, 
    that a substantial compliance with the rule has been made. . . .
        The Chair will state--and this is the final statement of the 
    Chair upon this matter--that the Chair has examined the bill with 
    considerable care. The Chair feels justified in saying that section 
    3 of the bill is, as a matter of fact, the only specific change in 
    existing law proposed by the bill.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Texas.

Sec. 60.12 A point of order will not lie against a committee report on 
    the ground that the comparative print required by the Ramseyer rule 
    contains a minor typographical error, where the committee has made 
    a substantial effort to comply with the rule.

    On July 26, 1965,(18) after Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New 
York, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of a bill, Mr. Robert P. Griffin, of 
Michigan, made a point of order against the motion on the ground that 
the report (H. Rept. No. 89-540), on the bill failed to comply with the 
provisions of the Ramseyer rule (Rule XIII clause 3), in that it did 
not correctly indicate the changes proposed in the first proviso of 
section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. Griffin called 
attention to the fact that the matter in italics on page 5 of the 
report read ``or in any constitution of [sic] law of any State or 
political subdivision thereof,'' whereas the same language in the bill 
read ``or in any constitution or law of any State or political 
subdivision thereof.'' The difference was that the report showed the 
word ``of,'' where the bill used the word ``or.'' Mr. Griffin argued 
that the failure to re

[[Page 3159]]

port on the bill to indicate this change was in violation of the rule, 
and that the bill should therefore be recommitted to the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 18100, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 77, a bill to repeal Sec. 14(b) of the National Labor 
        Relations Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts overruled the point of 
order, stating:

        The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair will state that this situation has arisen on several 
    occasions in the past.
        Speaker pro tempore Cooper, on April 15, 1940, having a similar 
    question presented to him on a point of order, ruled that ``it is 
    the opinion of the Chair that the duty does not devolve upon the 
    Chair to analyze every word of existing law or to pass upon the 
    sufficiency or compliance with the provisions of the so-called 
    Ramseyer rule.'' The Chair then was of the opinion that the 
    committee reporting the bill had made an effort to comply with the 
    provisions of the Ramseyer rule, and the present occupant of the 
    Chair expresses the same opinion and makes the same ruling, that 
    is, that the committee made a substantial effort to comply with the 
    requirements of the rule.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 60.13 Where a point of order is raised against consideration of a 
    bill on the ground that the report thereon does not adequately 
    reflect all the changes in existing law as required by the Ramseyer 
    rule, the Speaker may overrule the point of order on the ground 
    that the committee has ``substantially complied'' with the rule.

    On July 30, 1968,(19) Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, 
raised a point of order against a motion by Mr. William R. Poage, of 
Texas, that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
for the consideration of a bill. Mr. Findley's point of order against 
consideration of the bill was based on the grounds the committee report 
failed to comply with the provisions of the Ramseyer rule in that the 
comparative print required thereby contained errors of four types. He 
stated the report failed to show by ``stars'' the omission of certain 
sections not carried in the Ramseyer print, typographical errors, 
errors of punctuation, and a failure to indicate one out of 28 date 
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 24245, 24252-54, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 17126, with its accompanying committee 
        report, H. Rept. No. 90-1374, the Extension of Food and 
        Agriculture Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, in overruling the 
point of order, stated:

        There appear to be 22 pages in the committee report referring 
    to changes in existing law.

[[Page 3160]]

        A few years ago the Chair passed on the basic question of 
    substantial compliance in connection with another bill. It seems to 
    the Chair that the committee has substantially complied with the 
    requirements of the Ramseyer rule. I have used the words ``at 
    least.'' If a higher test was called for, I could probably say the 
    committee has complied with the requirements of the Ramseyer rule. 
    In any event, it is the opinion of the Chair that the report of the 
    committee at least shows substantial compliance with the provisions 
    of the Ramseyer rule, and accordingly, the Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

Sec. 60.14 Where the comparative print required by the Ramseyer rule 
    contained errors of three types (1) punctuation at variance with 
    that in the bill, (2) capitalization of certain words not 
    capitalized in the bill, and (3) abbreviations which did not appear 
    in the bill--the Speaker held that there was substantial compliance 
    with the provisions of the rule and overruled a point of order 
    against the report.

    On July 25, 1966,(20) Mr. John Bell Williams, of 
Mississippi, made a point of order against consideration of a bill 
(H.R. 14765), on the ground that the report of the Committee on the 
Judiciary accompanying the bill did not comply with the requirements of 
the Ramseyer rule. Mr. Williams stated, in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 112 Cong. Rec. 16840-42, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 14765 and its accompanying report, H. Rept. No. 89-
        1678, the Civil Rights Acts of 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first error I would like to call to the attention of the 
    Chair is set forth on page 49 of the committee report, at the 
    bottom of the page, purporting to show amendments made to section 
    16-1312 of the District of Columbia Code. The bill, in section 
    103(e), found on page 52, lines 1 through 5, states as follows:

            Section 16-1312 of the District of Columbia Code is 
        amended--

        And so on--yet the report does not set out the section 
    amended--it merely sets out selected excerpts from the sections.
        I cannot tell from looking at the material on page 49 of the 
    report just what the amendments to the section accomplish, and I 
    defy any other Member to do so. Subsection (a) of that section sets 
    out the duties of the jury commission, but the matter printed in 
    the report fails to set out all the duties as prescribed by the 
    section. Then the printed matter completely omits subsection (b) of 
    the amended section, and subsection (c) as printed in the report 
    states:

            (c) Except as provided by this section, Chapter 121 of 
        title 28, U.S.C., insofar as it may be applicable, governs 
        qualifications of jurors.

