[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[B. The Chairman]
[Â§ 6. Chairman's Role; Jurisdiction]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3288-3295]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                            B. THE CHAIRMAN
 
Sec. 6. Chairman's Role; Jurisdiction

    Points of order relating to procedure arising in the Committee of 
the Whole are decided by the Chairman.(8) Rule XXIII clause 
1 (9) empowers the Chairman to cause the galleries or 
lobbies to be cleared in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct. 
Nonetheless, in cases of extreme disorder the Speaker has taken the 
Chair and restored order without a formal rising of the 
Committee.(10) The Chairman is assisted by the Sergeant at 
Arms who attends sittings of the Committee to maintain order under 
direction of the Chair.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6927, 6928. But see 4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 4783, which states that in an exceptional case 
        the Committee rose and reported a question of order for 
        decision of the House when an appeal was taken from a ruling of 
        the Chairman.
            In rare cases where the Chairman has been defied or 
        insulted, he has directed the Committee to rise, left the 
        Chair, and, following assumption of the Chair by the Speaker, 
        reported the facts to the House. Note to Rule XXIII clause 1, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 862 (1973); 2 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 1350, 1651, 1653.
 9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 861 (1979).
10. Note to Rule I clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (1979); 2 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1348, 1648-1653, 1657.
11. Rule IV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 648 (1979); Rule 
        XXIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 862 (1979); and 1 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. 257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Committee of the Whole only the Chairman may recognize 
Members for debate.(12) However, like the Speaker, he is 
forbidden from recognizing requests to suspend the rule of admission to 
the floor.(13) The Chairman has a duty to call to order any 
Member who violates the privileges of debate (14) even in 
the absence of any suggestion from the floor.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5003. See Sec. 15, infra, for a discussion 
        of recognition for debate.
13. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7285. See also Rule XXXII, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. Sec. 919-921 (1979) relating to admission to the 
        floor.
14. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2515. See Sec. 17, infra, for discussion 
        of the procedure when words are taken down.
15. 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2520.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruling on Points Not in Issue

Sec. 6.1 The Chair does not rule on issues not presented in a point of 
    order.

    On June 27, 1949,(16) during consideration of H.R. 4009, 
the

[[Page 3289]]

Housing Act of 1949, and after overruling a point of order that certain 
provisions exceeded the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and 
Currency because they constituted appropriations, Chairman Hale Boggs, 
of Louisiana, declined to rule on an issue which had not been presented 
in the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 8480, 8536-38, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order I make is that subparagraphs (e) and (f) of section 102 in 
    title I constitute the appropriation of funds from the Federal 
    Treasury, and that the Committee on Banking and Currency is without 
    jurisdiction to report a bill carrying appropriations under clause 
    4, rule 21, which says that no bill or joint resolution carrying 
    appropriations shall be reported by any committee not having 
    jurisdiction to report appropriations.
        This is no casual point of order made as a tactical maneuver in 
    consideration of the bill. I make this point of order because this 
    proposes to expand and develop a device or mechanism for getting 
    funds out of the Federal Treasury in an unprecedented degree.
        The Constitution has said that no money shall be drawn from the 
    Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. It must 
    follow that the mechanism which gets the money out of the Treasury 
    is an appropriation. . . .
        This proposal will give to the Committee on Banking and 
    Currency, if it should be permitted, authority which the Committee 
    on Appropriations does not have, for in the reporting of an 
    appropriation bill for a fiscal year, any appropriation beyond the 
    fiscal year would be held out of order. Here this committee is 
    reporting a bill which proposes to make mandatory extractions from 
    the Treasury during a period of 4 years. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: . . . The provision 
    in paragraph (f) that my friend has raised a point of order against 
    relates entirely to loans. As we read section 102 of title I it 
    starts out with loans. Throughout the bill, a number of times, 
    there is reference to loans.
        Paragraph (e) says:

            To obtain funds for loans under this title. . . .

