[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 20. Calls of the House; Quorums]
[C. Objections to Absence of a Quorum; Points of No Quorum]
[Â§ 17. Absence of Quorum in Standing Committee as Bar to Floor Consideration or Other Subsequent Proceedings]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3710-3740]
 
                               CHAPTER 20
 
                      Calls of the House; Quorums
 
       C. OBJECTIONS TO ABSENCE OF A QUORUM; POINTS OF NO QUORUM
 
Sec. 17. Absence of Quorum in Standing Committee as Bar to Floor 
    Consideration or Other Subsequent Proceedings

    According to Jefferson's Manual,(24) a majority of a 
committee acting when together constitutes a quorum for business. A 
rule (25) further provides that no measure or recommendation 
shall be reported from any committee unless a majority of the committee 
was actually present. Because of this provision, a point of order that 
a quorum was not present when a committee reported a measure, if
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 407, 409 (1979). See supplements 
        to this edition for discussion of Rule XI clause 2(h)(2) 
        adopted in the 95th Congress for recent rule permitting 
        committees to adopt a rule designating one-third of the members 
        as a quorum for certain preliminary business.
25. Rule XI clause 2(1)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3711]]

made in a timely fashion and sustained, bars consideration on the 
floor.

    A decision by the Chair to recommit a measure because a quorum was 
not present when it was reported from committee is made after a series 
of steps. After the chairman of the committee or other designated 
person requests floor consideration, a point of order that a quorum was 
not present in the committee when the measure was reported may be 
made.(26) If the point of order has been raised at the 
appropriate time, the Chair may examine the committee report or inquire 
of the committee chairman or floor manager whether the allegation is 
true.(27) Based on the answer of the committee chairman, who 
is obligated to be certain in his response, the Chair sustains or 
overrules the point of order. When the point is sustained, the measure 
is recommitted to the committee.(28)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. See Sec. Sec. 17.7-17.10, for precedents relating to the 
        appropriate time to raise this point of order.
27. See Sec. Sec. 17.17-17.19, for precedents relating to questioning 
        committee chairmen.
28. Sec. 17.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whether a quorum is actually present also affects issues which do 
not arise on the floor, such as criminal culpability for perjury in 
testimony given to a House committee. In Christoffel v United 
States,(29) the United States Supreme Court with four 
members dissenting reversed a conviction under a District of Columbia 
statute (30) which defines perjury as falsifying testimony 
``before a competent tribunal,'' because a quorum of the Committee on 
Education and Labor was not present when the allegedly perjurious 
statements were made. The Court observed that the Constitution 
(1) authorizes each House to determine the rules of its 
proceedings, and that the rules of the House apply to committees 
(2) and authorize calls of the House when a quorum is not 
present; (3) furthermore, a statute (4) (which is 
also a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. 338 U.S. 84 (1949). The Court in a footnote alluded to Meyers v 
        United States, 171 F2d 800, 11 A.L.R. 2d 1 (1948) in which the 
        Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed 
        a perjury conviction because a Senate subcommittee lacked a 
        quorum when allegedly perjurious testimony was given.
30. D.C. Code Anno. Sec. 22-2501.
 1. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2.
 2. Rule XI clause 1(a)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 703(a) (1979).
 3. Rule XV clauses 2(a), 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 768, 773, 
        respectively (1979).
 4. Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 601, Ch. 753, 
        Sec. 133(d), 60 Stat. 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3712]]

rule) provides that no measure or recommendation shall be reported from 
any committee unless a majority was actually present. Basing its ruling 
on the aforementioned provisions, the Court held that a quorum of the 
committee must be present to satisfy the ``competent tribunal'' element 
of the crime of perjury. By admitting Christoffel's evidence that a 
quorum was not present when the allegedly perjurious testimony was 
given (5) notwithstanding the fact that committee records 
showed that a quorum was present when the meeting was convened and no 
Member during the session objected to absence of a quorum, the Court 
accepted Christoffel's contention that a criminal trial is an 
appropriate occasion for a defendant to raise the quorum issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. The Court alluded to evidence tending to show that as few as six of 
        the 25 committee members were in attendance during parts of 
        Christoffel's testimony. 338 U.S. 80, 86 (1949). Clause 2(h)(1) 
        of Rule XI was added on Mar. 23, 1955, to require that a quorum 
        in committee for taking testimony and receiving evidence shall 
        not be less than two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Convicting Christoffel in the face of evidence that a quorum was 
not present when allegedly perjurious statements were made was found to 
be not only contrary to the rules and practices of the House, but a 
denial of his fundamental right to be convicted only on proof beyond a 
reasonable doubt of all elements of the crime. ``A tribunal that is not 
competent is no tribunal, and it is unthinkable that such a body can be 
the instrument of a criminal conviction.'' (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 338 U.S. 80, 90 (1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dissenting opinions argued that the majority denied records of 
Congress the credit and effect to which they are entitled. Instead, it 
was felt, the Court should defer to the ``universal practice'' of 
assumption of a quorum unless and until a point of no quorum is made in 
the committee meeting.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 90, 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Supreme Court in United States v Bryan (8) upheld a 
trial court conviction (which had been reversed by the Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit) for willful failure to comply 
with a committee subpena under a federal statute.(9) In 
reaching this holding the Court rejected
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 339 U.S. 323 (1950); reh. den. 339 U.S. 991 (1950).
 9. 2 USC Sec. 192, which provides in relevant part that every person 
        who, having been summoned to produce papers before a committee, 
        willfully defaults shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3713]]