        But how can a Member tell what is provided by the section, when 
    the section is not set out for him to see?
        This section 16-1312 which is amended by the bill also contains 
    a

[[Page 3161]]

    subsection (d), which is not printed in the report.
        Mr. Speaker, this failure of the report to show the law which 
    is changed by the bill makes it impossible for Members to be able 
    to determine just what changes are actually being made in the 
    section, and therefore fails to comply with either the spirit or 
    the letter of the Ramseyer rule. Of course, for that matter, even 
    the material printed in the subsection (c) at the bottom of page 49 
    of the report fails to comply literally with the rule, since the 
    material in italic is not literally the same as the material 
    proposed to be inserted by the bill--the Ramseyer abbreviates to 
    ``U.S.C.'' the words ``United States Code'' appearing in the bill. 
    The same erroneous abbreviation also appears in the amendment made 
    to subsection (a) of that section.
        Another failure to follow the literal text of the bill can also 
    be found on page 52 of the report, Mr. Speaker, where the text of 
    the proposed new section 303 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
    differs substantially in form from the section 303 added to that 
    act by the bill, on page 79, lines 10 through 19.
        Most serious of the deficiencies in this report, however, Mr. 
    Speaker, is the matter appearing on page 53 of the report, where 
    the report purports to show changes in title III of the Civil 
    Rights Act of 1960 made by section 701 of the bill, which appears 
    on page 80, line 9. Section 701 states ``Title III of the Civil 
    Rights Act of 1960 is amended'' and so on--yet the report does not 
    even purport to show title III of that act or any part thereof--all 
    that Members have to guide them as to the provisions of title III 
    is a row of asterisks, which I must confess I do not find very 
    helpful--especially since the proposed new section 307 of the Civil 
    Rights Act of 1960 refers back to section 301 of the Civil Rights 
    Act of 1960 stating--page 80 lines 12 and 13 of the bill--``Any 
    officer of election or custodian required under section 301 of this 
    Act to retain and preserve records and papers may'' and so forth. 
    This portion of the committee's report is completely worthless, in 
    my judgment, in helping Members to understand the changes made in 
    existing law made by the bill.
        The Ramseyer rule requires that the report show, and I quote:

            That part of the bill or joint resolution making the 
        amendment and of the statute or part thereof proposed to be 
        amended.

        I submit, most respectfully, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to 
    title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, there has been a 
    complete failure to comply with the portion of the Ramseyer rule 
    requiring that the statute proposed to be amended be shown. The 
    report does not show the statute, and it does not even show any 
    part of the statute--not even the part of the statute most 
    necessary to understand what the proposed section 307 is all about; 
    namely, section 301 which is cross-referenced to in the proposed 
    section 307.
        Mr. Speaker, on page 43 of the report, sections 1873 and 1874 
    of title 18 of the United States Code are shown as repealed, and 
    new language added in their place; also the Ramseyer on the same 
    page shows two new sections added--sections 1875 and 1876. I have 
    not been able to find any place in the bill which repeals any of 
    these sections, or which adds new text as sec

[[Page 3162]]

    tions 1875 and 1876, although the explanatory matter on page 35 of 
    the report, under the heading ``Changes in existing law'' states as 
    follows:

            Matter proposed to be stricken by the bill as reported is 
        enclosed in black brackets. New language proposed by the bill 
        as reported is printed in italic.

        I, for one, find this very confusing, if the intent is to show 
    the changes in section numbers made by section 103 of the bill, 
    especially since the language preceding the Ramseyer states that 
    ``there is printed below in roman existing law in which no change 
    is proposed.''
        This is, at best, a very odd way to show a renumbering of 
    sections--so odd, in fact, that I think its potential for confusion 
    is such as to render it a violation of the Ramseyer rule.
        In summary, Mr. Speaker, the committee report fails to comply 
    with the Ramseyer rule by showing language in the report as a 
    purported change in existing law which is not the same as language 
    contained in the bill; the report fails to show the entire text of 
    a section which is proposed to be amended by the bill, but leaves 
    Members to guess as to what the amendment actually does; the report 
    fails to show any part whatsoever of a provision of law amended by 
    the bill, even where the setting forth of such provision is 
    essential to understanding of the changes made; and shows 
    nonexistence repeals and amendments as a means of showing 
    renumbering of sections.
        I respectfully submit that this point of order should be 
    sustained and the bill recommitted to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary in accordance with the rules of the House.

    Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, citing the technical and 
insubstantial nature of Mr. Williams' objections, stated with respect 
to sections of title III of the statute not quoted in the report, that 
no changes in those sections were proposed by the bill. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, then overruled the point of order. 
Implicitly adopting the view that only those portions of existing law 
directly affected by a bill need be shown in a comparative print (see 
Sec. 60.6, supra), the Speaker indicated that there had been 
substantial compliance with the Ramseyer rule in the report in 
question, and that substantial compliance was a sufficient basis for 
overruling the point of order under that rule. Citing as a precedent a 
ruling on the same subject on Apr. 15, 1940, by Speaker pro tempore 
Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, Speaker McCormack stated:

        Now, on the pending point of order, the Chair calls attention 
    to the fact that there are approximately 18 pages in the committee 
    report which relate to complying with the Ramseyer rule.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the committee has 
    substantially complied with the Ramseyer rule, and follows the 
    decision which I have referred to, and which was made in 1940 by 
    Speaker pro tempore Cooper, and reaffirms that decision.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

[[Page 3163]]

Timeliness in Invoking Rule

Sec. 60.15 The proper time to raise a point of order that a committee 
    report fails to comply with the Ramseyer rule is when the motion is 
    made to resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider the 
    bill.

