[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[C. Special Rules or Orders]
[Â§ 16. Authority of Committee on Rules; Seeking Special Orders]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4007-4040]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       C. SPECIAL RULES OR ORDERS
 
Sec. 16. Authority of Committee on Rules; Seeking Special Orders

    Under Rule XI clause 17,(10) the Committee on Rules has 
jurisdiction over the rules, joint rules, and order of business of the 
House.(11) And under Rule XI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1973) [Rule X clause 1(q), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 686(a) (1979)].
11. The jurisdiction defined in the rule was made effective Jan. 2, 
        1947, as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. 
        The jurisdiction was further defined in the 90th Congress when 
        jurisdiction over rules relating to official conduct and 
        financial disclosure was transferred to the Committee on 
        Standards of Official Conduct (H. Res. 1099, 90th Cong.).
            Prior to the 1946 act, Rule XI clause 35 provided that 
        ``all proposed action touching the rules, joint rules, and 
        order of business shall be referred to the Committee on 
        Rules.'' And Rule XI clause 45 conferred privilege on reports 
        from the Committee on Rules.
            For a short history of the Committee on Rules, including 
        its procedures, composition and authority in relation to the 
        current and past rules of the House, see 115 Cong. Rec. 9498-
        501, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 17. 1969 (insertion in the 
        Record by Richard Bolling [Mo.], a member of the Committee on 
        Rules, of a short history of that committee prepared by Walter 
        Kravitz of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of 
        Congress).
            See also Ch. 17, supra, for further information on the 
        committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4008]]

clause 23, it is always in order to call up for consideration a report 
from tile Committee on Rules on such matters,(~12) which 
report may be adopted in the House by a majority vote. If the report is 
called up the same day reported, it may not be considered unless so 
determined by a two-thirds vote.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [Rule XI clause 4(b), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)].
13. For the privilege of reports from the Committee on Rules, see 
        Sec. 17, infra. For consideration of and voting on such 
        reports, see Sec. 18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules may waive any rule which impedes the 
consideration of a bill or amendment thereto, and points of order do 
not lie against the consideration of such rules, as it is for the House 
to determine, by a majority vote on the adoption of the resolution, 
whether certain rules should be waived.(14) Thus an 
objection that a report from the Committee on Rules changes the rules 
of the House and thus should require a two-thirds vote rather than a 
majority vote has no merit.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For the authority of the Committee on Rules as to waiving rules and 
        points of order, see Sec. Sec. 16.9-16.14, infra. Rules may 
        also be waived by unanimous-consent requests and motions to 
        suspend the rules; for discussion of motions to suspend the 
        rules and their effect, see Sec. 9, supra.
            The power of the House to change or to waive its rules is 
        derived from U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2, which 
        authorizes each House of Congress to determine the rules of its 
        proceedings.
15. See Sec. 16.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A major portion of the legislation considered in the House is 
considered pursuant to resolutions, also called ``rules'' and ``special 
orders,'' reported by the Committee on Rules. As most bills reported by 
the other committees of the House are not privileged under the rules 
for immediate consideration, the special order from the Committee on 
Rules gives privilege to the bill sought to be considered in the 
House,(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For a statement by Speaker Nicholas Longworth (Ohio) as to the 
        privilege conferred on a bill by the adoption of a special 
        order, see Sec. 16.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule XIII clause 1,(17) most bills require 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole; therefore the special 
order usually provides that it shall be in order, upon adoption of the 
resolution to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of the designated bill.(18) 
But if the resolu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 742 (1979).
18. Special orders may also provide for the consideration of bills or 
        resolutions in the House, or in the House as in the Committee 
        of the Whole (see for example Sec. Sec. 20.16 and 20.17, 
        infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4009]]

tion is for the consideration of a bill not reported from committee, 
the resolution may provide that the House shall immediately resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the 
bill (since the committee of jurisdiction has in effect been discharged 
from the further consideration of the bill). The resolution usually 
provides for a certain period of general debate (one hour or more), 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the reporting committee, and for reading the bill for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. A ``closed'' rule restricts or 
prohibits the offering of amendments; an ``open'' rule allows the 
offering of germane amendments from the floor. Whether a rule is 
characterized as a ``modified open'' or a ``modified closed'' rule is a 
matter of degree, the former describing rules permitting any germane 
amendment with designated exceptions, and the latter prohibiting the 
offering of amendments, with designated exceptions.
    The resolution will generally provide that at the conclusion of the 
reading of the bill for amendment, the bill shall be reported back to 
the House, where the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
on the bill to passage without intervening motion except the motion to 
recommit. The resolution may provide that a separate vote may be 
demanded on any amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as otherwise only 
amendments in their perfected form are reported from Committee of the 
Whole and voted on in the House. Frequently, the resolution provides 
that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
the reported version of the bill may be read as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment.
    Due to the numerous possible variations in the form of special 
orders, only a representative sample is included in this and the 
following sections.
    The grant of jurisdiction to the Committee on Rules is necessarily 
broad, in order that the rules may be temporarily waived in order to 
consider and pass particular pieces of legislation. The only 
restrictions on the power of the Committee on Rules in reporting rules, 
under Rule XI clause 23,(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [Rule XI clause 4(b), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4010]]

are as follows: ``The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or 
order which shall provide that business under clause 7 of Rule XXIV 
[the Calendar Wednesday rule] shall be set aside by a vote of less than 
two-thirds of the Members present; nor shall it report any rule or 
order which would prevent the motion to recommit from being made as 
provided in clause 4 of Rule XVI.(20) The committee's 
authority extends to reporting resolutions making in order the 
consideration of bills not yet reported from standing or conference 
committees,(1) and to reporting resolutions providing 
certain procedures or waiving certain points of order during the 
further consideration of bills already under consideration in the House 
or Committee of the Whole.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Calendar Wednesday is a little-used procedure, and is customarily 
        dispensed with by unanimous consent rather than by the two-
        thirds vote on a motion (see Sec. 4, supra).
            Although the Committee on Rules may not prevent a motion to 
        recommit (see Sec. 16.19, infra), recommittal is not in order 
        when a bill is being considered under a motion to suspend the 
        rules.
            Thus the Committee on Rules may report a resolution making 
        in order motions to suspend the rules on days not specified in 
        the suspension rule, which in effect precludes motions to 
        recommit on bills passed under that procedure (see 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 2267).
 1. See Sec. Sec. 16.15-16.18, infra. A special order from the 
        committee may even provide for the consideration of a bill 
        which has not yet been introduced. 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 3388.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 16.26, 16.27, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules or special orders are requested from the Committee on Rules, 
usually, by the committee which has reported, or which has jurisdiction 
over, the measure to be considered, and the Committee on Rules may hold 
hearings and meetings on requested orders regardless of whether the 
House is in session and reading for amendment under the five-minute 
rule.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 16.20-16.22, infra, for requests for special orders 
        from the Committee on Rules. See Sec. Sec. 16.23-16.25, infra, 
        for meetings and hearings by the committee, including the 
        provisions of the House rules and the rules of the committee 
        itself in the 93d Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Power and Function of Rules Committee Generally

Sec. 16.1 During consideration of a resolution allowing legislation to 
    be included in an appropriation bill, the functions of the 
    Committee on Rules were discussed.