Bryan's contention that the Committee on Un-American Activities, by 
lacking a quorum when she appeared and refused to produce the 
organizational records under her control, was without power to receive 
such subpenaed documents and that the committee could not be obstructed 
because it was ``organizationally defective.'' (10) Such 
defense, based on Christoffel v United States,(11) was held 
to be inapposite because the District of Columbia perjury statute 
(12) in Christoffel required an affirmative act, 
falsification of testimony ``before a competent tribunal,'' while the 
statute in Bryan (13) required intentional failure to 
produce papers without mentioning anything about competency of the 
tribunal.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 339 U.S. 323, 328 (1950).
11. 338 U.S. 80 (1949).
12. D.C. Code Anno. Sec. 22-2501.
13. 2 USC Sec. 192.
14. 339 U.S. 323, 329, 330 (1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were other reasons to reject Bryan's defense. Her refusal to 
produce papers obstructed the legislative inquiry, a situation the 
statute was designed to punish. Furthermore, her failure to raise an 
objection to lack of a quorum during the hearing when that defect could 
have been remedied, rather than at the trial two years later, violated 
the minimum duties and obligations imposed on a witness by a 
subpena.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the portion of the opinion designated ``Second,'' 339 U.S. 323, 
        331-335 (1950), for these reasons. The Court's conclusion on 
        the issue of timeliness of raising the point of no quorum 
        contrasts markedly with its conclusion, on the same facts (but 
        in relation to a different criminal offense), in Christoffel v 
        United States, 338 U.S. 84, 88 (1949), which held that a 
        criminal trial is a proper time first to raise an objection to 
        lack of a quorum. Justice Jackson, in his concurring opinion in 
        United States v Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 343-346 (1950) comments on 
        this disparity.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In General

Sec. 17.1 No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
    committee unless a majority of the committee was actually present 
    when such measure was ordered to be reported.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Rule XI clause 2(1)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 11, 1950,(17) upon consideration of a privileged 
resolution, House Resolution 495, reported from the Committee on House 
Administration, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, Speaker pro 
tempore, made a rul
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 6920, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3714]]

ing based on the requirement of a quorum in committees.

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the consideration of the resolution on the ground 
    that a quorum was not present when it was reported out of 
    committee.
        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, we did have 
    a quorum present, but some Members may have slipped out of 
    committee during the consideration of the resolution. I assumed 
    that a quorum was present.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, it is too late to raise the point of 
    order that a quorum was not present in the committee after it has 
    reached the floor of the House. If no point of order is made in the 
    committee, the presumption is that a quorum was present. To take 
    any other attitude would virtually paralyze legislation. If no 
    point of order was made at the time, the presumption then is that a 
    quorum was present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state in response to 
    the parliamentary inquiry that the point of order is properly 
    addressed at this point because the resolution has just been 
    reported to the House. . . .
        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.
        Mrs. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman insists on his point 
    of order, I will withdraw the resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The resolution is withdrawn. . . .
        Mr. Rankin: 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, which reads as follows:

            No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        such committee unless a majority of the committee was actually 
        present.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Rule XI clause 2(1)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979), which adopts this language. This provision, however, 
        did not become part of the rules until Jan. 3, 1953, after the 
        above proceedings took place.

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

[[Page 3715]]

Sec. 17.2 A standing committee cannot validly report a measure unless 
    the report was authorized at a formal meeting of the committee with 
    a quorum present and the mere fact that a majority of the committee 
    members have ``approved'' the report (but not in a formal meeting 
    of the committee) will not suffice.

    On Sept. 30, 1966,(19) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled on an objection to a motion to consider a 
committee report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 24548, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on House Administration, I submit the following 
    privileged report, Report No. 2158, to accompany House Resolution 
    1028, providing funds for the Committee on House Administration, 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from 
    Texas if he is undertaking to bring this resolution up by unanimous 
    consent, or is he reporting it and calling it up as privileged 
    business?
        Mr. Burleson: Mr. Speaker, I submit the report as a privileged 
    matter. Should a point of order be raised and should the point of 
    order be sustained, then I would ask unanimous consent for the 
    consideration of House Resolution 1028.
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York 
    rise?
        Mr. Bingham: I make a point of order against the resolution, 
    Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: On what grounds?
        Mr. Bingham: On the grounds that a quorum of the committee was 
    not present when the resolution was reported. There are a number of 
    members of the committee who have not had an opportunity to have 
    this resolution discussed in a meeting of the committee.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard?
        Mr. Burleson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard.
        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 relate 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

[[Page 3716]]

    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. Burleson: 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.
        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,(20) make it clear that no measure can be reported 
    from a committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
    present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

[[Page 3717]]

Sec. 17.3 Although a quorum of the committee must be present when a 
    measure is ordered reported, the Speaker has approved a practice 
    whereby less than a quorum having tentatively voted to report a 
    measure, a majority, in a formal meeting, has subsequently ratified 
    such action before the report was filed.