        I respectfully submit that it must call for an appropriation 
    out of the general funds of the Treasury in order to violate the 
    rules of the House. This permits the use of money raised by the 
    sale of bonds under the Second Liberty Bond Act for loans to these 
    public agencies, such loans to be repaid with interest.
        I respectfully submit, complimenting my friend for having 
    raised the point of order--and certainly, it is not a dilatory one, 
    nor a casual one, one that demands respect--that the point of order 
    does not lie against the language contained in the pending bill. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair agrees with the gentleman from South Dakota that the 
    point which has been raised is not a casual point of order. As a 
    matter of fact, as far as the Chair has been able to ascertain, 
    this is the first time a point of order has been raised on this

[[Page 3290]]

    issue as violative of clause 4 of rule XXI.
        As the Chair sees the point of order, the issue involved turns 
    on the meaning of the word ``appropriation.'' ``Appropriation,'' in 
    its usual and customary interpretation, means taking money out of 
    the Treasury by appropriate legislative language for the support of 
    the general functions of Government. The language before us does 
    not do that. This language authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury 
    to use proceeds of public-debt issues for the purpose of making 
    loans. Under the language, the Treasury of the United States makes 
    advances which will be repaid in full with interest over a period 
    of years without cost to the taxpayers.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that this language does not 
    constitute an appropriation, and overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Would the Chair hold then that that 
    language restricts the Secretary of the Treasury to using the 
    proceeds of the securities issued under the second Liberty Bond Act 
    and prevents him from using the proceeds from miscellaneous 
    receipts or tax revenues?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not have authority to draw that 
    distinction. The Chair is passing on the particular point which has 
    been raised.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: However, Mr. Chairman, it would seem 
    implicit in the ruling of the Chair and I thought perhaps it could 
    be decided as a part of the parliamentary history. It might help 
    some courts later on.
        The Chairman: The Chair can make a distinction between the 
    general funds of the Treasury and money raised for a specific 
    purpose by the issuance of securities. That is the point involved 
    here.

Rulings to Follow Precedents

Sec. 6.2 The Chairman follows the precedents of the House in making 
    decisions on points of order.

    On July 28, 1959,(17) during consideration of a point of 
order that an amendment to H.R. 8385, making appropriations for the 
mutual security program, was legislative in intent, Chairman Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, changed his opinion after being made aware of a 
precedent in which a point of order to a similar amendment was 
overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 105 Cong. Rec. 14521, 14522, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John V.] Dowdy [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dowdy: On page 5, after line 21, 
        add a new section as follows: ``No part of any appropriation 
        contained in this Act shall be expended, in the event any such 
        expenditure will increase, directly or indirectly, the public 
        debt of the United States of America.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order.

[[Page 3291]]

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, it creates additional duties and 
    changes existing law.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Texas on 
    the point of order.
        Mr. Dowdy: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered puts a 
    limitation on an appropriation. I offered the same amendment in 
    previous years and it has been held not to be legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill. The fact of the matter is it follows in words 
    section 102 of the present bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment to 
    which the gentleman from New York makes a point of order on the 
    ground that the amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    therefore not germane to the bill before the Committee. Though the 
    amendment appears to be in the form of a simple limitation on an 
    appropriation bill, the Chair is of the opinion that the amendment 
    itself will place additional duties and responsibilities and 
    functions on someone perhaps in the executive department or in the 
    Congress.
        Mr. Dowdy: Mr. Chairman, in a previous year that very amendment 
    has been ruled on to the contrary by the Chair.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman would cite the decision, the 
    Chair would be glad to have it.
        Mr. Dowdy: I think it was 2 or 3 years ago on this bill. I do 
    not have the decision.
        The Chairman: The present occupant of the chair does not recall 
    it. In view of the gentleman's statement, the Chair is constrained 
    to withhold his final decision until he can look into the matter. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
        The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order.
        The Chair appreciates the fact that the gentleman from Texas 
    called the attention of the present occupant of the chair to the 
    amendment offered in connection with the appropriation bill for 
    mutual security in 1955. The gentleman from Texas at that time 
    offered an amendment which is not identical with the amendment he 
    offered today, although apparently the purpose of the amendment 
    offered then and that of the amendment offered today are the same. 
    The language varies slightly.
        The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, on that occasion, 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter], held that the 
    amendment offered then in 1955 was merely a limitation. The present 
    occupant of the chair feels constrained to follow the precedent 
    pointed out by the gentleman from Texas and therefore overrules the 
    point of order.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Dowdy].