    On Jan. 23, 1932, during consideration of a special order from

[[Page 4011]]

the Committee on Rules making in order on a general appropriation bill 
certain legislative language, Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, of the 
Committee on Rules discussed that committee's functions:

        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, this resolution was introduced 
    before the Committee on Rules by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Byrns], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations at the request 
    of his committee. We were informed that every member of the 
    Appropriations--Republican and Democratic members--favored it 
    except as to one gentleman objecting in one small particular. As 
    for the necessity for the resolution it was stated that there was a 
    probability that a point of order might be made against these 
    provisions of sections 2 and 3 now carried in this agricultural 
    appropriation bill. It was therefore thought best that the matter 
    be laid before the House so that the membership of the House could 
    determine whether the provisions of these two sections now in the 
    bill should remain in the bill.
        It has always been my understanding that the Rules Committee is 
    not a committee that passes on the merits of measures. As has often 
    been said before, that committee merely determines whether or not a 
    measure is in accord with the program of the House and in answer to 
    a reasonable demand from the membership of the House, that they 
    have an opportunity to pass their judgment upon it. It is in that 
    customary spirit that the Rules Committee approached this 
    resolution without going into its merits to any extent. The entire 
    membership of the Appropriations Committee without regard to 
    politics wanted to give the House an opportunity to pass upon it. 
    In such a situation I believe it to be the duty of the Rules 
    Committee to lay the matter before the House for such action as it 
    shall see fit to take. That we have done in this 
    case.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 75 Cong. Rec. 2568, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.2 The Chairman of the Committee on Rules discussed that 
    committee's functions when calling up the first major special order 
    of the 73d Congress.

    On Mar. 21, 1933, when William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, the 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up by direction of that 
committee a special order providing for the consideration of a bill, he 
delivered some remarks on the functions of the committee:

        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of a number of the 
    new Members of the House, it will be noticed that this is the first 
    time since the convening of the special session of Congress that 
    the consideration of a bill of major importance has been brought 
    forward under the provisions of the authority and jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Rules.
        So this resolution provides for the consideration of this 
    measure as it is presented. No doubt the distinguished minority 
    leader, as already indicated by some interviews in the newspapers,

[[Page 4012]]

    will undertake to say that this is a very drastic rule. I admit it. 
    The minority will also say that it is a gag rule. In the common 
    acceptation of this term I admit it; but I want to say that many 
    years ago when, as a somewhat green Member of the House of 
    Representatives, I was assigned to service on the Committee on 
    Rules, under Republican administrations for many years, all that I 
    absorbed or learned about so-called gag rules I learned while 
    sitting at the feet of the distinguished gentleman from New York, 
    Mr. Snell, and his associates.
        I may say to the new Members of this Congress, also, and we 
    might as well be candid and frank about the function and 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York 
    and his associates well know what these functions are. The 
    Committee on Rules is the political and policy vehicle of the House 
    of Representatives to effectuate the party program and the party 
    policy. This is what it is, nothing more and nothing less, and 
    although, individually, I express the opinion here and now that we 
    regret the necessity sometimes of bringing resolutions upon the 
    floor of this House that will prevent the ordinary freedom of 
    action and freedom of offering amendments, there come times when, 
    under our system of party government, the Committee on Rules, 
    acting as I have suggested, is requested, as we have been requested 
    in this instance, by the leadership of the House, to bring in the 
    rule that we now have under consideration, for reasons which they 
    thought were wise and appropriate under the circumstances.
        So if you adopt this rule for the consideration of this bill, 
    it provides for four hours of general debate which will give all 
    gentlemen who desire to do so a fairly reasonable opportunity to 
    express their views upon it, and at the end of that time we are 
    going to have a vote on this bill, if the rule is adopted, and we 
    are going to vote the bill as it is up or down (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 77 Cong. Rec. 665, 666, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.3 The failure of a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
    does not prejudice the status of a bill and the Committee on Rules 
    may subsequently bring in a special rule providing for its 
    consideration and requiring only a majority vote for its passage.

    On June 5, 1933,(6) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill relating to the appointment 
of the Governor of Hawaii; the motion failed to obtain two-thirds (yeas 
222, nays 114). Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 77 Cong. Rec. 5015, 5022, 5023, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Blanton: If that motion [to lay on the table the motion to 
    reconsider] is carried, then the Rules Committee

[[Page 4013]]

    nevertheless will be able to bring in a rule tomorrow to take that 
    bill up when it can be passed by a majority vote?
        The Speaker: The Rules Committee can bring in a bill suspending 
    the rules.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to reconsider is no longer 
utilized following a negative vote on a motion to suspend the rules 
(see Sec. 15.7, supra).
    On June 6, the Committee on Rules reported a resolution providing 
for the consideration of the bill, and the resolution was adopted by 
the House on June 7.
    On Aug. 24, 1935,(7) there was called up by direction of 
the Committee on Rules a resolution making in order the consideration 
of a bill which had on that day failed of passage on suspension of the 
rules. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, answered parliamentary 
inquiries on the power of the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 14652, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Maverick: After a bill has been passed on, can it be 
    brought up again the same day? What about the Puerto Rico bill, 
    which failed? If we can again bring up the bill made in order by 
    this resolution, we can do it with the Puerto Rico bill, or with 
    any other bill that has been defeated once during the day. This 
    bill was defeated a few hours ago.
        The Speaker: The Chair will answer the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry. This is an effort on the part of the 
    gentleman from New York, Chairman of the Rules Committee, to bring 
    this bill up under a special rule.
        The question is up to the House as to whether or not that can 
    be done.
        Mr. Maverick: I did not hear the Chair.
        The Speaker: This is a special rule which is under 
    consideration and is in order.
        Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McFarlane: Is it in order for the Chairman of the Rules 
    Committee to bring in a rule on a bill which we defeated this 
    afternoon and then move the previous question before the opponents 
    have an opportunity to be heard?
        The Speaker: It is, under the rules of the House.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, all the 
    opponents were heard today.
        The Speaker: It is a question for the House itself to 
    determine.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Jefferson's Manual states [at Sec. 515, 
House Rules and Manual (1979)] that it is not in order to consider a 
bill the same as one already rejected in the same session; this 
prohibition may be waived by a resolution reported from the Rules

[[Page 4014]]

Committee providing for consideration.

Sec. 16.4 The question whether the House will consider a resolution 
    making in order the consideration of a bill which seeks to amend a 
    nonexisting law is a matter for the House and not the Chair to 
    decide.

    On May 13, 1953,(8) Mr. Leo E. Allen, of Illinois, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, a resolution 
providing for the consideration of a bill to amend the ``Submerged 
Lands Act,'' reported from the Committee on the Judiciary. Speaker 
Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, overruled a point of order 
against the consideration of the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 99 Cong. Rec. 4877, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Feighan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of this rule because it attempts to make in order the 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 5134, which is a bill to amend a 
    nonexisting act.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order that 
    has been raised by the gentleman from Ohio is not one within the 
    jurisdiction of the Chair, but is a question for the House to 
    decide, whether it wants to consider such legislation.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 16.5 Objection having been made to a unanimous-consent request to 
    take from the Speaker's table a bill with Senate amendments 
    thereto, disagree to the amendments and agree to a conference, the 
    Committee on Rules met immediately and reported out a resolution to 
    accomplish such action; it was agreed by a two-thirds vote to 
    consider the resolution and the resolution was adopted that day.

    On Aug. 9, 1949, Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of Virginia, asked unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 4830 (foreign 
aid appropriations) with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. Mr. Vito 
Marcantonio, of New York, having objected to the request, the Committee 
on Rules held a meeting, reported out a resolution making in order the 
action requested by Mr. Gary, and the House agreed to consider the 
resolution by a two-thirds vote and adopted the 
resolution.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 11139-46, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4015]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: This function of the Committee on Rules has 
been exercised less frequently since adoption (on Jan. 4, 1965, H. Res. 
8, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.) of that portion of clause 1 Rule XX permitting 
a motion to go to conference when authorized by the committee with 
legislative jurisdiction.

Sec. 16.6 The effect of a special rule providing for the consideration 
    of a bill is to give to the bill the privileged status for 
    consideration that a revenue or appropriation bill has under Rule 
    XVI clause 9.