    On July 9, 1956,(1) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled 
on a question of quorum requirements in committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 102 Cong. Rec. 12199, 12200, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John L.] McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia, I call up 
    the bill (H. R. 4697) to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act 
    of the District of Columbia, 1954, as amended, and I ask unanimous 
    consent that the bill be considered in the House as in Committee of 
    the Whole.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from South Carolina?
        Mr. [Albert P.] Morano [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order against the consideration of this bill on the 
    ground that when the committee considered this bill there was not a 
    quorum present to report it to the House. . . .
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, there is great 
    difficulty, it is true, in getting a quorum of the District 
    Committee, but I was personally present when this bill was voted 
    out, and there was a quorum of the committee present. And, in order 
    to be sure that there was no such question as this raised on the 
    floor of the House, I myself made a motion, when a quorum was 
    present, to reconsider all of the bills that had been considered 
    and voted them out again, which was done. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair must know whether the gentleman says 
    that there was a quorum present or not, to his knowledge.
        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, there was a quorum present part of 
    the time and part of the time there was not. . . .
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I press my point of order. I would 
    like to know whether or not there was a quorum present when this 
    bill was reported, not when the gentleman from Virginia made his 
    motion.

        The Speaker: The chairman of the legislative committee has just 
    stated to the Chair that there was a quorum present when this bill 
    was reported. The Chair is going to take the word of the chairman 
    of the committee, because that is according to the rules and 
    practices of the House.
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I understood the chairman to say that 
    when the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] made his motion there 
    was a quorum present. But I did not understand the chairman of the 
    committee to say that when this bill was reported there was a 
    quorum present.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to ask the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. McMillan] that question now.

[[Page 3718]]

        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Virginia 
    made his motion he stated that he wanted all bills that were 
    considered that day passed with a quorum present.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to ask the gentleman again if a 
    quorum was present, to his certain knowledge, when this bill was 
    reported.
        Mr. McMillan: There was not when this bill was passed.
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be heard 
    further, because I think it is important to straighten this 
    question out.
        The Speaker: It is.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Not from the standpoint of this bill, 
    but as a parliamentary question. Frequently bills are discussed and 
    voted upon when a quorum is not present. It is the custom, at the 
    conclusion of the discussion, when a quorum is present, to move a 
    reconsideration of all the bills that have been passed, and to move 
    to report them out. That is what was done in this matter. I think 
    it is important for the House to know just how strict this rule is 
    and how it is to be applied, because I think every bill that was 
    passed upon this morning came here under the same conditions as 
    this bill.
        Mr. [Sidney E.] Simpson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I yield.
        Mr. Simpson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to verify what 
    Judge Smith is saying. That was exactly the procedure in this 
    matter in the House Committee on the District of Columbia.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: On this proceeding of the committee, I 
    think we ought to be straightened out on it for the future.
        The Speaker: This has come up many times and it has always been 
    decided by the Chair on the statement of the chairman of the 
    legislative committee concerned. 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: That really is not the question I am 
    trying to get determined for the benefit of the House and other 
    committees. 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.
        The Speaker: A quorum was present at that time?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: At that time a quorum was present. That 
    was the reason the motion was made. That is the only way we can 
    operate in that committee, I might add.
        Mr. [Henry O.] Talle [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, may I say as a 
    member of the District Committee that I was present at the meeting. 
    The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] has recorded the 
    proceedings accurately.
        Mr. Morano: There is obviously a contradiction here, Mr. 
    Speaker. The

[[Page 3719]]

    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.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 17.2, supra, in which the Speaker rejected another method 
        of expediting determination of committee sentiment, a telephone 
        poll, since the committee was not acting when together as 
        required by Sec. 407 of Jefferson's Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.4 Even though a report is filed as privileged, to retain the 
    status of privileged business when considered, such business must 
    be ordered reported from standing committees when a quorum is 
    present in such committees.

    On May 11, 1950,(3) during consideration of House 
Resolution 495, which had been offered as a privileged matter by the 
Committee on House Administration and was withdrawn because a point of 
no quorum during consideration in committee had been made and sustained 
on the floor, Speaker pro tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
made a ruling regarding the prerequisite for privileged status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 6920, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Stanley [of Virginia]: 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.

Presumption of Presence of a Quorum

Sec. 17.5 Unless a point of order is raised, the House assumes that 
    reports from committees were authorized when a quorum of the 
    committee was present.

    On Sept. 30, 1966,(4) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled on an objection to a motion to consider a 
committee report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. For the proceedings of this date, see Sec. 17.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timeliness of Point of Order

Sec. 17.6 While any Member may challenge the presumption that a 
    committee's action was taken when a quorum of the committee was 
    present, he must do so when the measure is called up; a point

[[Page 3720]]

    of order comes too late when the House has already agreed to the 
    measure.

    On Feb. 28, 1968,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made a ruling as to the proper time to raise a point of 
no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 114 Cong. Rec. 4449, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on House Administration, I submit a 
    privileged report (Rept. No. 1127) on the resolution (H. Res. 1042) 
    authorizing the expenditure of certain funds for the expenses of 
    the Committee on Un-American Activities, and ask for immediate 
    consideration of the resolution.
        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of the privileged report on House Resolution 1042 on 
    the ground that a quorum was not present in the Committee on House 
    Administration when this matter was considered.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Maryland desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Friedel: 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.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland withdraws the 
    resolution. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Willis: 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.

Sec. 17.7 A point of order that a quorum of a committee was not present 
    when a privileged bill or resolution was ordered reported may be 
    made when the Member presents the report to the House in the 
    appropriate manner.

    On May 11, 1950,(6) upon consideration of a privileged 
resolu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 96 Cong. Rec. 6920, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3721]]

tion, Speaker pro tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, made a 
ruling regarding the timeliness of a point of no quorum in the 
committee reporting the measure.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Note: This inquiry was made after Mr. Wayne L. Hays (Ohio), made a 
        point of no quorum in committee against consideration of the 
        resolution that had just been offered as a privileged matter 
        (by direction of the Committee on House Administration) by Mrs. 
        Mary T. Norton (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, it is too late to raise the point of 
    order that a quorum was not present in the committee after it has 
    reached the floor of the House. If no point of order is made in the 
    committee, the presumption is that a quorum was present. To take 
    any other attitude would virtually paralyze legislation. If no 
    point of order was made at the time, the presumption then is that a 
    quorum was present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state in response to 
    the parliamentary inquiry that the point of order is properly 
    addressed at this point because the resolution has just been 
    reported to the House. . . .
        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.
        Mrs. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman insists on his point 
    of order, I will withdraw the resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The resolution is withdrawn.

Sec. 17.8 A point of order that a bill was ordered reported from a 
    standing committee in the absence of a quorum of that committee is 
    properly raised in the House when the bill is called up for 
    consideration. (However, 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,(8) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 29764, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3722]]

ruled on the timeliness of a point of no quorum of the committee 
reporting out a bill.

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, relating to 
    our program for today, a number of bills are slated to be 
    considered under suspension of rules in the House. There 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 
    26(e) which states:

            (e) No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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:

            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 26(e) inasmuch as they are 
    scheduled to be considered under suspension of the rules, which 
    would obviously suspend the rule I have cited.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask the guidance of the Chair in lodging my 
    point of order against these listed bills so that my objection may 
    be fairly considered, and so that my right to object will be 
    protected. Mr. Speaker, I intend to do so only because orderly 
    procedure must be based on compliance with the rules of the House 
    which we have adopted.
        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

[[Page 3723]]

    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.
        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 consideration.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized at that time to 
    lodge such a point of order, and will this Member be protected?
        The Speaker: The Chair will always protect the rights of any 
    Member. The Chair has frankly conveyed to the gentleman that we are 
    operating under a suspension of the rules procedure today, and that 
    suspends all rules.
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Arends: 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.
        Mr. Arends: I thank the Speaker.

Sec. 17.9 A point of order that a bill was reported from committee in 
    the absence of a quorum is in order while the motion that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
    consideration of the bill is pending.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(10) a point of order that a quorum was 
absent when the standing committee considered a bill was entertained 
pending a vote on a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 114 Cong. Rec. 30739, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: 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 (S. 2511) to 
    maintain and improve the income of producers of crude pine gum, to 
    stabilize production of crude pine gum, and for other purposes.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against consideration of S. 2511.
        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 26(e), of the rules of the House states as 
    follows:

[[Page 3724]]

            (e) No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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).
        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.
        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.
        The Speaker: [The rule] 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.

Sec. 17.10 A point of order under Rule XI clause 27(e),(13) 
    that a bill was reported from committee in the absence of a quorum, 
    is properly raised when the bill is called up for consideration; 
    such a point of order will not lie against a resolution providing 
    for the consideration of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(14) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made a ruling regarding the proper time to raise a point 
of order that a bill was reported from committee without a quorum being 
present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 30738, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Young [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1256 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1256

            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 (S. 2511) to maintain and improve 
        the income of producers of crude pine gum. . . .

[[Page 3725]]

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Findley: 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 states as 
    follows:(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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.

        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. The 
    precedents indicate that such a point of order is made too late if 
    it comes after debate has started on either the rule or on the bill 
    itself--VIII 2223 and February 24, 1947, page 1374.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 17.14, infra, for proceedings on Feb. 24, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Furthermore, the 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.
        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: 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.

        Mr. Findley: That is after the rule is adopted?
        The Speaker: After the rule is adopted.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair.

Sec. 17.11 Points 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; such points come too late after the 
    House has resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
    consideration of the bill.

    On June 14, 1946,(17) during consideration of S. 524, 
the na
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 6961, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3726]]

tional cemetery bill, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole, made a ruling on the proper time to raise 
objection to proceedings of the committee reporting a bill.

        Mr. [Forest A.] Harness of Indiana: 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.

Sec. 17.12 A point of order that a nonprivileged measure was reported 
    from committee in the absence of a quorum will not lie until the 
    House has agreed to consider the bill.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled on the timeliness of a point of no quorum of the 
committee reporting a bill, when raised in the House against 
consideration of the bill.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 114 Cong. Rec. 30751, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. See the excerpt from Sec. 17.13, infra, for the proceedings of this 
        date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.13 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.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, entertained a point of order concerning the lack of a 
quorum of the committee reporting a bill after the bill was read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 30751, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thaddeus J.] Dulski [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (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.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from New York?
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, I would make a point of order

[[Page 3727]]

    against the bill. I make a point of order that report No. 1945 
    violates rule XI, clause 26,(2) and that a quorum was 
    not present when the bill was passed by the Post Office and Civil 
    Service Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the unanimous-consent 
    request is for the present consideration of the bill. In the 
    opinion of the Chair, at this point a point of order is not in 
    order. If the consent is granted, then a point of order might be in 
    order, though the Chair does not indicate what the decision of the 
    Chair might be.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Chair, on that 
    ground I would withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from New York?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                                    S. 1507

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 8336(c) of title 5, United States Code, is amended. . . 
        .

        The Speaker: Now does the gentleman from Ohio want to make the 
    point of order?
        Mr. Ashbrook: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I make the point of order for 
    the reasons already stated and request that the bill be recommitted 
    to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
        The Speaker: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from New 
    York if a quorum was present in his committee when the bill was 
    reported?
        Mr. Dulski: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio is correct. 
    There was no quorum present.
        The Speaker: Under those circumstances, the Chair sustains the 
    point of order and the bill is recommitted to the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair was, under the ruling of July 19, 
1947, contained at Chapter 31, Sec. 8.2, infra, and at Chapter 17, 
Sec. 58.7, supra, justified in interpreting the granting of the 
original unanimous-consent request (to discharge the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union) as not tantamount to waiving the 
point of order, since the request here did not specify a waiver of all 
points of order.

Sec. 17.14 The point of order that a bill was reported from a committee 
    without a formal meeting and a quorum present comes too late if 
    debate has started on the bill in the House.

    On Feb. 24, 1947,(3) during consideration of a bill 
providing for daylight saving time in the District of Columbia, Speaker 
Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, made a ruling regarding timeli
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 1368, 1369, 1374, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3728]]

ness of a point of no quorum in committee.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also Sec. 17.10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia, I call up 
    the bill (H.R. 1700) to provide for daylight saving in the District 
    of Columbia, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the bill, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 1 
    hour. . . .
        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, this is the first District Day that 
    has been claimed by the Committee on the District of Columbia. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Reed of New York: I believe the Reorganization Act [section 
    133(d)] 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.

Sec. 17.15 A point of order that a quorum was not present in committee 
    when a resolution was ordered reported comes too late if not made 
    when the resolution was read.

    On Feb. 25, 1954,(5) after debate had commenced on House 
Resolution 419, which was offered by the Committee on House 
Administration and provided by additional funds from the contingent 
fund to be paid for an investigation by a subcommittee of the Committee 
on Government Operations, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, made a ruling on the timeliness in the House of a point 
of no quorum in committee when the resolution was ordered reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 100 Cong. Rec. 2294, 2295, 2303, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Karl M.] LeCompte [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on House Administration, I call up for consideration 
    at this time House Resolution 419 with a committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        With the following committee amendment: . . .
        Mr. LeCompte: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. LeCompte: Mr. Speaker, this is a privileged resolution?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. LeCompte: And the same rules apply in this case as in the 
    case of the resolution just agreed to by the House?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. LeCompte: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Members of 
    the House may I say that by the terms of this resolution the sum of 
    $100,000 is provided for an investigation by one of the 
    subcommittees of the Committee on Government Operations, the 
    subcommittee being headed by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bender]. 
    . . .

[[Page 3729]]

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I object to consideration 
    of the resolution at this time unless it appears that a quorum was 
    present when the resolution was authorized by the committee or 
    unless the chairman of the committee will so state that a quorum 
    was present. If he does, that will be satisfactory.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman], makes 
    the point of order that a quorum was not present in the committee 
    reporting this resolution. Unfortunately for the gentleman from 
    Michigan, he makes his point of order too late. That should have 
    been made at the time the resolution was read.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one 
    correction. I did not make the point of order that a quorum was not 
    present. The point of order was that consideration of the bill is 
    not in order unless the record showed a quorum was present or 
    unless the gentleman so stated
        The Speaker: The gentleman should have made that point of order 
    at the time the resolution was read.

Sec. 17.16 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,(6) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made a ruling as to the proper time to raise a point of 
order that a committee action was taken in the absence of a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. For the proceedings of this date, see Sec. 17.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questioning the Committee Chairman

Sec. 17.17 Where a report from a committee was challenged on the ground 
    that a quorum of the committee was not present when the report was 
    authorized, the Speaker questioned the chairman of the committee 
    concerning the truth of the contention.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, questioned the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture 
with respect to a point of order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 30739, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. For the proceedings of this date, see Sec. 17.9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.18 Because the Chair has no knowledge of what occurred in a 
    standing committee, he must rely on the certain statement of the 
    chairman of the committee as to whether a quorum was

[[Page 3730]]

    present when the committee ordered the bill reported.