    On July 30, 1968,(1) during debate on House Resolution 
1218, which provided that it should be in order to move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
a bill, Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, unsuccessfully attempted to 
raise a point of order against further consideration of the motion on 
the ground that the committee report accompanying the bill did not 
comply with the provisions of the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 24245, 24252, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 17126, the extension of the 1965 Food 
        and Agriculture Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker pro tempore John J. Rooney, of New York, ruled that a point 
of order on that ground was not appropriate at that time. Mr. Findley 
then inquired as to when the point would be in order. The Speaker pro 
tempore replied that it could be raised when the motion was made to 
resolve into the Committee of the Whole. After the previous question 
was ordered on the resolution and the resolution was agreed to, Mr. 
William R. Poage, of Texas, moved that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then heard Mr. Findley on his 
point of order.

Sec. 60.16 A point of order that a committee report fails to comply 
    with the Ramseyer rule will not lie in the Committee of the Whole.

    On July 25, 1966,(2) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, ruled untimely a point of order 
raised by Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi, against consideration 
of a civil rights bill on the ground that the report of the Committee 
on the Judiciary accompanying the bill did not comply with requirements 
of the Ramseyer rule. On appeal, the Chair's ruling was upheld by a 
division vote of 139-101. Mr. Williams had attempted to raise the point 
of order prior to the House's resolving itself into the Committee of 
the Whole, but, as Speaker John W. McCormack,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 16840, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3164]]

of Massachusetts, later acknowledged, the Chair did not hear Mr. 
Williams make his point of order. After the Committee rose on motion of 
Mr. Williams before general debate had commenced, the Speaker stated 
that under the circumstances Mr. Williams could make his point of order 
at that time.

    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    14765) to assure nondiscrimination in Federal and State jury 
    selection and service, to facilitate the desegregation of public 
    education and other public facilities, to provide judicial relief 
    against discriminatory housing practices, to prescribe penalties 
    for certain acts of violence or intimidation. and for other 
    purposes.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler].
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: All those in favor of the motion will let it be 
    known by saying ``aye.'' All those opposed by saying ``no.''
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
    the bill, H.R. 14765, with Mr. Bolling in the chair.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a point of order. I was on my feet----
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was 
    dispensed with.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Celler) will be recognized for 5 hours and the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. McCulloch] will be recognized for 5 hours.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch: Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio 
    rise?
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, I rise for a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCulloch: I would like to know if the resolution 
    unqualifiedly guarantees the minority one-half of the time during 
    general debate and nothing untoward will happen so that it will be 
    diminished or denied contrary to gentlemen's agreements.
        The Chairman: The Chairman will reply by rereading that portion 
    of his opening statement. Under the rule, the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Celler], will be recognized for 5 hours, the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] will be recognized for 5 hours. The Chair 
    will follow the rules.
        Mr. McCulloch: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
    care to use. Mr. Chairman, Negroes propose to be

[[Page 3165]]

    free. Many rights have been denied and withheld from them. The 
    right to be equally educated with whites. The right to equal 
    housing with whites. The right to equal recreation with whites.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        Mr. Celler: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, immediately before the House 
    resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House I was on my 
    feet on the floor seeking recognition for the purpose of making a 
    point of order against consideration of H.R. 14765 on the ground 
    that the report of the Judiciary Committee accompanying the bill 
    does not comply with all the requirements of clause 3 of rule XIII 
    of the rules of the House known as the Ramseyer rule and intended 
    to request I be heard in support of that point of order. I was not 
    recognized by the Chair. I realize technically under the rules of 
    the House at this point, my point of order may come too late, after 
    the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union.

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Williams: But I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I sought to 
    raise the point of order before the House went into session. May I 
    ask this question? Is there any way that this point of order can 
    lie at this time?
        The Chairman: Not at this time. It lies only in the House, the 
    Chair must inform the gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. Williams: May I say that the Parliamentarian and the 
    Speaker were notified in advance and given copies of the point of 
    order that I desired to raise, and I was refused recognition 
    although I was on my feet seeking recognition at the time.
        Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: I appeal the ruling of 
    the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to repeat that the gentleman 
    from Mississippi is well aware that this present occupant of the 
    chair is powerless to do other than he has stated.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as rendered?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Williams) there were--ayes 139, noes 101.
        The decision of the Chair was sustained.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise, and on that I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Celler and Mr. Williams.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were-- ayes 168, noes 144.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Bolling, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 14765) to assure 
    nondiscrimination in Federal and State jury selection and service, 
    to facilitate the desegregation of public education and other 
    public facilities, to provide

[[Page 3166]]

    judicial relief against discriminatory housing practices, to 
    prescribe penalties for certain acts of violence or intimidation, 
    and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Mississippi.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the House resolved itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union a moment 
    ago. When the question was put by the Chair, I was on my feet 
    seeking recognition for the purpose of offering a point of order 
    against consideration of the legislation. Although I shouted rather 
    loudly, apparently the Chair did not hear me. Since the Committee 
    proceeded to go into the Committee of the Whole, I would like to 
    know, Mr. Speaker, if the point of order which I had intended to 
    offer can be offered now in the House against the consideration of 
    the bill; and, Mr. Speaker, I make such a point of order and ask 
    that I be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair did not hear 
    the gentleman make his point of order. There was too much noise. 
    Under the circumstances the Chair will entertain the point of 
    order.

Sec. 60.17 A point of order that a report fails to comply with the 
    requirement that proposed changes in law be indicated 
    typographically, as required by the Ramseyer rule, is properly made 
    when the bill is called up in the House and before the House 
    resolves into the Committee of the Whole.

    On July 13, 1959,(3) immediately after Mr. Thomas G. 
Abernethy, of Mississippi, moved that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, inquired of the 
Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 105 Cong. Rec. 13226, 13227, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6893, a bill to amend the District of 
        Columbia Stadium Act of 1957 with respect to motor vehicle 
        parking areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill and the report. When is the proper time 
    to seek recognition for this purpose?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(4) This is the proper time 
    for the gentleman to make his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereupon, Mr. Gross made a point of order against language found 
in the bill which, under the Ramseyer rule, was not stated in the 
accompanying report in italicized or other distinctive print. Mr. 
Abernethy then withdrew the motion and obtained unanimous consent that 
the bill be recommitted to the committee.

Sec. 60.18 A point of order that a committee report on a measure does 
    not comply with the Ramseyer rule comes too late

[[Page 3167]]

    after the House has resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    to consider the measure and debate has begun.

    On Apr. 29, 1941,(5) after the House had resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole, Mr. John Taber, of New York, made a 
point of order against a measure on the basis that it apparently 
amended an earlier 1938 agriculture act, a change not disclosed in the 
committee report. After some substantiation of Mr. Taber's point of 
order, Mr. Hampton P. Fulmer, of South Carolina, in turn made a point 
of order against the prior point of order, on the ground that it came 
too late and should have been made before the House resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole. Chairman Harry P. Beam, of Illinois, 
then sustained Mr. Fulmer's point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  5. 87 Cong. Rec. 3421, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 149, concerning corn and wheat quotas and loans. See 
        also 87 Cong. Rec. 3585, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 5, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

        The Chairman: All time has expired. The Clerk will read.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    bill and the report of the committee that the report does not 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman on 
    the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Fulmer rose.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from South 
    Carolina rise?
        Mr. Fulmer: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    point of order of the gentleman from New York comes too late. The 
    point of order should have been made in the House instead of in the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The Chairman: The Chairman will be glad to hear the gentleman 
    from South Carolina on the point of order.
        Mr. Fulmer: I do not care to say anything further on the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York has made a point of 
    order that the report on the joint resolution does not comply with 
    the Ramseyer rule. The gentleman referred first to subparagraph 11 
    on page 7 of the joint resolution, which reads as follows:

            The provisions of this resolution are amendatory of and 
        supplementary to the act, and all provisions of law applicable 
        in respect of marketing quotas and loans under such act as so 
        amended and supplemented shall be applicable, but nothing in 
        this resolution shall be construed to amend or repeal section 
        301(b)(6), 323(b) (except as provided in par. (7)), or 335(d) 
        of the act.

        The gentleman from New York has pointed out various other 
    paragraphs

[[Page 3168]]

    of the joint resolution to substantiate his statement that there 
    has been no compliance with the Ramseyer rule.
        Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, volume 8, 
    page 51, section 2243, reads as follows:

            The point of order that a report fails to comply with the 
        requirement that proposed changes in law be indicated 
        typographically is properly made when the bill is called up in 
        the House and it comes too late after the House has resolved 
        into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the 
        hill.

        Again, the Chair points out that on February 10, 1937, the 
    Chairman [Mr. Lanham], while proceeding in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, substantiating the language 
    the Chair has just read, held, in effect, that:

            A point of order that a committee report does not comply 
        with the Ramseyer rule comes too late after the House has 
        resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole for the purpose 
        of considering the bill and debate thereon has begun. Points of 
        order against the consideration of bills on the ground that the 
        reports accompanying said bills do not conform to the Ramseyer 
        rule come too late after the House has resolved itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole and consideration has begun.

        In view of the circumstances of the case and under the 
    precedents and rules of the House, the Chair is of the opinion that 
    the point of order which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] 
    has stated comes too late. The point of order should have been made 
    in the House and for these reasons the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Waiver of Rule by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 60.19 The House granted unanimous consent for the waiving of the 
    provisions of the Ramseyer rule relative to a report to be 
    submitted subsequently by a committee of the House.

    On Mar. 8, 1945,(6) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, by 
direction of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive 
Departments, reported on H.R. 2504, to repeal certain laws requiring 
reports to be made to Congress. Mr. Cochran explained that the bill 
would repeal a total of 64 reports required by law. In order to save 
money, manpower, and paper, Mr. Cochran requested unanimous consent 
that the requirements of the Ramseyer rule be waived, or else all 64 
laws would have to be printed. Mr. Cochran gave assurances that the 
report would fully explain the bill and all items therein. There was no 
objection to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 1922, 1923, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver of Rule by Resolution

Sec. 60.20 Where the House adopts a resolution providing for the 
    consideration

[[Page 3169]]

    of a bill, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
    such action waives the requirement of compliance with the Ramseyer 
    rule.

    On Feb. 15, 1949,(7) after the House had voted to adopt 
House Resolution 99, which provided in part ``That, notwithstanding any 
rule of the House to the contrary, it shall be in order on Tuesday, 
February 15, 1949, to move that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
consideration of the bill'' [H.R. 2632, a deficiency appropriation bill 
for 1949]. Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, made a point of order 
based on the Ramseyer rule against consideration of the bill. Citing 
the above language, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, overruled the point 
of order. The proceedings were as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 95 Cong. Rec. 1214, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Id. at pp. 1218, 1219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that the report accompanying the bill, H.R. 2632, does not 
    comply with the so-called Ramseyer rule.
        I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that although the 
    resolution which has been adopted waives points of order against 
    the bill by the provisions contained therein it does not 
    specifically waive or exempt the so-called Ramseyer rule which 
    requires that a report accompanying a bill, including appropriation 
    bills, shall set forth in appropriate type the text of the statute 
    it is proposed to repeal.
        In this connection I invite the Chair's attention to the fact 
    that on page 8 of the proposed bill, line 6, it is proposed to 
    repeal a title in a previous act of Congress, and again on page 16, 
    lines 15 and 16, the bill carries this language: ``and the first, 
    fourth, and fifth provisos under said head are hereby repealed.''
        I have diligently searched the entire report on the bill and 
    can find no citation of the statute to be repealed in order to 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule.
        I make the point of order which, if sustained, as I understand 
    it, would automatically recommit the bill to the committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule:

            Notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, it 
        shall be in order--

        And so forth--
        and all points of order against the bill or any of the 
        provisions contained therein are hereby waived.

        The Chair overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, will the Chair indulge 
    me for a moment?
        The Speaker: The Chair will indulge the gentleman.

[[Page 3170]]

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Under the rule in the House Manual, a 
    citation is made to a precedent in the Congressional Record of the 
    Seventy-first Congress, second session, page 10595. This citation 
    reads:

            Special orders providing for consideration of bills, unless 
        making specific exemption, do not preclude the point of order 
        that reports on such bills fail to indicate proposed changes in 
        existing law. (Cannon's, sec. 9220a; 71st Cong., 2d sees., 
        Congressional Record, p. 10595.)

        I fail to see any provision in the rule adopted which 
    specifically exempts clause 2a of rule XIII, the Ramseyer rule.
        The Speaker: The Ramseyer rule is a rule of the House, and this 
    resolution states ``all rules to the contrary notwithstanding,'' it 
    shall be in order to consider the bill.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.



 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 61. Cost-estimate Requirement

    A House rule requires that each public bill or joint resolution 
reported by a committee must contain certain estimates of the costs 
which would be incurred in carrying out such bill or joint resolution. 
The requirement is set forth in Rule XIII clause 7: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 748(b) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a 
    public character reported by any committee shall contain--
        (1) an estimate, made by such committee, of the costs which 
    would be incurred in carrying out such bill or joint resolution in 
    the fiscal year in which it is reported and in each of the five 
    fiscal years following such fiscal year (or for the authorized 
    duration of any program authorized by such bill or joint 
    resolution, if less than five years), except that, in the case of 
    measures affecting the revenues, such reports shall require only an 
    estimate of the gain or loss in revenues for a one-year period; and
        (2) a comparison of the estimate of costs described in 
    subparagraph (1) of this paragraph made by such committee with any 
    estimate of such costs made by any Government agency and submitted 
    to such committee. . . .
        (e) The preceding provisions of this clause do not apply to the 
    Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on House Administration, 
    the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct.

    The requirement is of recent origin, brought about by the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,(10) and became 
effective on the adoption of the rules by the 92d Congress on Jan. 22, 
1971.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140. Sec. 252(b) (Oct. 26, 1970).
11. 11. 117 Cong. Rec. 134-144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As evidenced by the following excerpt from the report of the 
Committee on Rules,(12) the pur
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Rept. No. 91-1215, 116 Cong. Rec. 20276, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 17, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3171]]

pose of the rule is to inform Members of the costs of programs 
recommended by House legislative committees and thus exercise greater 
control over the fiscal operations of government. The report states:

        The responsibility for developing and disseminating fiscal 
    information does not, and should not, rest solely with the revenue-
    raising and Appropriations Committees. Programs and their costs are 
    inextricably interrelated. If Congress is to exercise rational 
    control over the Government's fiscal operations, its Members must 
    be made fully aware of the financial consequences of programs they 
    are considering.
        Here the legislative committees of Congress can play an 
    important role. With the aid of the supplementary staff resources 
    provided for elsewhere in this bill, they should be better able to 
    analyze and evaluate the cost estimates submitted by executive 
    agencies.
        Section 252 [Rule XIII clause 7] places that responsibility 
    upon the legislative committees by requiring that their reports on 
    public bills and joint resolutions shall contain 5-year projections 
    of the estimated costs that would be incurred by adoption of the 
    measures at issue. The committees are further directed to present a 
    comparison of their cost estimates with those submitted by the 
    executive branch.
        Revenue measures are exempted from this requirement, but 
    reports on such proposals will be required to contain an estimate 
    of its impact, in terms of revenue loss or gain, for 1 year.

    Under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, each 
committee was required to include in any report accompanying a bill or 
resolution a cost-estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, 
if the estimate was timely submitted before the report was filed. 
(13) This requirement was incorporated into the rules [Rule 
XI clause 2(l)(3)(C), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713 (e) (1979)], by 
the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974.(14) Even if such a 
cost-estimate is included in the report, the committee must still 
prepare its own cost-estimate pursuant to Rule XIII clause 7 
(15) (or adopt as the committee-estimate the Congressional 
Budget Office estimate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Pub. L. No. 93-344, July 12, 1974; Sec. 403 was made effective on 
        the first day on which the first Director of the Congressional 
        Budget Office was appointed.
14. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
15 House Rules and Manual Sec. 748(b) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of legislation providing new budget authority or tax 
expenditures, the Congressional Budget Act required certain statements 
in committee reports, prepared after consultation with the 
Congressional Budget Office, providing projections and comparisons 
relative to concurrent resolu

[[Page 3172]]

tions on the budget;(16) this requirement was also 
incorporated into the rules [Rule XI clause 2(l)(3)(B), House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 713(e) ( 1979)].(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Pub. L. No. 93-344, July 12, 1974; title III of the law, including 
        Sec. 308 (a), became effective for the fiscal year beginning 
        Oct. 1, 1976.
17. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 
        1974, effective Jan. 3, 
        1975.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver of Cost-of-estimate Requirement

Sec. 61.1 Although the House rules require that each public bill or 
    joint resolution reported by a committee contain certain estimates 
    of the costs which would be incurred in carrying it out, a bill or 
    joint resolution may be called up under a special rule that permits 
    consideration thereof notwithstanding a failure to comply with the 
    cost-estimate requirement, or which waives points of order based 
    thereon.

    On Aug. 18, 1972,(18) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, who, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, called up a resolution and asked for its immediate 
consideration. The Clerk then read the resolution, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 29093, 92d Cong.2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1097

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move, clause 7, rule XIII, to the contrary 
    notwithstanding,(19) that the House resolve itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1227) approving 
    the acceptance by the President for the United States of the 
    interim agreement between the United States of America and the 
    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on certain measures with 
    respect to the limitation of strategic offensive arms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.  Other examples of resolutions couched in the identical language 
        (i.e. ``clause 7 of Rule XIII to the contrary 
        notwithstanding,'') may be found at 118 Cong. Rec. 26584, 92d 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1972 [H. Res. 1071, providing for 
        consideration of H.R. 15989, to establish a Council on 
        International Economic Policy and to extend the Export 
        Administration Act]; and 118 Cong. Rec. 24100, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., July 18, 1972 [H. Res. 1012, providing for consideration 
        of H.R. 14424, establishing a National Institute on Aging].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the ensuing discussion, Mr. Pepper yielded 30 
minutes of time to Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, who observed: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 29094, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3173]]

        . . . House Resolution 1097 provides an open rule with 1 hour 
    of general debate for consideration of House Joint Resolution 1227, 
    the Agreement on Limitation of Strategic Offensive Weapons. We 
    waived points of order so far as failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 7, rule XIII, because it was impossible to 
    make a cost estimate on House Joint Resolution 1227.

Special Rule Waiving Points of Order for Failure to Comply

Sec. 61.2 A special rule waiving points of order against consideration 
    of bills for failure of the accompanying report to comply with the 
    cost-estimate rule is sometimes provided even though the report 
    states that no additional costs were anticipated.

    On Apr. 11, 1973,(1) Mr. Speedy O. Long, of Louisiana, 
called up for immediate consideration a House resolution which provided 
in part that on the adoption of the resolution it would be in order to 
move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of a bill to amend a provision of the United States 
Code relative to the proper use of franking privileges by Members of 
Congress. The resolution provided for a waiver of points of order 
against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with the cost-
estimate rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 11785, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was H. 
        Res. 349, providing for consideration of H.R. 3180, to amend 
        title 39 of the United States Code relative to franking 
        privileges for Members of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The committee report had stated merely that 
no additional costs were anticipated by the enactment of the bill. But 
since the bill repealed existing provisions of laws relating to the 
franking privilege, and the proposed bill differed in several respects 
from existing law, the cost of reenactment of the law with those 
changes should have been estimated in the report.
    The House agreed to the resolution and went on to consider the 
bill, which the House subsequently passed.


                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                          F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
 
Sec. 62. Time for Filing Report

    Under the rules, committee reports on a bill or other measure 
reported to the House by a committee must accompany the reported 
measure.(2) However, Members may obtain unanimous consent to 
file their minority or separate views as part II of a 
report.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 821 (1979).
 3. Sec. 64.4, infra (late filing of minority report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3174]]

Unanimous consent of the House may also be obtained to file a committee 
report after adjournment.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sec. 62.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing After Sine Die Adjournment

Sec. 62.1 A standing committee may be authorized, by unanimous consent, 
    to have its investigative reports printed if filed after the sine 
    die adjournment.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Chet Holifield, of California, who made 
the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 5 108 Cong. Rec. 22618, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
            For other examples, see 104 Cong. Rec. 19699, 85th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 23, 1958; 103 Cong. Rec. 16759, 85th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Aug. 30, 1957; 102 Cong. Rec. 15268, 84th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., July 27, 1956; and 94 Cong. Rec. 9348. 80th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., June 19, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that reports filed with 
    the Clerk, following the sine die adjournment,(6) by the 
    Committee on Government Operations or its subcommittees may be 
    printed by the Clerk as reports of the 87th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. For the rules pertaining to adjournment in general, see Ch. 40, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unanimous consent was granted.
    Parliamentarian's Note: In recent Congresses, the form of this 
request has been expanded to permit all committees authorized by the 
House to conduct investigations to file reports with the Clerk 
following sine die adjournment and to print those reports. Such general 
form was also used in some past Congresses, as indicated in Sec. 62.14, 
infra.

Sec. 62.2 A select committee may be authorized, by unanimous consent, 
    to have its investigative reports printed if filed after the sine 
    die adjournment.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(7) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent that reports filed after sine die 
adjournment with the Clerk by the Committee on Government Operations or 
its subcommittees could be printed by the Clerk as reports of the 87th 
Congress. Then Mr. A. Paul Kitchin, of North Carolina, obtained 
unanimous consent that reports filed with the Clerk following the 
adjournment by the Select Committee on Export Control could likewise be 
printed by the Clerk as records of the 87th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 22618, 22619, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 62.3 By unanimous consent, the Committee on Govern

[[Page 3175]]

    ment Operations was permitted to file a report on a bill subsequent 
    to a projected sine die adjournment but on a day prior to 
    expiration of the first session of the 93d Congress under the 20th 
    amendment (Jan. 3).

    On Dec. 20, 1973,(8) the day before the expiration of 
the first session of the 93d Congress, Mr. Chet Holifield, of 
California, obtained unanimous consent that the House Committee on 
Government Operations have until midnight, Jan. 2, 1974, to file a 
report on H.R. 11793, a bill to create a new Federal Energy 
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 119 Cong. Rec. 42916, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leave to File Before Midnight

Sec. 62.4 Leave was granted to a committee to file a privileged report, 
    on a bill for admission of a new state, after adjournment for the 
    day but before midnight.

    On Feb. 11, 1959,(9) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs have until midnight of that day to file a privileged report on 
the bill H.R. 4221, providing for the admission of the State of Hawaii 
into the Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 105 Cong. Rec. 2178, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The authority conferred upon the Committee 
on Interior and Insular Affairs to report statehood bills as privileged 
was removed from the rules effective Jan. 3 1975.

Sec. 62.5 The Committee on Banking and Currency was granted permission 
    by unanimous consent to have until midnight to file a report and an 
    accompanying document showing changes in existing law as required 
    by the Ramseyer rule.

    On July 13, 1966,(10) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, 
obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking and Currency 
have until midnight to file an accompanying document to the report on 
the bill H.R. 15890, a housing bill, in order to comply with the 
requirements of the Ramseyer rule. Later that same day, Mr. Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that some of the material which should have 
been in the report accompanying the housing bill was still not 
available. Therefore, Mr. Albert sought and obtained unanimous consent 
that the Committee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 112 Cong. Rec. 15403, 15476, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3176]]

on Banking and Currency have until midnight on Friday, July 15, 1966, 
to file the supplemental report.

Sec. 62.6 The Committee on Appropriations was given until midnight to 
    file a privileged report.

    On June 3, 1963,(11) Mr. William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, sought and obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Appropriations have until midnight of that day to file the report on 
the bill making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 9916, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where such permission is granted on a 
general appropriation bill, points of order under Rule XXI clause 2 
must be reserved at that time, before the bill is placed on the Union 
Calendar, to permit points of order under that clause to be later made 
against provisions in the bill during consideration in Committee of the 
Whole. Absent such a reservation, the Committee of the Whole would have 
no authority to remove provisions from bills referred to it by the 
House other than by amendment.

Sec. 62.7 A Member from the minority party, acting at the behest of a 
    committee chairman, asked and secured unanimous consent that the 
    committee have until midnight to file a report.

    On June 2, 1966,(12) Mr. Howard H. Callaway, of Georgia, 
a member from the minority party, acting at the behest of the committee 
chairman, obtained unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture 
have until midnight of that day to file a report on H.R. 15089, an 
agriculture bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 12191, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing After Expiration of Select Committee

Sec. 62.8 Where a special investigating committee expires on a 
    specified date, it is not in order seven months later to file a 
    report as a matter of privilege.

    In the 76th Congress, on July 19, 1939,(13) Mr. Ralph E. 
Church, of Illinois, objected to a unanimous-consent request by Mr. 
Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, to file the report of the Select 
Committee to Investigate Bondholders' Reorganizations, which had been 
established by House Resolution 412 of the 73d Congress. In response
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 9531, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3177]]

to an inquiry submitted by Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, as to 
whether the report could be filed by a committee which had ceased to 
exist several months previously, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, declared that such filing would be unauthorized. The Speaker 
stated:

        The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman [Mr. Sabath] 
    would not have the legal authority to file this as a report of the 
    committee because, as the Chair understands, the functions of the 
    committee expired on January 1, 1939.

    Mr. Sabath withdrew his request to file the report.

Where Filing Date Falls on Non-legislative Day

Sec. 62.9 Where an investigative report from a joint committee was due 
    to be filed on a date that fell on a Saturday when the House was 
    not in session, the report was filed on the following Monday with 
    the Clerk.

    On Apr. 3, 1939,(14) Mr. R. Ewing Thomason, of Texas, 
called to the attention of the House the fact that the report of the 
joint committee appointed to investigate the Tennessee Valley Authority 
had been due on a day [Saturday, Apr. 1] when Congress was not in 
session. Mr. Thomason stated that the report was therefore filed with 
the Clerk on Apr. 3, and that there would also be minority views. Mr. 
Thomason explained that his remarks were intended to inform the Members 
why the report had not been filed earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 3727, 3728, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joint Economic Committee

Sec. 62.10 The Joint Economic Committee may be granted additional time 
    in which to file a report.

    On Feb. 26, 1959,(15) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, 
sought unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be given 
eight additional days to file its report. Under the Employment Act of 
1946 [15 USC Sec. Sec. 1021 et seq.; 60 Stat. 23 (1946)], the Joint 
Economic Committee was required to file its report on the economic re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 3049, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. For other extensions, see 
        109 Cong. Rec. 3231, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 28, 1963 [two 
        additional weeks]; 108 Cong. Rec. 2948, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Feb. 26, 1962 [one additional week]; 107 Cong. Rec. 2935, 87th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1961 [two additional months]; and 101 
        Cong. Rec. 2029, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 24, 1955 [115 
        additional days].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3178]]

port of the President on Mar. 1. The committee had voted unanimously to 
request that it be given until Mar. 9 to file its report. Without 
objection, the House granted the additional time.

Sec. 62.11 Instance where the House, by unanimous consent, considered 
    and passed a Senate joint resolution extending the date for 
    transmission to Congress of the report of the Joint Economic 
    Committee.

    On Feb. 7, 1972,(16) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, sought 
and obtained unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of 
Senate Joint Resolution 196, extending the date for the transmission to 
the Congress of the report of the Joint Economic Committee. The Clerk 
read the Senate joint resolution, which provided that the dates for the 
transmission of the economic report of the Joint Economic Committee, 
approved Dec. 22, 1971 (Pub. L. No. 92-216; 85 Stat. 778), be extended 
from Mar. 10, 1972, to Mar. 28, 1972. The Senate joint resolution was 
then read a third time and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid 
on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 2915, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since this reporting requirement is, in 
effect, a joint rule of the House and Senate, unanimous consent of both 
Houses for an extension of time is all that is required and not the 
enactment of a law.

Form of Resolution Authorizing Filing During Adjournment

Sec. 62.12 The House has by resolution authorized a committee to 
    conduct an investigation and to submit a report to the Clerk if the 
    House is not in session.

    On June 20, 1936,(17) Mr. James M. Mead, of New York, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent for the immediate consideration 
of House Resolution 551, which provided that the Committee on the Post 
Office and Post Roads could conduct an investigation and submit its 
report to the Clerk if the House were not in session. The resolution 
was agreed to. It provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 10619, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, 
    as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized and directed to 
    conduct an investigation to determine (1) the fair and proper basis 
    of compensation for postmasters of the fourth class, and (2) the 
    fair and proper basis of compensation for carrying mail on star 
    routes. . . .

[[Page 3179]]

        The committee shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the 
    House if the House is not in session) as soon as practicable the 
    results of its investigation, together with such recommendations 
    for legislation as it deems advisable.

Sec. 62.13 A resolution authorized the appointment of a special 
    committee to investigate old-age pension plans and empowered the 
    committee, in the event the House was not in session, to file its 
    report with the Speaker.

    On Mar. 10, 1936,(18) Mr. C. Jasper Bell, of Missouri, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent for the immediate consideration 
of House Resolution 443, which provided for establishment of a select 
committee to investigate pension plans and authorized the committee to 
submit its report after the adjournment. Specifically, the resolution 
provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 80 Cong. Rec. 3506, 3507, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Speaker appoint a select committee of eight 
    Members of the House and that such committee be instructed to 
    inquire into old-age-pension plans with respect to which 
    legislation has been submitted to the House of Representatives, and 
    particularly that embodied in H.R. 7154. . . . And the committee 
    shall have the right to report to the House at any time the results 
    of its investigations and recommendations for other or additional 
    legislation upon said bill or any other proposed legislation 
    relative to old-age pensions.  . . .
        Resolved further, That in the event the committee transmits its 
    report to the Speaker at a time when the House is not in session, 
    as authorized in House Resolution No. 418, current session, a 
    record of such transmittal shall be entered in the proceedings of 
    the Journal and Congressional Record of the House on the opening 
    day of the next session of Congress and shall be numbered and 
    printed as a report of such Congress.

Form of Request Authorizing Filing and Printing After Sine Die 
    Adjournment

Sec. 62.14 By unanimous consent, special and standing committees may be 
    authorized, notwithstanding sine die adjournment, to file their 
    reports with the Speaker for printing as public documents.

    On Dec. 15, 1942 (1) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 9602, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that notwithstanding the sine die adjournment of 
    the House, special and standing Committees of the House authorized 
    to make investigations may file their reports with the Speaker not 
    later than noon, January

[[Page 3180]]

    3, 1943, for printing as public documents.
        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection


 
                               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.



 
                               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.