    On June 28, 1930,(10) Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 264, 
providing that upon the adoption of the resolution it be in order to 
move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of a particular bill, and providing for that bill's 
consideration. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, overruled a point 
of order against the resolution and characterized the effect of such a 
resolution from the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 72 Cong. Rec. 11994, 11995. 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl R.] Chindblom [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, if pressed, 
    I will make the point of order that the resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is not in order because it relates to a bill 
    which is not now upon the calendar of the House under the 
    conditions and in the status which existed when this resolution was 
    adopted by the Committee on Rules.
        The calendar shows that H.R. 12549 was reported to the House on 
    June 24, 1930, Report No. 2016, and was placed on the House 
    Calendar. The resolution or rule now called up for consideration by 
    the Committee on Rules was presented to the House June 20, 1930, 
    and therefore before the bill on the calendar had been reported to 
    the House.
        Of course, we all know that this bill is now upon the calendar 
    for the third time. A previous rule was adopted for its 
    consideration on June 12, 1930, and at that time a point of order 
    was made, when it was sought to take up the bill in Committee of 
    the Whole House on the state of the Union, on the ground that the 
    report did not comply with the Ramseyer rule. Subsequently, after 
    the present rule was presented in the House on June 20, 1930, I 
    think it is well known that another irregularity in the adoption of 
    the report became known, so on June 23, if my recollection is 
    correct, the chairman of the Committee on Patents obtained 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the bill and the report, and the bill 
    was thereupon again reported the following day and placed upon the 
    House Calendar.
        The situation is novel and arises, so far as I can learn, for 
    the first time, and it raises the question whether the Committee on 
    Rules has authority in advance of the report of a bill, and in 
    advance of the placing of a bill on any calendar of the House, to 
    bring in a

[[Page 4016]]

    rule for the consideration of the bill under the general rules of 
    the House, as this resolution does, because the rule merely makes 
    it 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. As I construe the rule, it does not 
    suspend any of the rules of the House in reference to the 
    consideration of legislation. It does not suspend the rule which 
    requires bills to be upon the calendar of the House before they can 
    have consideration. It merely makes it 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.
        Mr. [John Q.] Tilson [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Chindblom: Yes.
        Mr. Tilson: Does not the effect of this resolution date from 
    the time it is adopted by the House, and not from the time it was 
    reported by the Committee on Rules? And if we to-day in the House 
    adopt the rule, is not the effect of the rule to be applied as of 
    to-day, and not three or four days ago, when the rule was reported?
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. It is not necessary 
    to pass upon the question of whether the original rule for the 
    consideration of this bill is still alive or not. The Chair, when 
    the matter was originally submitted to him, informally expressed a 
    grave doubt as to whether it would be considered alive. But this 
    rule is an entirely different rule. It appears now for the first 
    time for consideration. The Chair is aware that this bill has had a 
    rather stormy passage. It has been twice rereferred to the 
    committee, but as the bill now appears, so far as the Chair is 
    advised, it is properly on the calendar as of June 24, 1930, and 
    this special rule is properly reported to consider that bill. The 
    Chair thinks that all that special rules of this sort do is to put 
    bills for which they are provided in the same status that a revenue 
    or appropriation bill has under the general rules of the House. 
    Clause 9 of Rule XVI provides:

            At any time after the reading of the Journal it shall be in 
        order, by direction of the appropriate committees, to move that 
        the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House 
        on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering bills 
        raising revenue, or general appropriation bills.

        Now all that this special rule does is to give the same status 
    to this particular bill at this particular time. The Chair has no 
    hesitation in saying that the Committee on Rules has acted with 
    authority, and that it will 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 this bill after the 
    resolution is passed.

Rules Committee Jurisdiction Over Order of Business.

Sec. 16.7 The Speaker stated in overruling a point of order against a 
    special order from the Committee on Rules that the committee could 
    report a resolution to change the rules of the House on any

[[Page 4017]]

    matter except that which is prohibited by the Constitution.

    On Sept. 3, 1940,(11) there was pending before the House 
a special order from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of, and providing for two days of general debate on, a 
bill. Speaker pro tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, overruled a point 
of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 11359, 11360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that 
    the resolution is contrary to the unwritten law of the House. It 
    has been the universal practice, custom, and tradition of the House 
    to have debate fixed by hours. This resolution fixes general debate 
    by days. This is entirely meaningless, because a day may be 
    terminated by a motion that the Committee rise or by adjournment, 
    and for that reason I press my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the 
    resolution is contrary to the unwritten rules of the House in that 
    general debate is fixed by days instead of hours.
        In the first place, the point of order comes too late.
        In the second place, this is a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules to change the rules of the House, which is 
    permissible on anything except that which is prohibited by the 
    Constitution.
        The point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XI clause 17 gives jurisdiction to the 
Committee on Rules over the rules, joint rules, and order of business 
of the House. But under Rule XI clause 23, the Committee on Rules may 
not report any order providing that business under Rule XXIV clause 7 
(Calendar Wednesday) shall be dispensed with by less than a two-thirds 
vote, or any order operating to prevent the motion to recommit being 
made pursuant to Rule XVI clause 4.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XI clause 17, House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1973) [Rule X 
        clause 1(q), House Rules and Manual Sec. 686(a) (1979)]. Rule 
        XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [Rule XI 
        clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)]. Rule 
        XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1979). Rule XVI 
        clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.8 To a bill amending the rules of the House [Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1970] being considered pursuant to a 
    resolution prohibiting amendments to the bill ``which would have 
    the effect of changing the jurisdiction

[[Page 4018]]

    of any committee of the House listed in Rule XI,'' an amendment to 
    clause 23 [clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual (1979)] of Rule XI 
    proscribing the power of the Committee on Rules to report special 
    orders which would limit the reading of a measure for amendment or 
    the offering of amendments thereto, was ruled out of order as an 
    attempt to change the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.

    On July 29, 1970, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (H.R. 
17654) was being read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to a special order (H. Res. 1093) prohibiting the offering of 
amendments which would change the jurisdiction of House committees. 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, sustained a point of order 
against an amendment (and discussed the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Rules): (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 26414, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jacobs: On page 39, after line 4, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 123(a) Clause 23 of Rule XI of the Rules of the 
        House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following: `In addition, the Committee on Rules 
        shall not report any rule or order for the consideration of any 
        legislative measure which limits, restricts, or eliminates the 
        actual reading of that measure for amendment or the offering of 
        any amendment to that measure.'.''. . .

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order that this very definitely limits the jurisdiction of 
    the Rules Committee and would prohibit us from issuing a closed 
    rule and other types of rules. The rule under which this measure 
    was considered strictly prohibits the changing of any jurisdiction 
    of any committee.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Indiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the term 
    ``jurisdiction,'' it means the territory or subject matter over 
    which legal power is exercisable, not the rules by which such power 
    proceeds.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to point out to the gentleman from Indiana 
    that under House Resolution 1093 we have the following language, 
    beginning in line 11:

            No amendments to the bill shall be in order which would 
        have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee 
        of the House listed in Rule XI.

        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 4019]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is for some 
    enlightenment about the word ``jurisdiction'' itself, the 
    definition of the word ``jurisdiction''? Does it refer to subject 
    matter and territory, or relate to the manner in which the 
    Committee on Rules can make a report within its jurisdiction?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to point out to the 
    gentleman from Indiana that under the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana there is the following language:

            The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or order 
        for the consideration of any legislative measure which limits, 
        restricts, or eliminates the actual reading of that measure for 
        amendment or the offering of any amendment to that measure.

        Therefore the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
    restricts the jurisdictional powers of the Committee on Rules. For 
    that reason the point of order must be sustained.

Waiver of Rules by Special Orders

Sec. 16.9 Rules of the House may be changed or temporarily suspended by 
    a majority vote by the adoption of a resolution from the Committee 
    on Rules providing for such a change, such as waiving points of 
    order in the consideration of a bill.

    On June 14, 1930,(14) Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New 
York, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 
253, providing for the consideration of two conference reports on the 
same bill together as one, for the purposes of debate and voting. 
Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, overruled a point of order against 
the resolution, where the point of order was based on the fact that the 
resolution waived all points of order in the consideration of the 
reports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 72 Cong. Rec. 10694, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    make a point of order against the resolution.

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: The resolution provides that ``in the 
    consideration of the reports all points of order shall be waived.'' 
    Points of order are based on the rules of the House, either the few 
    published rules or the precedents and rulings by presiding 
    officers. This resolution proposes to do what should be done by a 
    motion to suspend the rules. The difficulty is, however, that to 
    suspend the rules a two-thirds vote is required. This is not a 
    resolution brought in for the purpose of obtaining by a majority 
    vote the direct repeal of all of the rules of the House but is 
    intended to serve a certain specific purpose in reference to only 
    one measure of the House. For instance, the rule relating to 
    Calendar Wednesday requires that to set that aside there must be a 
    two-thirds vote. The rule prohibiting legislation on an 
    appropriation bill could not be set aside, in my opinion, by this 
    method,

[[Page 4020]]

    and that applies to other rules of the House. Points of order being 
    rules of the House, in my opinion this resolution violates the 
    rules of the House, in that it sets aside all rules relating to 
    points of order.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to argue the 
    point of order with the gentleman if I knew what his point of order 
    is, but from anything my friend has said so far, I am unable to 
    identify it.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state it is not necessary. This is 
    a very ordinary proceeding. It has been done hundreds of times to 
    the knowledge of the Chair. The Chair overrules the point of order.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(15) the House had under consideration 
House Resolution 661, reported from the Committee on Rules and 
providing for consideration of H.R. 7248, to amend and extend the 
Higher Education Act and for other purposes. The resolution waived 
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for failure to comply with Rule XVI clause 7 (germaneness) 
and Rule XXI clause 4 [clause 5 in the 96th Congress] (appropriations 
in a legislative bill) and also provided that points of order could be 
raised against portions of the bill whose subject matter was properly 
within another committee's jurisdiction rather than within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor, which had 
reported the bill. (Under normal procedure, a point of order based on 
committee jurisdiction cannot be raised after a committee to which has 
been referred a bill has reported it, the proper remedy being a motion 
to correct reference.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 37768, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, indicated that a majority vote, and not a two-thirds vote, 
would be required to adopt the resolution:

        Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Speaker, at this point is it proper for the 
    Speaker to determine whether a two-thirds vote would be required 
    for the passage of this resolution, House Resolution 661, or merely 
    a majority?
        The Speaker: The resolution from the Committee on Rules makes 
    in order the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7248) and a majority 
    vote is required for that purpose.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Even with the reference to the last section, Mr. 
    Speaker, relating to the raising of a point of order on a bill 
    which is properly reported out by a committee to which the bill was 
    referred, which would in effect contravene an existing rule of the 
    House?

[[Page 4021]]

        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules proposes to make in order 
    in its resolution (H. Res. 661) the opportunity to raise points of 
    order against the bill on committee jurisdictional grounds, but as 
    is the case with any resolution reported by the Committee on Rules 
    making a bill a special order of business, only a majority vote is 
    required.
        Mr. Matsunaga: I thank the Speaker.

Sec. 16.10 The Speaker stated in overruling a point of order against a 
    special order from the Committee on Rules that the committee could 
    report a resolution to change the rules of the House on any matter 
    except that which is prohibited by the Constitution.

    On Sept. 3, 1940,(16) there was pending before the House 
a special order from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of, and providing for two days of general debate on, a 
bill. Speaker pro tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, overruled a point 
of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 11359, 11360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that 
    the resolution is contrary to the unwritten law of the House. It 
    has been the universal practice, custom, and tradition of the House 
    to have debate fixed by hours. This resolution fixes general debate 
    by days. This is entirely meaningless, because a day may be 
    terminated by a motion that the Committee rise or by adjournment, 
    and for that reason I press my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the 
    resolution is contrary to the unwritten rules of the House in that 
    general debate is fixed by days instead of hours.
        In the first place, the point of order comes too late.
        In the second place, this is a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules to change the rules of the House, which is 
    permissible on anything except that which is prohibited by the 
    Constitution.
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 16.11 It is for the House, and not the Chair, to decide upon the 
    efficacy of adopting a special rule which has the effect of setting 
    aside the standing rules of the House insofar as they impede the 
    consideration of a particular bill; it is not within the province 
    of the Chair to rule out, on a point of order, a resolution 
    reported by the Committee on Rules which is properly before the 
    House and which provides for a

[[Page 4022]]

    special order of business (abrogating the provisions of Rule XX 
    clause 1).

    On Nov. 28, 1967,(17) the previous question had been 
moved on House Resolution 985, called up by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, providing for concurring in a Senate amendment to a House 
bill; the resolution was necessary in order to waive the requirement of 
Rule XX clause 1 [House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1979)], that Senate 
amendments be considered in Committee of the Whole if they would be 
subject to that procedure where originating in the House. Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled a point of order against the 
resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 34038, 34039, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against a vote on this resolution, and I make the point of 
    order based entirely on rule XX, which says that any amendment of 
    the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to a point of order 
    that it shall first be considered in the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union. If it originated in the House it 
    would be subject to that point of order. I believe there is no 
    question about it being subject to a point of order should it 
    originate here in this House. Until that issue is debated in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union I believe 
    that we are violating rule XX of the House rules.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has previously 
    [see footnote 18, infra] ruled on the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman, and the matter is one that is now before the House for 
    the consideration of the House, and the will of the House.
        For the reasons heretofore stated and now stated, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me under 
    what authority the House can consider this in the House rather than 
    in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, in 
    view of rule XX which says it shall first be considered in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House can change its 
    rules at any time upon a resolution that is properly before the 
    House reported by the Committee on Rules. The present resolution 
    has been put before the House by the Committee on Rules within the 
    authority of the Committee on Rules, therefore the matter presents 
    itself for the will of the House.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The reason I am making this is that I want to get some record 
    on this for this reason: The Chair has said that the Committee on 
    Rules may make a resolution which has not been adopted by the House 
    which summarily amends the Rules of the House which the Members of 
    the House are supposed to rely upon. This rule has not been adopted 
    as yet.

[[Page 4023]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Committee on Rules 
    has reported the rule under consideration--
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: But it has never been voted upon.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that we are about to approach 
    that matter now.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: And I am challenging that, and the point 
    of order is made that we cannot vote on that because it says in 
    rule XX that this first shall be considered in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot be any more specific or clear in 
    responding to the point of order or in answering the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The matter is properly before the House and it is a matter on 
    which the House may express its will.

    The Speaker had previously, when the resolution was called up, 
overruled the same point of order: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 34032, 34033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has given 
    serious consideration to the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Missouri. The Committee on Rules has reported out a special 
    rule. It is within the authority of the rules, and a reporting out 
    by the Rules Committee is consistent with the rules of the House. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 16.12 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution waiving 
    points of order against provisions in a legislative bill containing 
    appropriations in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (clause 5 in the 
    96th Congress) and it is not in order to make such points of order 
    when the resolution and not the bill is before the House.

    On Aug. 1, 1939,(19) there was pending before the House 
a resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on Banking and 
Currency and waiving points of order against the bill (certain sections 
of the bill contained appropriations in a legislative bill). Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled a point of order against the 
resolution where the point of order was directed against those sections 
of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 10710, 10711, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against certain sections of the bill referred to in the rule.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman desire to make a point of order 
    against the resolution?
        Mr. Taber: Against certain sections of the bill referred to in 
    the resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair will not entertain that point of order, 
    because the matter now pending before the House

[[Page 4024]]

    is whether or not it should agree to the resolution making a 
    certain bill in order. . . .
        The Chair has no disposition to limit the argument of the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], but the Chair is very clearly 
    of the opinion that the points of order the gentleman seeks to 
    raise against certain provisions of the bill are not in order at 
    this time. The House is now considering a resolution providing for 
    the consideration of the bill against which the gentleman desires 
    to raise certain points of order. The resolution which is now being 
    considered itself provides, if adopted, that all points of order 
    against the bill are waived. This is no innovation or new matter. 
    Time after time the Committee on Rules has brought to the House 
    resolutions waiving points of order against bills. Under the 
    general rules of the House, the Chair will say to the gentleman, 
    aside from the considerations which the Chair has mentioned, points 
    of order cannot be raised against the bill until the section is 
    reached in the bill which attempts to make appropriations and 
    against which the point of order is desired to be made.
        For those reasons the Chair does not feel like recognizing the 
    gentleman at this juncture to state points of order against the 
    proposed bill.
        Mr. Taber: May I call the attention of the Chair to the last 
    sentence in clause 4 of rule XXI:

            A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill, 
        joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any 
        time.

        There have been decisions holding that the point of order would 
    not lie to the bill or to its consideration, but I have cited to 
    the Chair cases where such points of order have been made and have 
    been sustained when the bill itself was not under consideration.
        The Speaker: The Chair has undertaken to make it plain that the 
    Chair's decision is based very largely upon the proposition that 
    the resolution now being considered specifically waives all points 
    of order that may be made against the bill, and includes those 
    matters evidently against which the gentleman has in mind in making 
    points of order.

Sec. 16.13 The House rejected a resolution reported from the Committee 
    on Rules, providing for the consideration of a bill improperly 
    reported (failure of a quorum to order the bill reported).

    On July 23, 1973,(20) the House rejected House 
Resolution 495, called up by Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules and providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 8929 (to amend title 39, on the reduced mailing rate for 
certain matter). The resolution specifically waived Rule XI clause 
27(e) (clause 2(1)(2)(A) in the 96th Congress) in relation to the bill; 
that clause provided that a quorum must actually be present when a bill 
is ordered reported by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 25482, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4025]]

a committee, a requirement that was not followed in the reporting of 
the bill in question.

Sec. 16.14 Despite certain defects in the consideration or reporting of 
    a bill by a standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a 
    special rule from the Committee on Rules.

    On May 2, 1939,(1) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
made a point of order against an order of business resolution reported 
by the Committee on Rules and called up for consideration, on the 
ground that the bill made in order by the resolution had been referred 
to, considered by, and reported from a committee (the Committee on the 
Judiciary) which had no jurisdiction over the subject matter involved. 
After extended argument on the point of order, Speaker William B. 
Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled the point of order on the ground that 
after a public bill has been reported it is not in order to raise a 
question of committee jurisdiction. The Speaker further commented that 
even if there were defects in the committee consideration and report, 
the rule from the Committee on Rules would have the effect of remedying 
such defects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052-55, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, in order to 
    protect the rights of the Committee on Rules, will the Chair permit 
    this observation? The gentleman from New York slept on his rights 
    further until the Committee on Rules reported a rule making the 
    consideration of this measure in order. Even though the reference 
    had been erroneous and the point of order had been otherwise made 
    in time, the Committee on Rules has the right to change the rules 
    and report a rule making the legislation in order. This point also 
    might be taken into consideration by the Speaker, if necessary.

        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the statement 
    made by the gentleman from Michigan, although not necessary to a 
    decision of the instant question, is sustained by a particular and 
    special decision rendered by Mr. Speaker Garner on a similar 
    question. The decision may be found in the Record of February 28, 
    1933. In that decision it is held, in effect, that despite certain 
    defects in the consideration or the reporting of a bill by a 
    standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a special rule 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion to consider 
    such bill. The Chair thinks that that decision by Mr. Speaker 
    Garner clearly sustains the contention made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For the Feb. 28, 1933, decision referred to by the Chair, see 76 
        Cong. Rec. 5247-49, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 23, 1942,(3) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
made a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 88 Cong. Rec. 6541, 6542, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4026]]

point of order against a bill ``not legally before the House,'' on the 
grounds that the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Election 
of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, had 
never reported the bill with a quorum present. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, responded as follows:

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        At this time there is no bill pending before the House. A 
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules will be presented to 
    the House, which, if adopted, will make in order the consideration 
    of H.R. 7416. If the Committee on Election of President, Vice 
    President, and Representatives in Congress had never taken any 
    action upon this bill and the Committee on Rules had decided to 
    report a rule making it in order and putting it up to the House 
    whether or not the House would consider the bill, they would have 
    been within their rights. Therefore, the Chair cannot do otherwise 
    than hold that there is nothing at the time before the House. It is 
    anticipated that a special rule will be presented, making in order 
    the consideration of H.R. 7416. If the House adopts the rule then 
    the House has decided that it desires to consider the bill at this 
    time, and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] and recognizes the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath].

    Parliamentarian's Note: It is the present practice to waive points 
of order against the consideration of a bill by reason of specific 
defects in committee reports. For example, the failure of a committee 
to comply with the ``Ramseyer'' rule (Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules 
and Manual Sec. 745 [1979]) may be raised after the House agrees to a 
resolution making the consideration of the bill in order and before the 
House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider the 
bill unless the rule has waived that point of order.

Orders for Considering Unreported Measures

Sec. 16.15 A point of order that the Committee on Rules has reported a 
    special rule providing for the consideration of a bill prior to the 
    time the bill to be considered was reported and referred to the 
    Union Calendar does not lie.

    On June 28, 1930,(4) Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a resolution making in 
order the consideration of a bill. Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, 
made a point of order against the report of the Committee on Rules, on 
the ground that the committee had reported the resolution to the House 
on June 20, 1930, whereas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 72 Cong. Rec. 11994, ll99a, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4027]]

the bill was first reported to the House on a later date, on June 24, 
1930 (and was recommitted twice to the committee of jurisdiction in 
order to correct errors in the report). Mr. Chindblom asserted that the 
effect of the resolution was to make it in order to resolve into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill, but not to 
waive the ``rule which requires bills to be upon the calendar of the 
House before they can have consideration.''
    Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, overruled the point of order 
and stated in part as follows:

        . . . The Chair thinks that all that special rules of this sort 
    do is put bills for which they are provided in the same status that 
    a revenue or appropriation bill has under the general rules of the 
    House. Clause 9 of Rule XVI provides:

            At any time after the reading of the Journal it shall be in 
        order, by direction of the appropriate committees, to move that 
        the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House 
        on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering bills 
        raising revenue, or general appropriation bills.

        Now all that this special rule does is to give the same status 
    to this particular bill at this particular time. The Chair has no 
    hesitation in saying that the Committee on Rules has acted with 
    authority, and that it will 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 this bill after the 
    resolution is passed.

Sec. 16.16 The Committee on Rules may consider any matter that is 
    properly before them, including providing for the consideration of 
    a bill on which a majority report has not yet been made.

    On July 30, 1959,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered parliamentary inquiries on the procedures of the Committee on 
Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 14743, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: I ask the question, under 
    the rules of the House, can the Committee on Rules report out a 
    bill before they get a majority report from the committee?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Barden] 
    asked unanimous consent, which was obtained, to have until midnight 
    tonight to file a report of the Committee on Education and Labor on 
    the so-called labor bill.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: My question is, until a majority of 
    the committee sign the report, can the Committee on Rules consider 
    the bill?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules has the authority to 
    consider any matter which is properly before them. The Chair would 
    certainly hold that this is properly before the Committee on Rules.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Still, there is that word 
    ``properly.'' I was asking a simple question.

[[Page 4028]]

        The Speaker: The Chair has answered the question.

Sec. 16.17 The Committee on Rules may report resolutions providing for 
    the immediate consideration of bills not yet reported by the 
    committees to which referred.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(6) the House adopted House Resolution 
845, reported by the Committee on Rules, providing for the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 11926 (limiting the jurisdiction of federal 
courts in apportionment cases) which was pending before, and not yet 
reported by, the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 20212, 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the adoption of the resolution, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, held that a point of order against 
consideration of the bill did not lie on the ground that the Committee 
on the Judiciary had not compiled with the ``Ramseyer'' rule (requiring 
comparative prints in committee report), since that rule only applies 
where a committee has reported a bill, and not where it has been 
discharged from consideration of the bill.
    Similarly on Mar. 29, 1961, the House agreed to a special order 
from the Committee on Rules which provided for the immediate 
consideration of S. 153; the Senate bill had been referred to the 
Committee on Government Operations and had not yet been 
reported.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 5267, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.18 The Committee on Rules may report to the House a resolution 
    making in order the consideration of a conference report when 
    filed, although the conference report was not prepared at the time 
    of the action taken by the Committee on Rules.