    On July 9, 1956,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled 
on a point of order, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 102 Cong. Rec. 12199, 12200, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John L.] McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia, I call up 
    the bill (H.R. 4697) to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of 
    the District of Columbia, 1954, as amended, and I ask unanimous 
    consent that the bill be considered in the House as in Committee of 
    the Whole.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from South Carolina?
        Mr. [Albert P.] Morano [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order against the consideration of this bill on the 
    ground that when the committee considered this bill there was not a 
    quorum present to report it to the House. . . .
        Mr. [Sidney E.] Simpson of Illinois: I will say for the benefit 
    of the House that I was at the committee meeting when the gentleman 
    from Virginia [Mr. Smith] brought up the point of no quorum; and 
    there was a quorum present.
        The Speaker: That is what the Chair is trying to ascertain from 
    the chairman of the committee.
        Mr. McMillan: That is correct.
        The Speaker: That is the point that is involved here.
        Mr. McMillan: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] made that 
    motion and there was a quorum present.
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I press my point of order. I would 
    like to know whether or not there was a quorum present when this 
    bill was reported, not when the gentleman from Virginia made his 
    motion.
        The Speaker: The chairman of the legislative committee has just 
    stated to the Chair that there was a quorum present when this bill 
    was reported. The Chair is going to take the word of the chairman 
    of the committee, because that is according to the rules and 
    practices of the House.
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I understood the chairman to say that 
    when the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] made his motion there 
    was a quorum present. But I did not understand the chairman of the 
    committee to say that when this bill was reported there was a 
    quorum present.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to ask the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. McMillan] that question now.
        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Virginia 
    made his motion he stated that he wanted all bills that were 
    considered that day passed with a quorum present.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to ask the gentleman again if a 
    quorum was present, to his certain knowledge, when this bill was 
    reported. . . . 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.

Sec. 17.19 Where the chairman of a committee concedes that a bill was 
    ordered reported

[[Page 3731]]

    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,(10) a bill reported from the Committee 
on Agriculture was recommitted because a quorum had not been present 
when the bill was ordered reported.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 114 Cong. Rec. 30739, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. See the proceedings discussed in Sec. 17.9, supra. See also 114 
        Cong. Rec. 30751, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 11, 1968, for 
        another illustration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withdrawal of Floor Consideration

Sec. 17.20 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 of the committee 
    was not present when the resolution was ordered reported, the 
    resolution was withdrawn before the Chair ruled.

    On Feb. 28, 1968,(12) a resolution was withdrawn after a 
point of order was raised in the House that the committee lacked a 
quorum when the resolution was reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 4449, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on House Administration, I submit a 
    privileged report (Rept. No. 1127) on the resolution (H. Res. 1042) 
    authorizing the expenditure of certain funds for the expenses of 
    the Committee on Un-American Activities, and ask for immediate 
    consideration of the resolution.
        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of the privileged report on House Resolution 1042 on 
    the ground that a quorum was not present in the Committee on House 
    Administration when this matter was considered.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Maryland desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Friedel: 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.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland withdraws the 
    resolution.

Sec. 17.21 A report from the Committee on Rules, about to be

[[Page 3732]]

    reported from the floor, was not filed because of a question as to 
    the presence of a quorum of the committee when the resolution was 
    ordered reported.

    On Feb. 2, 1951,(14) House Resolution 95, authorizing 
the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct studies and investigations 
relating to matters within its jurisdiction, was withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 876, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    file a privileged report for printing in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            House Resolution 95, authorizing the Committee on the 
        Judiciary to conduct studies and investigations relating to 
        matters within its jurisdiction.

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, may the gentleman from Ohio 
    inquire what is the privileged report?
        The Speaker: The Clerk read the report. The Clerk will reread 
    it.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            House Resolution 95, authorizing the Committee on the 
        Judiciary to conduct studies and investigations relating to 
        matters within its jurisdiction.

        Mr. Brown of Ohio and Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia] rose.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois has the floor.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Sabath: For a question.
        Mr. Cox: For a statement. The gentleman violates an agreement 
    we had on the floor.
        Mr. Sabath: I did not violate any agreement.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois asked unanimous 
    consent to have until midnight to file a report from the Committee 
    on Rules. That was day before yesterday. The request was objected 
    to. There was no agreement the Chair knows anything about.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I had an agreement with the gentleman 
    myself. The Committee on Rules reported this resolution when a 
    quorum was not present.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of 
    order.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I approached the gentleman on the floor 
    and made a statement to him. He said he would not offer this 
    resolution until the committee had had opportunity to act on it 
    again. Now, that was fair of the gentleman. Of course, I do not 
    mean to say the gentleman intentionally violates an agreement, but 
    he has violated an agreement.
        Mr. Sabath: No. Wait a minute. Mr. Speaker, to make matters 
    clear, two of the Republican Members left the committee--the 
    committee remained in session--to answer a roll call. We had seven 
    Members and there was no objection.
        Mr. Cox: The gentleman is mistaken. There were six. I counted 
    them.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that 
    the reso

[[Page 3733]]

    lution has not been properly reported by the Rules Committee.
        Mr. Sabath: It has been reported.
        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. Cox: 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. . . .
        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. . . .
        Mr. Sabath: I withdraw the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

Suspension of the Rules

Sec. 17.22 Because a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
    suspends all rules in conflict with the motion, a point of order 
    will not lie against the bill on the ground that a quorum of the 
    committee was not present when it was reported.