Clarification of Earlier Ruling

Sec. 6.3 After the Committee of the Whole had agreed that debate on an 
    amendment be limited to five minutes and the Chair had 
    misinterpreted

[[Page 3292]]

    the agreement as limiting debate on the amendment and all 
    amendments thereto, the Chair later the same day apologized to the 
    Committee and to a Member who had been denied the privilege of 
    debate on his amendment to the amendment because of this 
    misinterpretation.

    On May 3, 1946,(18) during consideration of H.R. 6056, 
the 1947 appropriation bill for the Departments of State, Justice, 
Commerce, and the Judiciary, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
apologized for denying Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, the privilege of 
debate on his amendment to an amendment. The apology was made because 
the Chairman misinterpreted a unanimous-consent request made by Mr. 
Louis C. Rabaut, of Michigan, that ``all debate on the pending 
amendment,'' which had been offered by Mr. Vorys, ``close in 5 
minutes.'' Although the unanimous-consent agreement would have barred 
Mr. Vorys from debating his original amendment because the five minutes 
had expired at the time he rose to speak, it should not have been 
applied in this instance because Mr. Vorys rose to speak not on the 
``pending amendment'' but rather on a new amendment which he sought to 
offer to the pending amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 4404-06, 4418, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Parliamentarian's Note: If no objection is raised, a proponent of 
        an amendment may amend his own amendment. 116 Cong. Rec. 19754, 
        91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 1970. See Ch. 27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on the pending amendment close in 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] be read 
    again for the information of the Committee.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I think we ought to have a little more time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk reread the pending Vorys amendment.
        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio has submitted 
    a very complicated amendment. But the meaning of the amendment is 
    very simple. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
    expired. All time has expired. . . .

[[Page 3293]]

        Mr. Rabaut: I ask for a vote on the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question recurs on the amendment.
        Mr. Vorys of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, which I 
    send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Chairman: Is it an amendment to the pending amendment?
        Mr. Vorys of Ohio: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.

        Mr. Rabaut: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rabaut: On what ground is this amendment considered?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio has offered an amendment 
    to his amendment.
        Mr. Rabaut: But debate has been closed and the gentleman cannot 
    be recognized for debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair does not recognize the gentleman for 
    debate.
        Mr. Vorys of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, no debate could possibly have 
    been closed on this amendment which was not offered.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan's unanimous-consent 
    request was that all debate close within 5 minutes on the pending 
    amendment and all amendments thereto.
        Mr. Vorys of Ohio: No, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Ohio to his amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vorys of Ohio to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Vorys of Ohio: After the words ``September 1, 
        1946,'' insert ``not specifically authorized by act of 
        Congress.''

        The Chairman: The question recurs on the amendment to the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Taber: Mr. Taber moves that the 
        Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House 
        with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
        out.

    After debate, the motion of Mr. Taber was rejected by voice vote. 
The amendment of Mr. Vorys to the amendment of Mr. Vorys was rejected 
on a teller vote of ayes 88, noes 106.