    On many occasions, the Committee on Rules has reported resolutions 
making in order the consideration of conference reports on the same day 
reported, notwithstanding the prohibition in clause 2, (a) and (b), 
Rule XXVIII, against consideration of conference reports, and 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement, until the third 
day after the report is filed in the House and printed in the 
Congressional Record. For example, on July 25, 1956, the House adopted 
a resolution from the Committee on Rules providing as follows:

            Resolved, That during the remainder of this week it shall 
        be in order to consider conference reports the same day 
        reported notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule

[[Page 4029]]

        XXVIII; that it shall also be in order during the remainder of 
        this week for the Speaker at any time to entertain motions to 
        suspend the rules, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 1, 
        rule XXVII.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 102 Cong. Rec. 14456, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 1951, the House adopted a resolution from the Committee 
on Rules which not only provided for a conference on an appropriation 
bill but also provided for the consideration of the conference report 
when reported:

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules I submit a privileged report (H. Res. 
    309, Rept. No. 667) and ask for its immediate consideration.

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 277) making 
        temporary appropriations for the fiscal year 1952, and for 
        other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto be, and the 
        same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate 
        amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to by the House; 
        that the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing 
        votes of the two Houses on the said joint resolution be, and 
        hereby is, agreed to by the House, and that the Speaker shall 
        immediately appoint conferees without intervening motion.
            Sec. 2. It shall be in order to consider the conference 
        report on the said joint resolution when reported 
        notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule 
        XXVIII.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 7538, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Orders May Not Prevent Motion to Recommit

Sec. 16.19 The Committee on Rules may not report any order or rule 
    which operates to prevent the offering of a motion to recommit as 
    provided in Rule XVI clause 4, but such restriction does not apply 
    to a special rule prohibiting the offering of amendments to a title 
    of a bill during its consideration and thus prohibiting a motion to 
    recommit with instructions to include such an amendment.

    On Jan. 11, 1934,(10) Mr. William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a resolution 
providing for the consideration of an appropriation bill; the 
resolution prohibited the offering of amendments to title II of the 
bill. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made a point of order against 
the rule on the ground that it violated Rule XI clause 45 [Rule XI 
clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)] since it would 
operate to prevent certain motions to recommit, such as to recommit 
with instructions to include an amendment in title II. Speaker
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. 78 Cong. Rec. 479-83, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4030]]

Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, overruled the point of order:

        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York makes the point of order that the Committee on Rules has 
    reported out a resolution which violates the provisions of clause 
    45, rule XI, which are as follows:

            The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or order . 
        . . which shall operate to prevent the motion to recommit being 
        made as provided in clause 4, rule XVI.

        The pertinent language of clause 4, rule XVI is as follows:

            After the previous question shall have been ordered on the 
        passage of a bill or joint resolution one motion to recommit 
        shall be in order and the Speaker shall give preference in 
        recognition for such purpose to a Member who is opposed to the 
        bill or resolution.

        The special rule, House Resolution 217, now before the House, 
    does not mention the motion to recommit. Therefore, any motion to 
    recommit would be made under the general rules of the House. The 
    contention of the gentleman from New York that this special rule 
    deprives the minority of the right to make a motion to recommit is, 
    therefore, obviously not well taken. The right to offer a motion to 
    recommit is provided for in the general rules of the House, and 
    since no mention is made in the special rule now before the House 
    it naturally follows that the motion would be in order.
        A question may present itself later when a motion to recommit 
    with instructions is made on the bill H.R. 6663 that the special 
    rule which is now before the House may prevent a motion to recommit 
    with instructions which would be in conflict with the provisions of 
    the special rule. It has been held on numerous occasions that a 
    motion to recommit with instructions may not propose as 
    instructions any-thing that might not be proposed directly as an 
    amendment. Of course, inasmuch as the special rule prohibits 
    amendments to title II of the bill H. R. 6663 it would not be in 
    order after adoption of the special rule to move to recommit the 
    bill with instructions to incorporate an amendment in title II of 
    the bill. The Chair, therefore, holds that the motion to recommit, 
    as provided in clause 4, Rule XVI, has been reserved to the 
    minority and that insofar as such rule is concerned the special 
    rule before the House does not deprive the minority of the right to 
    make a simple motion to recommit. The Chair thinks, however, that a 
    motion to recommit with instructions to incorporate a provision 
    which would be in violation of the special rule, House Resolution 
    217, would not be in order. For the reasons stated, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Snell: Will the Chair allow me to make a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        The Speaker: Certainly.
        Mr. Snell: Do I understand from the ruling of the Chair the 
    minority will be allowed to offer the usual motion to recommit?
        The Speaker: The usual simple motion to recommit provided by 
    the rules.

    On appeal, the House upheld the decision of the Chair by a rollcall 
vote of 260-112.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The language of the resolution in ques

[[Page 4031]]

tion prohibited the offering of amendments to title II of the bill 
``during the consideration'' of the bill (both in the House and in the 
Committee of the Whole). Normally, such resolutions only prohibit 
certain amendments during consideration in Committee of the Whole, 
allowing a motion to recommit with instructions in the House to add 
such amendments. This is apparently the only ruling by the Speaker on 
the authority of the Committee on Rules to limit, but not to prohibit, 
the motion to recommit.

Requesting Resolutions on the Order of Business

Sec. 16.20 Any Member may request that the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules call a meeting of that committee to consider reporting a 
    resolution making in order disposition of a House bill with Senate 
    amendments which require consideration in Committee of the Whole, 
    but a motion to send the bill to the Committee on Rules is not in 
    order.

    On Aug. 13, 1957,(11) objection was made to a unanimous-
consent request to take from the Speaker's table a House bill with a 
Senate amendment, disagree to the amendment, and ask for a conference 
with the Senate, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered parliamentary 
inquiries on requesting a special order from the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11. 103 Cong. Rec. 14568, 8ath Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Would the Speaker 
    recognize me to move to send the bill to the Rules Committee?
        The Speaker: The Chair would not. It is not necessary to do 
    that.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keating: Would the Speaker advise what action is necessary 
    now in order to get the bill to the Committee on Rules?
        The Speaker: Anyone can make the request of the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules to call a meeting of the committee to consider 
    the whole matter.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, if that were done, would the bill 
    which is now on the Speaker's desk be before the Rules Committee?
        The Speaker: It would not be before the Committee on Rules. The 
    Committee on Rules could consider the matter of what procedure to 
    recommend to the House for the disposition of this whole matter.

Requesting ``Closed Rule''

Sec. 16.21 Members discussed, during debate on a resolu

[[Page 4032]]

    tion from the Committee on Rules providing a ``closed'' rule for a 
    bill, the requirements of the Democratic Caucus rules as to seeking 
    such rules and as to the procedures of the Committee on Rules in 
    reporting such rules.

    On Nov. 13, 1973,(12) the House was considering House 
Resolution 695, providing for the consideration of H.R. 11333, 
increasing social security benefits and reported from the Committee on 
Ways and Means. The resolution permitted only committee amendments to 
the bill. The following colloquy took place during the debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12. 119 Cong. Rec. 36861-63, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip] Burton [of California]: Mr. 
    Speaker,(13) first I would like to state that I think, 
    given the time constraints, that the Committee on Ways and Means 
    has enacted essentially a very thoughtful set of changes to the 
    Social Security Act. However, there is one aspect of this procedure 
    that is potentially disturbing, so that the record can be clear in 
    this one respect, I would like to pose a question to the 
    distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman) the acting 
    chairman of the committee. The question I pose is this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As I understand the rules of the majority party caucus, there 
    are certain procedures clearly delineated to be followed in the 
    event a closed rule is to be sought. As I understand, the gentleman 
    from Oregon indicated to the Rules Committee that because of this 
    unexpected time crunch and for that reason only, that the seeking 
    and obtaining of a closed rule in this one instance is not intended 
    in any way, nor should it be considered to be a precedent for any 
    future such effort by any committee to seek a closed rule without 
    complying with whatever the ground rules as explicitly stated in 
    the caucus recommendations.
        Is that essentially a fair statement of the situation?
        Mr. [Albert C.] Ullman: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend 
    from California that the sole motivation of the Committee was to 
    meet the timetable that was before the Congress. It certainly is 
    not our intention to change any rules or procedures of any 
    institution in this body, but we were under a time frame of action 
    that demanded that we go to the Rules Committee and get a rule 
    immediately.
        I say to the gentleman that we have no present intention but to 
    get this bill passed just as expeditiously as possible.
        Mr. Burton: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the gentleman's 
    response, it is in no way his intention, nor should it be construed 
    by anyone in terms of establishing a precedent in overriding the 
    rule I referred to earlier, is that correct?
        Mr. Ullman: Yes.

Sec. 16.22 Pursuant to clause 17 of the Addendum of the Rules of the 
    Democratic Caucus, a Member inserted in

[[Page 4033]]

    the Record notice of his intention to request the Committee on 
    Rules to report to the House a ``modified closed rule'' for the 
    consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.

    On Nov. 12, 1973,(14) William L. Hungate, of Missouri, a 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary who would be managing a bill 
reported from that committee on the floor, made an announcement 
regarding the request for a special order from the Committee on Rules 
for the consideration of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 36601, 36602, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hungate: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 6, 1973, the 
    Committee on the Judiciary ordered favorably reported the bill H. 
    R. 5463, to establish rules of evidence for certain courts and 
    proceedings.
        Pursuant to the provisions of clause 17 of the Addendum to the 
    Rules of the Democratic Caucus for the 93d Congress, I am hereby 
    inserting in the Congressional Record notice of my intention to 
    request, following the expiration of 4 legislative days, the 
    Committee on Rules to report to the House a resolution providing 
    for a ``modified closed rule'' on the bill H.R. 5463. The rule I 
    will be requesting would provide in effect that after an extensive 
    period of general debate not to exceed 4 hours, on the bill, 
    further consideration of the bill for amendment would be postponed 
    to a time certain to give Members an opportunity to draft and to 
    insert in the Record any amendments which they proposed to offer to 
    the bill. Those amendments, if offered, would not be subject to 
    amendment on the floor, and article V of the bill, the 
    ``Privilege'' article, would not be subject to amendment. Such a 
    rule would I believe, best permit the House of Representatives to 
    work its will on this important and complicated piece of 
    legislation.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Addendum 17 to the Rules of the Democratic 
Caucus read as follows in the 93d Congress, first session:

        17. (a) It shall be the policy of the Democratic Caucus that no 
    committee chairman or designee shall seek, and the Democratic 
    Members of the Rules Committee shall not support, any rule or order 
    prohibiting any germane amendment to and bill reported from 
    committee until four (4) legislative days have elapsed following 
    notice in the Congressional Record of an intention to do so. (b) 
    If, within the four (4) legislative days following said notice in 
    the Congressional Record, 50 or more Democratic members give 
    written notice to the chairman of the committee seeking the rule 
    and to the chairman of the Rules Committee that they wish to offer 
    a particular germane amendment, the chairman or designee shall not 
    seek and the Democratic Members of the Rules Committee shall not 
    support, any rule or order relating to the bill or resolution 
    involved until the Democratic Caucus has met and decided whether 
    the proposed amendment should be allowed to be consid

[[Page 4034]]

    ered in the House. (c) If 50 or more Democratic Members give notice 
    as provided in subsection (b) above, then, notwithstanding the 
    provisions of Caucus Rule No. 3, the Caucus shall meet for such 
    purpose within three (3) legislative days following a request for 
    such a Caucus to the Speaker and the chairman of the Democratic 
    Caucus by said committee chairman or designee. (d) Provided, 
    further, that notices referred to above also shall be submitted to 
    the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the chairman of the 
    Democratic Caucus.

Meetings of Committee

Sec. 16.23 The Chairman of the Committee on Rules announced that the 
    committee would meet in a larger than usual committee room in order 
    to hear the application for a special order on controversial tax 
    bill.

    On Sept. 17, 1963,(15) Howard W Smith, Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, made an announcement relative to a meeting of the 
committee on a tax bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 17210, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
    address the House for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Virginia?
      There was no objection.

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, on tomorrow the Committee 
    on Rules will hear the application of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means for a rule on the tax bill. There is considerable interest in 
    this subject matter and our quarters in the Rules Committee are 
    rather confining for a large crowd. For the convenience of the 
    Members of the House who wish to be informed on the subject, and 
    through the courtesy of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, the Committee on Rules will meet not in our own chamber 
    tomorrow but in the chamber of the Committee on Ways and Means in 
    the New House Office Building in order to hear the application of 
    the committee for a rule on the tax bill. There are many Members 
    interested in this who would like to hear the discussion that will 
    be carried on by the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Mills], and the ranking minority 
    member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Byrnes]. This meeting 
    will be at 10:30 tomorrow morning.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XI clauses 2 (b) and (c) [House Rules 
and Manual Sec. 705 (1979)] provides for regular meeting days, pursuant 
to written rules adopted by committees, and for additional meetings of 
committees to be called by the chairman thereof for the consideration 
of any bill or resolution pending before the committee.

Sec. 16.24 Rules were adopted by the Committee on Rules in the 93d 
    Congress to govern meeting procedures.

[[Page 4035]]

    In the 93d Congress, the Committee on Rules adopted (on Mar. 27, 
1973) rules to govern its proceedings, including the following 
provisions to govern meetings:

        (a) The Committee on Rules shall meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday 
    of each week when the House is in session. Meetings and hearings 
    shall be called to order and presided over by the Chairman or, in 
    the absence of the Chairman, by the Ranking Majority Member of the 
    Committee present as Acting Chairman.
        (b) A minimum 48 hours' notice of regular meetings and hearings 
    of the Committee shall be given to all members except that the 
    Chairman, acting on behalf of the Committee, may schedule a meeting 
    or hearing for the consideration of emergency and/or procedural 
    measures or matters at any time. As much notice as possible will be 
    given to all members when emergency meetings or hearings are 
    called; provided, however, that an effort has been made to consult 
    the Ranking Minority Member.
        (c) Meetings, hearings, and executive sessions of the Committee 
    shall be open to the public in accordance with clause 16 and clause 
    27 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, as 
    amended by H. Res. 259, 93d Congress.
        (d) For the purpose of hearing testimony, a majority of the 
    Committee shall constitute a quorum.
        (e) For the purpose of executive meetings, a majority of the 
    Committee shall constitute a quorum.
        (f) All measures or matters which have been scheduled for 
    consideration by the Committee on which any Member of the House 
    wishes to testify, and so requests, will be the subject of 
    hearings, at which time all interested Members who are proponents 
    or opponents will be provided a reasonable opportunity to testify.
        (g) There shall be a transcript of regularly scheduled hearings 
    and meetings of the Committee which may be printed if the Chairman 
    decides it is appropriate, or if a majority of the members request 
    it.
        (h) A Tuesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with 
    where, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need therefor, 
    and additional meetings may be called by the Chairman, or by 
    written request of a majority of the Committee duly filed with the 
    Counsel of the Committee.
        (i) The Committee may permit, by a majority vote on each 
    separate occasion, the coverage of any open meeting or hearing, in 
    whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and 
    still photography under such requirements and limitations as set 
    forth in the Rules of the House of Representatives.
        (j) The five-minute rule in the interrogation of witnesses, 
    until such time as each member of the Committee who so desires has 
    had an opportunity to question the witness, shall be followed.
        (k) When a recommendation is made as to the kind of rule which 
    should be granted a copy of the language recommended shall be 
    furnished to each member of the Committee at the beginning of the 
    meeting where such language is to be considered or as soon 
    thereafter as such recommendation becomes available.

[[Page 4036]]

Sec. 16.25 The Speaker held that the Committee on Rules had authority 
    to sit during sessions of the House and was not included in a 
    previous ruling of the Speaker that committees could not sit while 
    bills were being read for amendment.

    On May 27, 1946,(16) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the power of the Committee on Rules 
to meet while the House was in session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 5863, 5864, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Geelan [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Geelan: In view of the previous ruling by the Chair that he 
    would recognize reports of no committee which was meeting while the 
    House was in session, what would be the situation?
        The Speaker: If the Chair made any such ruling today he does 
    not remember it.

        Mr. Geelan: I distinctly recall the Chair's prohibiting any 
    committee's being in session or holding hearings while the House 
    was in session.
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules is exempt from that rule.

    Parliamentarian's Note: ln the 79th Congress, when the Speaker made 
the ruling cited, Rule XI clause 46 read as follows:

            No committee, except the Committee on Rules, shall sit 
        during the sitting of the House, without special leave.
That rule was adopted in 1794, and the exception for the Committee on 
Rules was inserted in 1893.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4546.
            In the 73d Congress, the Speaker ruled that he could order 
        stricken from the calendar a bill where it was shown that the 
        committee reporting it had sat during the session of the House 
        without permission. 78 Cong. Rec. 7057, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Apr. 20, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 93d Congress, Rule XI clause 17 [now Rule X clause 1(q)(4), 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 686(a) (1979)] specifically provided that 
the Committee on Rules was authorized to sit and act whether or not the 
House was in session, and Rule XI clause 31 [now Rule XI clause 2(i), 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1979)] provided that five committees, 
including the Committee on Rules, could sit without special leave while 
the House was reading a measure for amendment under the five-minute 
rule.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The rule formerly provided that no committee except those named in 
        the rule could sit without special leave at any time when the 
        House was in session. The form of the rule in the 93d Congress 
        was derived from the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 
        (see House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 [1979] for the history of 
        the provision).

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

[[Page 4037]]

Granting Special Order Governing Bill Already Under Consideration

Sec. 16.26 Where a section in a bill pending before the Committee of 
    the Whole was struck out on a point of order (as constituting an 
    appropriation on a legislative bill), the Committee rose, the House 
    took a recess, and the Committee on Rules met and reported to the 
    House a resolution which the House adopted, making in order an 
    amendment to such bill in Committee of the Whole to reinsert the 
    section which had been stricken out.

    On Mar. 29, 1933, the Committee of the Whole was considering S. 598 
(reforestation and unemployment relief) pursuant to a unanimous consent 
request that the Senate bill be in order for consideration, instead of 
a similar House bill (H.R. 3905) which had previously been made a 
special order of business for that day (also by unanimous consent).
    Chairman Ralph F. Lozier, of Missouri, sustained a point of order 
against section 4 of the Senate bill on the grounds that it constituted 
an appropriation on a legislative bill in violation of Rule XXI clause 
4 [now Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1846 (1979)], and 
section 4 was thus stricken from the bill. Immediately following the 
Chair's ruling the Committee rose and a motion for a recess was adopted 
(at 5:42 p.m.).(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 77 Cong. Rec. 988-90, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recess having expired at 5:52 p.m., Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, called the House to order and Mr. William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, reported and called up by direction of the Committee on Rules 
(which had met during the recess) a special order making in order an 
amendment to the Senate bill pending before the Committee of the Whole: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                After Recess

        The recess having expired (at 5 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.), 
    the House was called to order by the Speaker.
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I report a privileged resolution, which I send to the desk 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        Mr. [Joseph B.] Shannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker does not the 
    rule have to lie over for a day?
        The Speaker: It does not.
        The Clerk will report the resolution.

[[Page 4038]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 85

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to offer as an amendment in Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union to the bill S. 598 the 
        following language:
            ``Sec. 4. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 
        this act, there is hereby authorized to be expended, under the 
        direction of the President, out of any unobligated moneys 
        heretofore appropriated for public works (except for projects 
        on which actual construction has been commenced or may be 
        commenced within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for 
        river and harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as 
        may be necessary; and an amount equal to the amount so expended 
        is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes 
        for which such moneys were originally appropriated.''
            All points of order against said amendment shall be 
        considered as waived in the House and in the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union. . . .

        The Speaker: It requires a two-thirds vote to consider it. The 
    question is, Shall the House consider the resolution?

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Snell) there were--ayes 189; noes 71.
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House 
    determined to consider the resolution.
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    adoption of the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution. The 
    resolution was agreed to.

    The Committee of the Whole resumed its sitting and proceeded to 
consider the amendment: (21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill 
    (S. 598) for the relief of unemployment through the performance of 
    useful public work, and for other purposes.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the bill S. 598, with Mr. Lozier in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ramspeck: Page 3, after line 21, 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 4. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 
        this act there is hereby authorized to be expended, under the 
        direction of the President, out of any unobligated moneys 
        heretofore appropriated for public works (except for projects 
        on which actual construction has been commenced or may be 
        commenced within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for 
        river and harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as 
        may be necessary, and an amount equal to the amount so expended 
        is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes 
        for which such moneys were originally appropriated.''. . .

        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, this simply puts back in the bill 
    section 4

[[Page 4039]]

    exactly, which was ruled out on the point of order.
        I move that all debate on this section do now close.

Sec. 16.27 A resolution waiving points of order against a certain 
    provision in a general appropriation bill was considered and agreed 
    to by the House after the general debate on the bill had been 
    concluded and reading for amendment had begun in Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 21, 1969, general debate had been concluded in Committee of 
the Whole on H.R. 11400, the supplemental appropriations bill, and the 
first section of the bill had been read for amendment when the 
Committee rose.
    The House then adopted a special order from the Committee on Rules 
which waived points of order against one section of the bill: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 13246-51, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William: M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 414 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 414

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        11400) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, all points of 
        order against title IV of said bill are hereby waived.

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
    the minority, to the very able and distinguished gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Smith). Pending that I yield myself such time as I 
    may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, I shall not use all the time on this resolution. 
    This is a rather unusual situation that we find ourselves in, 
    parliamentarily speaking. We have debated the supplemental 
    appropriation bill at some length under the privileged status of 
    the Appropriations Committee. Now we come in with a resolution from 
    the Rules Committee for one purpose and one purpose alone; that is, 
    to waive points of order against a particular section of the bill.

Special Rule With Continuing Effect

Sec. 16.28 Form of resolution waiving points of order against certain 
    legislative provisions in a general appropriation bill and 
    providing that during the remainder of the Congress no amendments 
    shall be in order to any other general appropriation bill which 
    conflict with the provisions of the legislative language made in 
    order by the special rule.

[[Page 4040]]

    On Jan. 11, 1934,(2) the following resolution reported 
from the Committee on Rules was called up and adopted by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Res. 217, 78 Cong. Rec. 479, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the consideration of H.R. 6663, a bill 
    making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
    independent bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1935, and for other purposes, all 
    points of order against title II or any provisions contained 
    therein are hereby waived; and no amendments or motions to strike 
    out shall be in order to such title except amendments or motions to 
    strike out offered by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, 
    and said amendments or motions shall be in order, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments shall not be in 
    order to any other section of the bill H.R. 6663 or to any section 
    of any general appropriation bill of the Seventy-third Congress 
    which would be in conflict with the provisions of title II of the 
    bill H.R. 6663 as reported to the House, except amendments offered 
    by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, and said 
    amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Title II of the bill proposed permanent and 
legislative amendments to a variety of statutes, to limit the salaries 
of federal officials, allowances and pensions, and was entitled 
``Economy Provisions.'' The effect of the resolution was to prohibit 
certain amendments to general appropriation bills during the remainder 
of the Congress, regardless of whether such amendments would have been 
in order under the general rules of the House. This special rule also 
prohibited the inclusion in a motion to recommit with instructions, on 
H.R. 6663 or any other general appropriations bill during the remainder 
of the Congress, of the type of amendment prohibited by the rule, since 
the special rule prohibited such amendments ``during the 
consideration'' of the bill (in both the Committee of the Whole and the 
House) and prohibited such amendments to any other general 
appropriation bill (by implication in both the Committee of the Whole 
and the House).