    On Sept. 16, 1968,(16) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled on the validity of a point of no quorum during a 
suspension of the rules procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 114 Cong. Rec. 27029, 27030, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 19136) to amend title 5, 
    United States Code, to provide for the payment of overtime and 
    standby pay to certain personnel employed in the Department of 
    Transportation.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 19136

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the

[[Page 3734]]

        United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 
        5542(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
        the following new paragraph after paragraph (2): . . .

            Sec. 3. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 
        on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or 
        after the thirtieth day after the date of enactment of this 
        Act.

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr Speaker, at the proper time I 
    ask to be recognized to make a point of order against consideration 
    of this bill.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that if the gentleman 
    proposes to make a point of order, this is the time to make it.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 19136) on the ground that it 
    violates rule XI, clause 26(e),(1) in that it was 
    reported from the committee without a quorum being present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the motion to suspend 
    the rules suspends all rules, including the rule mentioned by the 
    gentleman from Iowa.

Sec. 17.23 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,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled on the point of no quorum under a suspension of 
the rules procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 29764, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, relating to 
    our program for today, a number of bills are slated to be 
    considered under suspension of rules in the House. There 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 
    26(e) which states:

            (e) No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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:

            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.

[[Page 3735]]

    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 26(e) inasmuch as they are scheduled 
    to be considered under suspension of the rules, which would 
    obviously suspend the rule I have cited?
        Mr. Speaker, I ask the guidance of the Chair in lodging my 
    point of order against these listed bills so that my objection may 
    be fairly considered, and so that my right to object will be 
    protected. Mr. Speaker, I intend to do so only because orderly 
    procedure must be based on compliance with the rules of the House 
    which we have adopted.
        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.
        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 [consideration].
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized at that time to 
    lodge such a point of order, and will this Member be protected?
        The Speaker: The Chair will always protect the rights of any 
    Member. The Chair has frankly conveyed to the gentleman that we are 
    operating under a suspension of the rules procedure today, and that 
    suspends all rules.
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Arends: 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.
        Mr. Arends: I thank the Speaker.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Two of the bills which were allegedly re

[[Page 3736]]

ported 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. In his response to the inquiry of Mr. Hall, 
the Speaker discussed the validity of a point of order only in relation 
to the suspension of the rules procedure. He 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.
    None of the bills challenged by Mr. Hall were in fact considered on 
this date. When it became apparent to the leadership that the 
proceedings would be delayed by repeated points of no quorum, the 
Speaker informally advised Members that the four bills would not be 
called up under suspension. On Oct. 11, S. 1507 was recommitted when a 
point of order was sustained against its consideration on the ground 
that it was reported in the absence of a quorum. (See 114 Cong. Rec. 
30751, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.) A bill similar to H.R. 17954 was called up 
on Oct. 11 (S. 4120), considered, and passed by unanimous consent. (See 
114 Cong. Rec. 30752, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.)

Rule Waiving Quorum Requirement

Sec. 17.24 The House rejected a resolution reported from the Committee 
    on Rules, providing for an ``open'' rule but including a waiver of 
    Rule XI clause 27(e),(4) which requires that a majority 
    of a committee be actually present when a measure is reported from 
    committee, to permit consideration of a bill improperly voted on 
    and reported by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 23, 1973,(5) the House defeated a resolution to 
waive the rule which requires presence of a quorum when a committee 
reports a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 25476-79, 25482, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 495 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 495

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, clause 27(e), rule XI to the 
        contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into 
        the Com

[[Page 3737]]

        mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 8929) to amend title 39, United 
        States Code, with respect to the financing of the cost of 
        mailing certain matter free of postage.

        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 Rules Committee is this: The committee had before it 
    H.R. 7554. The committee, on the 21st of June, I believe it was, 
    voted, with a quorum present, by 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. . . .
        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 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. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
    for yielding.
        I believe one slight correction should be made. A clean bill 
    was introduced 2 days after the committee voted on the proposition, 
    and I would have to differ again with the gentleman in his 
    statement that this is an open rule. It is not an open rule since 
    it waives a point of order.
        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, it is an open rule.
        Mr. Gross: The Committee on Rules in effect is doing the 
    homework for the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service in that 
    they did not abide by the rules of the House and vote on a clean 
    bill
        Mr. Del [M.] Clawson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, House 
    Resolution 495 provides a rule with 2 hours of general debate for 
    the consideration of H.R. 8929, Educational and Cultural Postal 
    Amendments. The rule also includes a waiver of clause 27 (e) of 
    rule XI. This rule requires the presence of a quorum when a bill is 
    reported. In this case the committee, with a quorum Present agreed 
    to report a clean bill, but never actually held a meeting offi

[[Page 3738]]

    cially reporting out the clean bill. Therefore, the waiver is 
    necessary in order to prevent a point of order against 
    consideration of the bill. . . .
        I would suggest to the Members that regardless of their views 
    on this bill itself that this is the kind of precedent we should 
    not be setting and it makes for bad legislation. I think the rule 
    should be defeated and we should let the committee produce a proper 
    vehicle for final consideration and then we will not have any 
    argument about the need for a protected rule. . . .
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has 
    read the committee report is probably wondering how this bill ever 
    got to the place where it is today. Let me say that the vote in the 
    Post Office and Civil Service Committee was a close 13 to 10, and 
    in the Rules Committee it was 7 to 5. I might hastily add I was one 
    of the five who voted not to report this bill. . . .
        Mr. Pepper: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on 
    the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The question is on the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    188, nays 202, not voting 51, as follows: . . .
        So the resolution was rejected.

Senate Precedent

Sec. 17.25 A point of order against a report on a bill was sustained on 
    the ground that a quorum was not present at the time the Senate 
    committee voted to report the measure; the Presiding Officer ruled 
    that the bill was therefore still in the custody of the committee 
    and had not been reported to the Senate.

    On July 31, 1963, (7) a bill was not considered on the 
floor because of the absence of a quorum in the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 109 Cong. Rec. 13791, 13792, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 1703) to 
    amend title V of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, and for 
    other purposes. . . .
        Mr. [William] Proxmire [of Wisconsin]: Mr. President, will the 
    Senator from Florida yield for the purpose of my making a point of 
    order?
        Mr. [Spessard L.] Holland [of Florida]: I yield to the 
    distinguished Senator from Wisconsin so that he may make a point of 
    order.
        Mr. Proxmire: Mr. President, I make a point of order that the 
    bill which is now under consideration is not properly before the 
    Senate because, at the time the vote to report the bill was taken 
    in committee, a quorum was not actually present. I have checked 
    this with the clerk of the committee,

[[Page 3739]]

    and it is my understanding that only six Senators answered to their 
    names. . . .
        Mr. President, I ask for a ruling.
        The Presiding Officer: (8) The Chair must inquire of 
    the chairman of the committee as to what the facts are. The Chair 
    is not conversant with the facts, and must depend on the chairman 
    of the committee. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Claiborne Pell (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Will the chairman of the committee inform the Chair 
    specifically whether a quorum was present at the time the vote was 
    taken on S. 1703?
        Mr. [Allen J.] Ellender [of Louisiana]: At the time?
        The Presiding Officer: At the time.
        Mr. Ellender: By proxies, yes; but not actually.
        Mr. [Clair] Engle [of California]: Mr. President, will the 
    Senator yield?
        Mr. Ellender: I yield.
        Mr. Engle: The committee record shows that a quorum was 
    present. Is that correct?
        Mr. Ellender: That is correct.
        Mr. Engle: No point of no quorum was made at the time the bill 
    was reported.
        Mr. Ellender: That is correct.
        Mr. Engle: The record shows that a quorum was present, and no 
    point of order was made at that particular time, and members 
    drifted in and out. Is that correct? . . .
        The Presiding Officer: Does the Senator from Wisconsin press 
    his point of order?

        Mr. Proxmire: Yes; I press my point of order. I wish further to 
    point out that it has now been disclosed and stipulated and agreed 
    upon by the chairman of the committee that a quorum was not present 
    at the time the vote on the bill was taken. It is true that a 
    quorum was present earlier. It is true that a substantive majority 
    was present earlier, but at the time the vote was taken no physical 
    quorum was present in the committee room to vote.
        Mr. Ellender: The records of the committee show that a quorum 
    was present at the meeting.
        The Presiding Officer: By proxy?
        Mr. Ellender: A quorum was present at the time the meeting 
    began, when the question of a quorum arose.
        The Presiding Officer: Was a quorum present at the time the 
    vote was taken on S. 1703?
        Mr. Ellender: No.
        The Presiding Officer: In view of the point of order that has 
    been made, and the rule which necessitates that a ruling be made, 
    the Chair rules that under section 133(d) of the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1946,(9) which operates as a rule 
    of the Senate, and provides that: ``No measure or recommendation 
    shall be reported from any such committee unless a majority of the 
    committee were actually present,'' the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. This section appears in 2 USC Sec. 190a (d), and Rule XXV clause 
        5(a), Senate Manual Sec. 25.5 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry reported the bill 
    (S. 1703) in question without a majority of the members being 
    actually present, the action of the committee in ordering the bill 
    to be reported to the Senate was in

[[Page 3740]]

    controvention of the above section of the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act, and therefore such action was without authority 
    and void.
        Being ``actually present'' means the member would have had to 
    be present in committee, and a poll does not present a compliance 
    with the rule.
        Mr. Holland: Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Florida will state it.
        Mr. Holland: What is the status of the bill following the 
    ruling of the distinguished Presiding Officer?
        The Presiding Officer: The status of the bill is that legally 
    it has never left the committee.
        Mr. Holland: The status of the bill is that it is still in the 
    custody of the committee?
        The Presiding Officer: It is in the custody of the committee.