        The Chairman: The Chair desires to make a statement.
        Earlier today, immediately upon the House resolving itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the present bill, H.R. 6065, the chairman of the 
    subcommittee handling the bill propounded a unanimous-consent 
    request which the Chair endeavored to understand. The Chair, in 
    attempting to understand the unanimous-consent request, failed, 
    however, to understand that request as it was transcribed by the 
    official reporter. The Chair has before him the transcript of the 
    record as taken by the official reporter, of the request made by 
    the gen

[[Page 3294]]

    tleman from Michigan. The request of the gentleman from Michigan 
    was that all debate on the pending amendment close in 5 minutes. 
    The Chair misunderstood the gentleman so that when the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] offered an amendment to his amendment, the 
    gentleman from Ohio, instead of being recognized for the 5 minutes 
    to which he was entitled, was barred by the Chair from speaking in 
    support of his amendment to the amendment.
        The Chair wishes to apologize to the Committee and to the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] for making a most unintentional 
    misinterpretation of the request of the gentleman from Michigan. 
    The Chair trusts the apology of the Chair may be accepted both by 
    the gentleman from Ohio and the Committee.

Interruption of Debate by Chair

Sec. 6.4 The Chair may interrupt a Member of the House in debate when 
    the Member proposes to read the opinions or statements of a Member 
    of the Senate.

    On May 25, 1937,(20) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 361, a relief appropriation, Chairman John J. O'Connor, of 
New York, interrupted a Member who sought to read a letter from a 
Member of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Alfred F.] Beiter [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    have letters here from Members of the Senate saying they are in 
    sympathy with this movement. If you will permit me, I will read a 
    letter from Senator Murray, in which he says--
        The Chairman: The Chair, on its own responsibility, makes the 
    point of order against the reading of a letter from a Member of 
    another body.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Parliamentarian's Note: Jefferson's Manual provides: ``It is a 
        breach of order in debate to notice what has been said on the 
        same subject in the other House. . . . Therefore it is the duty 
        of the House, and more particularly the Speaker, to interfere 
        immediately, and not to permit expressions to go unnoticed 
        which may give a ground of complaint to the other House. . . 
        .'' House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 371-374 (1979). See also 
        Ch. 29, Sec. 44, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expression of Appreciation to Chairman

Sec. 6.5 The House leaders expressed their appreciation for the dignity 
    and fairness of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole in 
    presiding over debate on an appropriation bill.

    On May 10, 1950,(22) House leaders from both parties 
expressed their appreciation for the manner in which the Chairman,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 96 Cong. Rec. 6841, 6842, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. The proceedings 
        described are illustrative of courtesies frequently expressed 
        in the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3295]]

Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, presided over Committee of the Whole in the 
consideration of H.R. 7786, the first general appropriation bill, 1951.

        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, within a very few minutes the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union will rise and report this 
    omnibus appropriation bill back to the House. The House of 
    Representatives, Mr. Chairman, always appreciates a job well done, 
    and when that job happens to be a difficult and a tedious and a 
    tiring job, the measure of appreciation is all the greater.
        I take the floor at the close of this debate to express a very 
    sincere appreciation for the magnificent job done by my 
    distinguished colleague the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Cooper] 
    in presiding over this bill in Committee.
        I am sure that my sentiments in this respect are shared by 
    every Member of this House on both sides of the aisle.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, 
    will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Priest: I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: I want to join, in behalf of the 
    Republican Members of this House, in this commendation of our very 
    able Chairman who has conducted himself with great dignity and 
    fairness. We, on this side, appreciate him as we always have.
        Mr. Priest: I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Priest: I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. McCormack: We are all proud of Jere Cooper, not only as a 
    Member of the House, but for the outstanding and the fine manner in 
    which he always has presided over any bill that he has been 
    designated as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House. I have 
    served with my friend for many years. The people of his district 
    and of his State can well be proud of their Jere Cooper.

        Mr. Priest: I thank the majority leader.
        Mr. Chairman, for more than a month this bill has been before 
    the House. Day after day since about April 3 the distinguished 
    gentleman from Tennessee has demonstrated every hour of every day 
    those qualities of patience and fairness and justice that mark him 
    as a great presiding officer.
        In addition to his arduous duties of presiding during 
    consideration of this bill, he has carried his part of the load 
    during all of that time as the ranking majority member of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means as it seeks to write a new tax bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair appreciates the very kind references.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House 
    with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments 
    be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass.