[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[A. Introductory; Various Types of Bills, Resolutions, and Other Mechanisms for Action]
[Â§ 6. Simple Resolutions]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4821-4839]
 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 6. Simple Resolutions

                            Cross References
Simple Resolutions as related to House-Senate Conferences, Ch. 33, 
    infra.
Simple Resolutions as related to privileges of the House or a Member, 
    Ch. 11, supra.
Simple resolutions and special orders, Ch. 21, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Use of Simple Resolution

Sec. 6.1 Simple resolutions are used in dealing with nonlegislative 
    matters such as expressing opinions or facts, creating and 
    appointing committees, calling on departments for information, 
    reports, and the like. Except as specifically provided by law, they 
    have no legal effect, and require no action by the other House. 
    Containing no legislative provisions, they are not presented to the 
    President of the United States for his approval, as in the case of 
    bills and joint resolution.

    On Oct. 29, 1943,(8) during consideration in the Senate 
of a Senate resolution (S. Res. 192) declar
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.  89 Cong. Rec. 8901, 8902, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4822]]

ing certain aims of the United States abroad, the following discussion 
took place:

        Mr. [John A.] Danaher [of Connecticut]: Under the precedents of 
    the Senate, does a Senate resolution have legislative effect?
        The Presiding Officer: (9) The Chair understands the 
    question to be, Under the precedents of the Senate, does a 
    resolution of the kind now pending before the Senate have 
    legislative effect?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Scott W. Lucas (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Danaher: That is correct.
        The Presiding Officer: In the opinion of the present occupant 
    of the chair, the answer is ``No.''
         Mr. Danaher: Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Danaher: Is such a resolution, if adopted, binding upon a 
    succeeding Senate?
        The Presiding Officer: In the opinion of the present occupant 
    of the chair, the answer is the same as the answer to the previous 
    question--``Absolutely no.''
        Mr. Danaher: Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Danaher: Does a Senate resolution, if adopted, have a 
    greater effect than to reflect the views of the largest number of 
    Senators agreeing thereto, who are present and voting for it?
        Mr. [Joel Bennett] Clark of Missouri: Mr. President, I make the 
    point of order that that is not a parliamentary inquiry; neither 
    were the two preceding questions parliamentary inquiries. They both 
    involve legal questions, and are not properly parliamentary 
    questions to be decided by the Chair.
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Missouri is certainly 
    late with the point of order so far as the first two questions are 
    concerned. With respect to the last question, the Chair will 
    overrule the point of order and permit the Senator from Connecticut 
    again to state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Danaher: Mr. 
    President, does a Senate resolution, if adopted, have greater 
    effect than to reflect the views of the largest number of Senators 
    agreeing thereto, who are present and voting for it?
        The Presiding Officer: The Chair will state that under the 
    universal practice a resolution of this kind is not binding on 
    anyone. It is merely a statement of the opinion of the Senate.
        Mr. Danaher: Mr. President, in response to the comment of the 
    Senator from Montana, let me say that with very considerable 
    diligence I made inquiry into the Senate precedents with reference 
    to the status and effect of a Senate resolution of this character. 
    I have taken the matter up with the parliamentarian of the Senate 
    and with others in a position to give me the benefit of their 
    advice and experience. I have been informed--and I think reliably--
    by the parliamentarian himself that he has made a search of the 
    precedents at my request. I respectfully ask unanimous consent to 
    have inserted in the Record at this point as a part of my remarks a 
    definition of the effect of a Senate resolution, as prepared for me 
    by the Senate parliamentarian.

[[Page 4823]]

        Mr. [Carl A.] Hatch [of New Mexico]: Mr. President, will the 
    Senator yield?
        Mr. Danaher: I yield.
        Mr. Hatch: Does not the Senator intend to read it, or have it 
    read?
        Mr. Danaher: Yes. I ask that the memorandum be read at the 
    desk.
        The Presiding Officer: Without objection, the clerk will read 
    the memorandum.
        The legislative clerk read as follows:

            Under the uniform practice of this body, Senate (or simple) 
        resolutions are used in dealing with nonlegislative matters 
        exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Senate, such as 
        expressing opinions or facts, creating and appointing 
        committees of the body, calling on departments for information, 
        reports, etc. They have no legal effect, their passage being 
        attested only by the Secretary of the Senate, and require no 
        action by the House of Representatives. Containing no 
        legislative provisions, they are not presented to the President 
        of the United States for his approval, as in the case of bills 
        and joint resolutions.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As in the case of concurrent resolutions, 
Congress has in recent years enacted legislation permitting either 
House by simple resolution to approve or disapprove certain proposed 
executive actions. See Sec. 7, infra. [See also House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 1013 (1981).]

Adoption of Rules

Sec. 6.2 A simple resolution is used to adopt the rules of the House 
    for each Congress.

    On Jan. 3, 1935,(10) the House considered and agreed to 
the following House resolution (H. Res. 17):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 13, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the rules of the Seventy-third Congress be, and 
    they are hereby, adopted as the rules of the Seventy-fourth 
    Congress, including therein the following amendment, to wit:
        That the last sentence of the first paragraph of section 4 of 
    rule XXVII be amended to read as follows:
        ``When a majority of the total Membership of the House shall 
    have signed the motion, it shall be entered on the Journal, printed 
    with the signatures thereto in the Congressional Record, and 
    referred to the Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees.''

Waiver of Rules

Sec. 6.3 The Committee on Rules may report and call up as privileged 
    resolutions temporarily waiving any rule of the House, including 
    statutory provisions enacted as an exercise in the House's 
    rulemaking authority which would otherwise prohibit the 
    consideration of a bill being made in order by the resolution.

    The following proceedings took place on Mar. 20, 1975: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 7676, 7677, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 4824]]

        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 337 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 337

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI and 
        section 401 of Public Law 93-344 to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 4485) to provide for greater 
        homeownership opportunities for middle-income families and to 
        encourage more efficient use of land and energy resources. . . 
        .

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I raise a 
    point of order against House Resolution 337 on the grounds that the 
    Budget Act by direct inference forbids any waiver of the section 
    401 ban on new backdoor spending in the House of Representatives.
        Mr. Speaker, my point of order is grounded on two basic facts: 
    First, there is no specific provision in section 401 for an 
    emergency waiver of its provisions; and yet, in section 402, which 
    generally prohibits consideration of bills authorizing new budget 
    authority after May 15, there is specific provision for an 
    ``Emergency Waiver in the House'' if the Rules Committee determines 
    that emergency conditions require such a waiver. It is my 
    contention that if the authors of section 401 had intended to 
    permit a waiver of its provisions, they would have specifically 
    written into law as they did with section 402. Section 402 makes a 
    similar provision for waiving its provisions in the Senate.
        Second, section 904 of the Budget Act, in subsections (b) and 
    (c) states that any provision of title III or IV may be waived or 
    suspended in the Senate by a majority vote of the Members voting, 
    thus extending a waiver procedure in the Senate to section 401 as 
    well as 402. But section 904 contains no similar waiver provision 
    for the House of Representatives.
        It should be clear from these two facts that the House was 
    intentionally excluded from waiving the provisions of section 401 
    of the Budget Act.
        Mr. Speaker, the point may be made that the Budget Act's 
    provisions are part of the rules of the House, and, as such, are 
    subject to change at any time under the constitutional right of the 
    House to determine the rules of its proceedings. But I think a fine 
    distinction should be drawn here. This resolution is presented for 
    the purpose of making a bill in order for consideration, and is not 
    before us for the purpose of amending or changing the Budget Act. 
    Since section 401 of the Budget Act deals concurrently with the 
    House and the Senate and their integrated procedures for 
    prohibiting new backdoor spending, any attempt to alter this would 
    have to be dealt with in a concurrent resolution at the very 
    minimum, if not a joint resolution or amendment to the Budget Act. 
    It is one thing for the House to amend its rules; it is quite 
    another for it to attempt, by simple resolution, to waive a 
    provision of law relating to the joint rules of procedures of both 
    Houses. . . . It is my contention that the authors of the Budget 
    Act never in

[[Page 4825]]

    tended for side-door spending in the Rules Committee and for that 
    reason specifically excluded any provision for emergency waivers in 
    section 401 in the House. I therefore urge that my point of order 
    be sustained.
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling (of Missouri): . . . Mr. Speaker, there 
    are a variety of grounds on which it would be possible to address 
    this point of order. It could be dismissed very quickly on the 
    grounds that the rules of the House provide that it shall always be 
    in order to call up for consideration a report from the Committee 
    on Rules on a rule, joint rule or the order of business, and then 
    it proceeds to give the very limited number of exceptions. The one 
    that the gentleman from Illinois makes as his points of order, and 
    all the different ones he makes as his points of order, are not 
    included in those specific exceptions.
        So, the rules of the House specifically make it clear that the 
    Rules Committee is in order when it reports a rule dealing with the 
    order of business, and it does not qualify that authority except in 
    a very limited degree.
        Furthermore, it is an established fact that the House can 
    always change its rules. It is protected by so doing. . . .
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Does not the Budget Control 
    Act, section 401(a) prohibit backdoor spending?
        Mr. Bolling: It also is possible for that provision to be 
    waived. What I tried to do in my discussion in opposition to the 
    validity of the point of order made by the gentleman from Illinois 
    was to point out the very broad basis on which such a matter could 
    be waived, a constitutional basis and a specific provision of 
    clause 4 of rule XI granting the Committee on Rules a very broad 
    authority to report matters that relate to order of business. It is 
    a well-known fact that the Committee on Rules often reports waivers 
    of points of order, and this is, in effect, a waiver of a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois makes the point of order against 
    the consideration of House Resolution 337 reported from the 
    Committee on Rules, on the grounds that that Committee has no 
    authority to report as privileged a resolution waiving the 
    provisions of section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 
    Section 401 prohibits the consideration in the House of any bill 
    which provides new spending authority unless that bill also 
    provides that such new spending authority is to be available only 
    to the extent provided in appropriations acts.
        The Chair would point out that while section 401 has the force 
    and effect of law, section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
    clearly recites that all of the provisions of title IV, including 
    section 401, were enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of 
    the House, to be considered as part of the rules of the House, with 
    full recognition of the constitutional right of each House to 
    change such rules at any time to the same extent as in the case of 
    any other rule of the House. House Resolution 5, 94th Congress, 
    adopted all these provisions of the Budget Act as part of the rules 
    of the House for this Congress. . . .

[[Page 4826]]

        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Amending Rules

Sec. 6.4 The House agreed to a resolution amending the rules of the 
    House to permit the Delegate from Alaska to serve on an additional 
    committee.

    On Aug. 2, 1949,(13) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following resolution (H. Res. 294):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 95 Cong. Rec. 10618, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That rule XII of the Standing Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is hereby amended to read as follows:

                                    Rule XII

                      Delegates and Resident Commissioners

            1. The Delegate from Hawaii and the Resident Commissioner 
        of the United States from Puerto Rico shall be elected to serve 
        as additional members on the Committees on Agriculture, Armed 
        Services, and Public Lands, and the Delegate from Alaska shall 
        be elected to serve as an additional member on the Committees 
        on Agriculture, Armed Services, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
        and Public Lands; and they shall possess in such committees the 
        same powers and privileges as in the House, and may make any 
        motion except to reconsider.

Committee Investigations

Sec. 6.5 The Senate considered a resolution providing for the 
    investigation by a Senate committee of charges made in the press 
    concerning the bribery of candidates for public office.

    On Mar. 8, 1960,(14) there was considered in the Senate 
the following resolution (S. Res. 285):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 4899, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration, or 
    any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and 
    directed under sections 134(a) and 136 of the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, and in accordance with its 
    jurisdictions specified by rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the 
    Senate, to examine, investigate, and make a complete study of the 
    charges, with a view to determine the truth or falsity thereof, 
    which have recently appeared in the public press that certain 
    persons have sought, through corruptly offering various favors, 
    privileges, and other inducements (including large sums of money), 
    to induce certain individuals to lend their political support to 
    one political party rather than to another, or to become candidates 
    of one political party rather than of another, and that the offers 
    made by such persons have in fact corruptly induced certain of such 
    individuals to change their political affiliations or to lend their 
    political support to one political party rather than to another.

[[Page 4827]]

        Sec. 2. The committee shall report its findings, together with 
    its recommendations for such legislation as it deems advisable, to 
    the Senate at the earliest practicable date, but not later than 
    January 31, 1961.
        Sec. 3. For the purpose of this resolution, the committee, from 
    the date on which this resolution is agreed to, to January 31, 
    1961, inclusive, is authorized (1) to make such expenditures as it 
    deems advisable, and (2) to employ on a temporary basis technical, 
    clerical, and other assistants and consultants.

Sec. 6.6 The House agreed to a resolution directing a committee to 
    investigate whether a subpena issued by a court or grand jury 
    purporting to command a Member to appear and testify invades the 
    rights and privileges of the House.

    On Nov. 10, 1941,(15) Mr. Hamilton Fish, of New York, 
rose to a question of personal privilege, and sent to the desk a 
subpena which had been served on him, asking that it be read by the 
Clerk. When the subpena had been read, Mr. Fish submitted, as a matter 
of privilege of the House, the issue of compliance with the subpena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 87 Cong. Rec. 8734, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker,(16) I have been summoned to 
    appear before the District grand jury to give testimony next 
    Wednesday morning. The subpena has just been read by the Clerk. 
    Under the precedents of the House, I find that I am unable to 
    comply with this summons without the consent of the House, the 
    privilege of the House being involved. I therefore submit the 
    matter for the consideration of this body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, addressed the House 
concerning the significance of the matter Mr. Fish had brought to the 
attention of the House, and following his remarks, included below, 
introduced, as a question of the privilege of the House, House 
Resolution 335, which the House then considered and agreed to:

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York raises 
    a fundamental question, which is very important to the House to 
    have correct information and advice upon before proceeding. The 
    matter concerns the integrity of the House itself whether or not an 
    individual Member can be summoned under the circumstances disclosed 
    in the case of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] and if he 
    cannot, if he can waive his constitutional privileges as a Member.
        This resolution does not pass upon the merits or the demerits 
    of the grand jury proceedings. In offering the resolution I am 
    about to offer, it is not a question of reflection on the grand 
    jury or the Department of Justice or the judicial branch of the 
    Government, but it involves a question of the integrity of the 
    House.

[[Page 4828]]

        I offer the following resolution and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows (H. Res. 335):

            Whereas Hamilton Fish, a Member of this House from the 
        State of New York, has been summoned to appear as a witness 
        before the grand jury of a United States Court for the District 
        of Columbia to testify; and
            Whereas the service of such a process upon a Member of this 
        House during his attendance while the Congress is in session 
        might deprive the district which he represents of this voice 
        and vote; and
            Whereas Article I, section 6, of the Constitution of the 
        United States provides: ``They (the Senators and 
        Representatives) shall in all cases, except treason, felony, 
        and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their 
        attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in 
        going to and returning from the same . . . and for any speech 
        or debate in either House, they (the Senators and 
        Representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place''; 
        and
            Whereas it appears by reason of the action taken by the 
        said grand jury that the rights and privileges of the House of 
        Representatives may be infringed:
            Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
        of Representatives is authorized and directed to investigate 
        and consider whether the service of a subpena or any other 
        process by a court or a grand jury purporting to command a 
        Member of this House to appear and testify invades the rights 
        and privileges of the House of Representatives. The committee 
        shall report at any time on the matters herein committed to it, 
        and that until the committee shall report Representative 
        Hamilton Fish shall refrain from responding to the summons 
        served upon him.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. On Nov. 17, 1941, the Committee on the Judiciary, in relation to 
        the above matter, filed a privileged report (H. Rept. 1415) 
        which was referred to the House Calendar. 87 Cong. Rec. 8933, 
        77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.7 The House considered as a question of privilege, a resolution 
    referring to the Committee on the Judiciary the question of whether 
    subpenas served upon certain Members, former Members, and House 
    employees in a civil suit invaded the rights and privileges of the 
    House.

    On Mar. 26, 1953,(18) the House considered and agreed to 
the following resolution (H. Res. 190):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 99 Cong. Rec. 2356-58, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas Harold H. Velde, of Illinois; Donald L. Jackson, of 
    California; Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania; Morgan M. Moulder, 
    of Missouri; Clyde Doyle, of California; and James B. Frazier, Jr., 
    of Tennessee, all Representatives in the Congress of the United 
    States; and Louis J. Russell and William Wheeler, employees of the 
    House of Representatives, have been by subpenas commanded to appear 
    on Monday and Tuesday, March 30 and 31, 1953, in the city of Los 
    Angeles, Calif., and to testify and give their depositions in the 
    case of Michael Wilson et al. v. Loew's Incorporated et al.,

[[Page 4829]]

    an action pending in the Superior Court of the State of California 
    in and for the County of Los Angeles; and
         Whereas the complaint in the aforesaid case of Michael Wilson 
    et al. v. Loew's Incorporated et al., lists among the parties 
    defendant therein John S. Wood, Francis E. Walter, Morgan M. 
    Moulder, Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier, Harold E. Velde, Barnard W. 
    Kearney, Donald L. Jackson, Charles E. Potter, Louis J. Russell, 
    and William Wheeler; and . . .
        Whereas part V of said complaint contains an allegation that 
    ``on and prior to March 1951 and continuously thereafter defendants 
    herein and each of them conspired together and agreed with each 
    other to blacklist and to refuse employment to and exclude from 
    employment in the motion-picture industry all employees and persons 
    seeking employment in the motion-picture industry who had been or 
    thereafter were subpenaed as witnesses before the Committee on Un-
    American Activities of the House of Representatives . . .''; and
        Whereas article I, section 6, of the Constitution of the United 
    States provides: ``They (the Senators and Representatives) shall in 
    all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be 
    privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of 
    their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the 
    same; . . . and for any speech or debate in either House, they (the 
    Senators and Representatives) shall not be questioned in any other 
    place''; and
        Whereas the service of such process upon Members of this House 
    during their attendance while the Congress is in session might 
    deprive the district which each respectively represents of his 
    voice and vote; and
        Whereas the service of such subpenas and summons upon Members 
    of the House of Representatives who are members of the duly 
    constituted committee of the House of Representatives, and the 
    service of such subpenas and summons upon employees of the House of 
    Representatives serving on the staff of a duly constituted 
    committee of the House of Representatives, will hamper and delay if 
    not completely obstruct the work of such committee, its members, 
    and its staff employees in their official capacities; and
        Whereas it appears by reason of allegations made in the 
    compliant in the said case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's 
    Incorporated, et al., and by reason of the said processes 
    hereinbefore mentioned the rights and privileges of the House of 
    Representatives may be infringed:
        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a 
    whole or by subcommittee, is hereby authorized and directed to 
    investigate and consider whether the service of the processes 
    aforementioned purporting to command Members, former Members, and 
    employees of this House to appear and testify invades the rights 
    and privileges of the House of Representatives; and whether in the 
    complaint of the aforementioned case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. 
    Loew's Incorporated et al., the allegations that Members, former 
    Members, and employees of the House of Representatives acting in 
    their official capacities as members of a committee of the said 
    House conspired against the plaintiffs in such action to the 
    detriment of such plaintiffs, and

[[Page 4830]]

    any and all other allegations in the said complaint reflecting upon 
    Members, former Members, and employees of this House and their 
    actions in their representative and official capacities, invade the 
    rights and privileges of the House of Representatives. The 
    committee may report at any time on the matters herein committed to 
    it, and until the committee shall report and the House shall grant 
    its consent in the premises the aforementioned Members, former 
    Members, and employees shall refrain from reponding to the subpenas 
    or summons served upon them. . . .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I think 
    probably a few words in explanation of the resolution and the 
    reason for its being here are in order at this time, in spite of 
    the fact that the resolution for the most part speaks for itself.
        By way of explanation, as most of us know, certain members of 
    the House Committee on Un-American Activities and employees of that 
    committee are presently in the State of California conducting 
    certain investigations as a part of their operation as a standing 
    committee of the House of Representatives. They are there in their 
    official capacity as members of the committee and employees of the 
    committee, and as Members of the House of Representatives and 
    employees of the House of Representatives. They are there, 
    furthermore, by direction of the House of Representatives, and they 
    are there on official business as evidenced by the action taken in 
    the House yesterday excusing them from attendance here by reason of 
    their performance of official duties in California at this time.

        The suit that has been filed in the State courts of California 
    arises out of certain alleged conduct, or activities, or 
    operations, of the House Committee on Un-American Activities of the 
    82d Congress. Enough has been included in the resolution, I think, 
    to indicate the nature of the suit which is, as I understand, one 
    for damages asserted against certain corporations and private 
    individuals, and likewise against Members of the House of 
    Representatives and employees of the House of Representatives, 
    admittedly by the provisions of the complaint itself involving them 
    in the conduct of their official duty.
        If you noted the reading of the resolution it is clear that the 
    privileges of the House are infringed by this action. The purpose 
    of this resolution is to avoid the immediate effect of the action 
    sought to be taken in California and at the same time to direct the 
    Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives to make a 
    thorough study and investigation of the whole matter and report to 
    the House of Representatives with respect to it and other matters 
    of like character that may arise in the future.
        I have spoken of the fact that the complaint recognizes the 
    official character of the conduct and actions of Members of the 
    House of Representatives and the employees of the committee. The 
    Constitution provides that, as recited in the resolution:

            They--

        Referring to the Senators and Representatives--
        shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the 
        peace be privileged from arrest during their attendance on the 
        session of their respective Houses, and in going to and 
        returning from the same.

[[Page 4831]]

        It is further provided:

            That for any speech or debate in either House they--

        Referring to the Senators and Representatives--
        shall not be questioned in any other place.

        Through the years that language has been construed to mean more 
    than the speech or statement made here within the four walls of the 
    House of Representatives; it has been construed to include the 
    conduct of Members and their statements in connection with their 
    activities as Members of the House of Representatives. As a result, 
    it seems clear to me that under the provisions of the Constitution 
    itself the adoption of the resolution which was presented is 
    certainly in order.
        Let us assume that any regular standing committee of the House 
    of Representatives should conduct a hearing and any one of us were 
    there as a Member of the House in his official capacity. Let us 
    further assume that this Member saw fit to elicit certain 
    information from a witness by questions and as a result of that 
    questioning the witness, employed by someone, subsequently lost his 
    job. Is the Member of the House of Representatives to be held 
    accountable and haled into court on a suit for damages for his 
    participation in the operations of that committee as a member of 
    the committee and as Members of the House of Representatives? To me 
    it seems clear that no such action can be taken under the 
    Constitution.
        Furthermore, this committee that is presently in California is 
    there on official business for the House of Representatives and as 
    a part of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the 
    United States. Everyone recognizes the investigatory process as a 
    part of the legislative process. So, under the rules creating the 
    committee and under long established precedents, the members of 
    that committee and their employees are there operating and acting 
    as an arm of the House of Representatives.
        To me it seems very clear that if a civil suit for damages can 
    be filed and summonses served on Members of the House of 
    Representatives who are there present, followed by subpenas 
    requiring them to attend and give testimony as witnesses on 
    deposition, as is pointed out in this resolution, then the work of 
    the committee could be completely obstructed, since conceivably the 
    questioning of the Members of the House of Representatives who are 
    presently there would be carried on interminably, and the work of 
    the committee stopped.

Consideration of Concurrent Resolutions

Sec. 6.8 The consideration of a House concurrent resolution which is 
    not otherwise privileged may be provided for by a resolution from 
    the Committee on Rules.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(19) the House considered the following 
resolution (H. Res. 827) from the Committee on Rules providing for the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 22618, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4832]]

consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 570:

                  Sense of Congress With Respect to Berlin

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 827 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
        570) expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the 
        situation in Berlin. After general debate, which shall be 
        confined to the concurrent resolution, and shall continue not 
        to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by 
        the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        Foreign Affairs, the concurrent resolution shall be considered 
        as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in 
        order to said concurrent resolution except amendments offered 
        by the direction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and such 
        amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion 
        of the consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent 
        resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
        adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto, to 
        final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit with or without instructions.

Rescinding Resolution Previously Adopted

Sec. 6.9 By resolution, the House rescinded a previously adopted 
    resolution whereby a bill had been referred to the Court of Claims 
    for report.

    On Apr. 30, 1957,(20) the House considered by unanimous 
consent and passed the following resolution (H. Res. 241):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 103 Cong. Rec. 6159, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That the adoption by the House of Representatives 
        of House Resolution 174, 85th Congress, is hereby rescinded. 
        The United States Court of Claims is hereby directed to return 
        to the House of Representatives the bill (H.R. 2648) entitled 
        ``A bill for the relief of the MacArthur Mining Co., Inc., in 
        receivership,'' together with all accompanying papers, referred 
        to said court by said House Resolution 174.

Requesting Conference

Sec. 6.10 The House considered a resolution taking a House joint 
    resolution with Senate amendments thereto from the Speaker's table, 
    disagreeing to the Senate amendments, and requesting a conference.

    On Oct. 31, 1939,(21) the House considered the following 
resolu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 85 Cong. Rec. 1092, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4833]]

tion (H. Res. 320) reported from the Committee on Rules:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution, the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 306), the 
        Neutrality Act of 1939, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and 
        the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end 
        that the amendments of the Senate be, and the same are hereby, 
        disagreed to and a conference is requested with the Senate on 
        the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

Providing a Standing Order of Business

Sec. 6.11 The Senate agreed to a resolution providing that the 
    Presiding Officer shall temporarily suspend business at 12 noon, on 
    days when the Senate has remained in session from the preceding 
    calendar day, to allow the Chaplain to give the customary daily 
    prayer.

    On Feb. 29, 1960 (22) the Senate considered and agreed 
to the following resolution (S. Res. 283):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 106 Cong. Rec. 3709, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the sessions of the Senate when that body 
    is in continuous session, the Presiding Officer shall temporarily 
    suspend the business of the Senate at noon each day for the purpose 
    of having the customary daily prayer by the Chaplain of the Senate.

Distribution of Senate Film Report

Sec. 6.12 The Senate agreed to a resolution providing for the 
    designation and distribution of a documentary film prepared by a 
    Senate committee as a ``Senate Film Report.''

    On Oct. 2, 1963,(1) the Senate agreed to the following 
resolution (S. Res. 208):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 109 Cong. Rec. 18541, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the film report on water pollution, entitled 
    ``Troubled Waters,'' prepared by the Committee on Public Works, 
    shall be designated as Senate Film Report numbered 1, Eighty-eighth 
    Congress, and that there be printed seven additional copies of such 
    film, five for the use of that committee, and two for the Library 
    of Congress. The Secretary of the Senate is authorized and directed 
    to pay, from the contingent funds of the Senate, the actual cost of 
    reproduction of these copies of the film: Provided, That copies of 
    said film may be made available to nongovernmental agencies or 
    individuals at the cost of reproduction.

Response to Subpena

Sec. 6.13 By resolution the House may authorize certain Members to 
    respond to a subpena issued by a federal district court in a 
    contempt case.

    On Feb. 23, 1948,(2) the House considered and agreed to 
the fol
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 1557, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4834]]

lowing privileged resolution (H. Res. 477):

        Whereas Representatives John S. Wood, J. Hardin Peterson, John 
    R. Murdock, and Gerald W. Landis, Members of this House, have been 
    subpenaed to appear as witnesses before the District Court of the 
    United States for the District of Columbia to testify at 10 a.m. on 
    the 24th day of February 1948, in the case of the United States v. 
    Richard Morford, Criminal No. 366-47; and
        Whereas by the privileges of the House no Member is authorized 
    to appear and testify but by the order of the House: Therefore be 
    it
        Resolved, That Representatives John S. Wood, J. Hardin 
    Peterson, John R. Murdock, and Gerald W. Landis are authorized to 
    appear in response to the subpenas of the District Court of the 
    United States for the District of Columbia in the case of the 
    United States v. Richard Morford at such time as when the House is 
    not sitting in session; and be it further
        Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to 
    the said court as a respectful answer to the subpenas of the said 
    court.

Sec. 6.14 The House may by resolution authorize certain of its officers 
    to appear before a grand jury in response to a subpena duces tecum 
    and permit the court to take copies of certain papers.

    On May 25, 1953,(3) the House considered and agreed to 
privileged resolutions (H. Res. 245 and H. Res. 246) permitting its 
Clerk and its Sergeant at Arms to appear before a federal grand jury. 
The resolution pertaining to the Clerk was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 99 Cong. Rec. 5523, 5524, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
            The resolution (H. Res. 246) allowing the Sergeant at Arms 
        to respond was identical in terms to that for the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas in re investigation of possible violation of title 18, 
    United States Code, section 1001, a subpena duces tecum was issued 
    by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
    and addressed to Lyle Snader, Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives, directing him to appear before the grand jury of 
    said court on Thursday, the 28th day of May 1953, at 9:15 o'clock 
    antemeridian to testify and to bring with him certain forms, 
    papers, and records in the possession and under the control of the 
    House of Representatives: Therefore be it
        Resolved, That by the privileges of this House no evidence of a 
    documentary character under the control and in the possession of 
    the House of Representatives can, by the mandate of process of the 
    ordinary courts of justice, be taken from such control or 
    possession but by its permission; be it further
        Resolved, That when it appears by the order of the court or of 
    the judge thereof or of any legal officer charged with the 
    administration of the orders of such court or judge, that 
    documentary evidence in the possession and under the control of the 
    House is needful for use in any court of justice or be

[[Page 4835]]

    fore any judge or such legal officer, for the promotion of justice, 
    this House will take such order thereon as will promote the ends of 
    justice consistently with the privileges and rights of this House; 
    be it further
        Resolved, That Lyle O. Snader, Clerk of the House, be 
    authorized to appear at the place and before the grand jury of the 
    court named in the subpena duces tecum before-mentioned, but shall 
    not take with him any papers, documents, or records on file in his 
    office or under his control or in his possession as Clerk of the 
    House; be it further
        Resolved, That when said court determines upon the materiality 
    and the relevancy of the papers, documents, and records called for 
    in the subpena duces tecum, then the said court, through any of its 
    officers or agents, have full permission to attend with all proper 
    parties to the proceedings and then always at any place under the 
    orders and control of this House and take copies of any papers, 
    documents, or records and the Clerk is authorized to supply 
    certified copies of such papers, documents, or records in 
    possession or control of said Clerk that the court has found to be 
    material and relevant, so as, however, the possession of said 
    papers, documents, and records by the said Clerk shall not be 
    disturbed, or the same shall not be removed from their place of 
    file or custody under said Clerk; and be it further
        Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to 
    the said court as a respectful answer to the subpena duces tecum 
    aforementioned.

Sec. 6.15 The House agreed to a resolution authorizing the Committee on 
    the Judiciary to file appearances and provide for the defense of 
    certain Members, former Members, and House employees in a civil 
    action.

    On Aug. 1, 1953,(4) the House considered and agreed to 
the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 386):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 99 Cong. Rec. 10949, 10950, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas Harold H. Velde, of Illinois, Donald L. Jackson, of 
    California, Morgan M. Moulder, of Missouri, Clyde Doyle, of 
    California, and James B. Frazier, Jr., of Tennessee, all 
    Representatives in the Congress of the United States; and Louis J. 
    Russell, and William Wheeler, employees of the House of 
    Representatives, were by subpenas commanded to appear on Monday and 
    Tuesday, March 30 and 31, 1953 in the city of Los Angeles, Calif., 
    and to testify and give their depositions in the case of Michael 
    Wilson, et al. v. Loew's, Incorporated, et al., an action pending 
    in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los 
    Angeles; and
        Whereas the complaint in the aforesaid case of Michael Wilson, 
    et al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et al. lists among the parties 
    defendant therein Harold H. Velde, Bernard W. Kearney, Donald L. 
    Jackson, Francis E. Walter, Morgan M. Moulder, Clyde Doyle, and 
    James B. Frazier, members of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities; John S. Wood, and Charles E. Potter, former members of 
    the Committee on Un-

[[Page 4836]]

    American Activities; and Louis J. Russell, and William Wheeler, 
    employees of the Committee on Un-American Activities; and
        Whereas summonses in the aforesaid case of Michael Wilson et 
    al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et al. were served on Harold H. Velde, 
    Donald L. Jackson, Morgan M. Moulder, Clyde Doyle, James B. 
    Frazier, Jr., Louis J. Russell and William Wheeler while they were 
    in the city of Los Angeles, Calif., actively engaged in the 
    performance of their duties and obligations as members and 
    employees of the Committee on Un-American Activities; and
        Whereas Harold H. Velde, Donald L. Jackson, Morgan M. Moulder, 
    Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier, Jr., Louis J. Russell, and William 
    Wheeler appeared specially in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. 
    versus Loew's Incorporated, et al., for the purpose of moving to 
    set aside the service of summonses and to quash the subpenas with 
    which they had been served; and
        Whereas on July 20, 1953, the Superior Court of the State of 
    California in and for the County of Los Angeles ruled that the 
    aforesaid summonses served upon Harold H. Velde, Morgan M. Moulder, 
    James B. Frazier, Jr., and Louis J. Russell should be set aside for 
    the reasons that it was the public policy of the State of 
    California ``that nonresident members and attaches of a 
    congressional committee who enter the territorial jurisdiction of 
    its courts for the controlling purpose of conducting legislative 
    hearings pursuant to law should be privileged from the service of 
    process in civil litigation''; and
        Whereas on July 20, 1953, the Superior Court of the State of 
    California in and for the County of Los Angeles also ruled that the 
    subpenas served upon Harold H. Velde, Morgan M. Moulder, James B. 
    Frazier, Jr., and Louis J. Russell should be recalled and quashed 
    for the reason set forth above, and for the further reasons that 
    such service was premature and that such service was invalid under 
    article I, section 6, of the Constitution of the United States 
    which provides: ``They (the Senators and Representatives) shall in 
    all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be 
    privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of 
    their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the 
    same; . . . and for any speech or debate in either House, they 
    shall not be questioned in any other place''; and
        Whereas on July 20, 1953, the Superior Court of the State of 
    California in and for the County of Los Angeles further ruled that 
    the subpenas served on Clyde Doyle and Donald Jackson should be 
    recalled and quashed because such service was invalid under the 
    aforementioned article I, section 6, of the Constitution of the 
    United States; and
        Whereas the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's 
    Incorporated, et al. in which the aforementioned Members, former 
    Members, and employees of the House of Representatives are named 
    parties defendant is still pending; and
        Whereas the summonses with respect to Donald L. Jackson, Clyde 
    Doyle, and William Wheeler in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. 
    Loew's Incorporated, et al., have not been quashed:
        Resolved, That the House of Representatives hereby approves of 
    the

[[Page 4837]]

    special appearances of Harold H. Velde, Donald L. Jackson, Morgan 
    M. Moulder, Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier, Jr., Louis J. Russell, 
    and William Wheeler theretofore entered in the case of Michael 
    Wilson, et al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et al., and be it further
        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a 
    whole or by subcommittee, is hereby authorized to direct the filing 
    in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et 
    al. of such special or general appearances on behalf of any of the 
    Members, former Members, or employees of the House of 
    Representatives named as defendants therein, and to direct such 
    other or further action with respect to the aforementioned 
    defendants in such manner as will, in the judgment of the Committee 
    on the Judiciary, be consistent with the rights and privileges of 
    the House of Representatives; and be it further Resolved, That the 
    Committee on the Judiciary is also authorized and directed to 
    arrange for the defense of the Members, former Members, and 
    employees of the Committee on Un-American Activities in any suit 
    hereafter brought against such Members, former Members, and 
    employees, or any one or more of them growing out of the actions of 
    such Members, former Members, and employees while performing such 
    duties and obligations imposed upon them by the laws of the 
    Congress and the rules and resolutions of the House of 
    Representatives. The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to 
    incur all expenses necessary for the purposes hereof, including but 
    not limited to expenses of travel and subsistence, employment of 
    counsel and other persons to assist the committee or subcommittee, 
    and if deemed advisable by the committee or subcommittee, to employ 
    counsel to represent any and all of the Members, former Members, 
    and employees of the Committee on Un-American Activities who may be 
    named as parties defendant in any such action or actions; and such 
    expenses shall be paid from the contingent fund of the House of 
    Representatives on vouchers authorized by the Committee on the 
    Judiciary and signed by the chairman thereof and approved by the 
    Committee on House Administration.

Sec. 6.16 The House may by resolution authorize a Member to respond to 
    a subpena requiring him to appear before a state court.

    On July 9, 1954,(5) the House considered the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 640):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 100 Cong. Rec. 10904, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas James A. Haley, a Representative in the Congress of the 
    United States, has been served with a subpena to appear as a 
    witness before the circuit court of the State of Florida for 
    Sarasota County to testify at 10 o'clock a.m., on the 3d day of 
    August 1954, in the case of the County of Sarasota, Florida v. 
    State of Florida and the Taxpayers, Etc., and

        Whereas by the privileges of the House of Representatives no 
    Member is authorized to appear and testify but by the order of the 
    House: Therefore be it
        Resolved, That Representative James A. Haley is authorized to 
    appear in re

[[Page 4838]]

    sponse to the subpena of the Circuit Court of the State of Florida 
    for Sarasota County on Tuesday, August 3, 1954, in the case of the 
    County of Sarasota, Florida, v. State of Florida and the Taxpayers, 
    Etc.; and be it further
        Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to 
    the said court as a respectful answer to the subpena of the said 
    court.

Sec. 6.17 The House considered a resolution relating to a subpena duces 
    tecum served on the House dispersing clerk by a U.S. District 
    Court, authorizing him to appear in the court and permitting the 
    court through its agents to take copies of papers in possession of 
    the clerk.

    On Feb. 7, 1955,(6) the House considered and agreed to 
the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 132):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 101 Cong. Rec. 1215, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas in the case of Bettie M. Bacon v. The United States 
    (No. 2384-53, civil docket) pending in the District Court of the 
    United States for the District of Columbia, a subpena duces tecum 
    was issued by the said court and addressed to Harry M. Livingston, 
    disbursing clerk of the House of Representatives, directing him to 
    appear as a witness before the said court on the 8th day of 
    February 1955, at 1:30 post meridian and to bring with him certain 
    and sundry papers in the possession and under the control of the 
    House of Representatives: Therefore be it
        Resolved, That by the privileges of this House no evidence of a 
    documentary character under the control and in the possession of 
    the House of Representatives can, by the mandate of process of the 
    ordinary courts of justice, be taken from such control or 
    possession but by its permission; be it further
        Resolved, That when it appears by the order of the court or of 
    the judge thereof, or of any legal officer charged with the 
    administration of the orders of such court of judge, that 
    documentary evidence in the possession and under the control of the 
    House is needful for use in any court of justice, or before any 
    judge or such legal officer, for the promotion of justice, this 
    House will take such order thereon as will promote the ends of 
    justice consistently with the privileges and rights of this House; 
    be it further
        Resolved, That Harry M. Livingston, disbursing clerk of the 
    House, be authorized to appear at the place and before the court 
    named in the subpena duces tecum before-mentioned, but shall not 
    take with him any papers or documents on file in his office or 
    under his control or in possession of the Clerk of the House; be it 
    further
        Resolved, That when said court determines upon the materiality 
    and the relevancy of the papers and documents called for in the 
    subpena duces tecum, then the said court, through any of its 
    officers or agents, have full permission to attend with all proper 
    parties to the proceeding and then always at any place under the 
    orders and control of

[[Page 4839]]

    this House and take copies of any documents or papers and the Clerk 
    is authorized to supply certified copies of such documents and 
    papers in possession or control of said Clerk that the court has 
    found to be material and relevant, except minutes and transcripts 
    of executive sessions, and any evidence of witnesses in respect 
    thereto which the court or other proper officer thereof shall 
    desire, so as, however, the possession of said documents and papers 
    by the said Clerk shall not be disturbed, or the same shall not be 
    removed from their place of file or custody under said Clerk; and 
    be it further
        Resolved, That copy of these resolutions be transmitted to the 
    said court as a respectful answer to the subpena aforementioned.

Expressing Sympathy

Sec. 6.18 The Senate agreed to a resolution wishing a speedy recovery 
    to the wife of a Colombian official who was confined to a hospital 
    while visiting the United States with her husband.

        On June 25, 1962,(7) the Senate considered and 
    agreed to the following resolution (S. Res. 355):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 11653, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the newly elected President of Colombia, the Honorable 
    Guillermo Valencia, is now a visitor to the United States; and
        Whereas Mr. Valencia has served with distinction for 20 
    consecutive years as a Senator in his country, from which position 
    His Excellency was elected President, both of which facts Members 
    of the United States Senate have taken due and appreciative notice; 
    and
        Whereas the gracious wife and companion of President-elect 
    Valencia is now hospitalized in the United States: Be it
        Resolved, That the Senate sends to Mrs. Valencia greetings and 
    welcome, and best wishes for early recovery; and be it further
        Resolved, That a bouquet of American roses be purchased from 
    the contingent fund of the Senate and be taken by special courier 
    to Mrs. Valencia, as a token of the Senate's esteem for her, for 
    her distinguished husband, and for the people of Colombia.