[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[A. Creating and Organizing Committees]
[§ 4. Committee Expenses; Use of Contingent Fund]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 2542-2551]
CHAPTER 17
Committees
A. CREATING AND ORGANIZING COMMITTEES
Sec. 4. Committee Expenses; Use of Contingent Fund
Funds for compensation of standing committees' professional and
clerical staff are carried in the annual legislative appropriations
acts, which also place money in the contingent fund of the House. Each
committee, other than the Committee on Appropriations,(14)
and (more recently) the Committee on the Budget,(15) must
obtain authorization for the payment of those expenses not covered by
the legislative appropriation acts from the contingent fund of the
House. The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.
effective Jan. 3, 1975), in clause 1(b), Rule XI provided authorization
for all committees to conduct investigations within their jurisdictions
and to incur expenses subject to the adoption of expense resolutions
reported from the Committee on House Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XI clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732(a) (1979).
15. See Rule XI clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732(a) (1979).
This exemption emanated from the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (88 Stat. 297) and dates from July 12, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules provide (16) that such an authorization
initially shall be procured by one primary expense resolution providing
funds for the payment of all the committee's expenses for the year from
the contingent fund. The resolution may not be considered in the House
unless a printed report on the resolution has been available to Members
for at least one calendar day prior to consideration. The report,
itself, must:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XI clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) state the total amount of the funds to be provided to the
committee under the primary expense resolution for all anticipated
activities and programs of the committee; and
(2) to the extent practicable, contain such general statements
regarding the estimated foreseeable expenditures for the respective
anticipated activities and programs of the committee as may be
appropriate to provide the House with basic estimates with respect
to the expenditure generally of the funds to be provided to the
committee under the primary expense resolution.
In practice, each standing committee goes before the Committee on
House Administration with its
[[Page 2543]]
funding request. The latter committee possesses jurisdiction under the
rules over appropriations and expenditures from the contingent
fund.(17) In addition, the rules (18) accord
privileged status to the reporting of any matter by the Committee on
House Administration which pertains to the expenditure of the
contingent fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule X clauses 1(j)(1), 1(j)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 679(a)
(1979).
18. Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the adoption of a committee's primary expense resolution
by the House, authorization for the payment from the contingent fund of
additional committee expenses not covered by statutory appropriations
or by the primary expense resolution may be obtained by one or more
additional expense resolutions. Again, any such expense resolution must
be accompanied by a printed report made available to Members at least
one calendar day prior to the consideration of the
resolution.(19) And, the report accompanying such an
additional expense resolution must:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Rule XI clause 5(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732 (b) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) state the total amount of additional funds to be provided
to the committee under the additional expense resolution and the
purpose or purposes for which those additional funds are to be used
by the committee; and
(2) state the reason or reasons for the failure to procure the
additional funds for the committee by means of the primary expense
resolution.
It should be noted none of the requirements applicable to primary
and additional expense resolutions obtain with respect to those
resolutions providing for contingent fund payment of a committee's
expenses from and after the beginning of a year and before the adoption
by the House of the committee's primary expense
resolution.(20) Similarly ex
[[Page 2544]]
cluded from such requirements is: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. In recent Congresses, ``continuing'' resolutions have been
considered by unanimous consent at the beginning of each
Congress (where the Committee on House Administration had not
been organized and could not report privileged resolutions) to
provide for temporary payments from the contingent fund,
usually for a period of up to three months and at rates in
existence at the end of the prior Congress, for expenses of
standing and select committees established in House rules (see
e.g., H. Res. 84, 121 Cong. Rec. 1160, 1161, 94th Cong. 1st
Sess., Jan. 23, 1975; H. Res. 11, 123 Cong. Rec. 74, 95th Cong.
1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977; H. Res. 49, 125 Cong. Rec.--, 96th
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 18, 1979). See also Sec. Sec. 13.1-13.9,
infra, for discussion of resolutions permitting continued
committee employment in new Congresses. This concept of
``continuing resolutions'' is to be distinguished from
``continuing appropriations joint resolutions'' for operation
of departments of government pending enactment of annual
general appropriations bills, discussed in Ch. 25
(Appropriations), infra, in this work.
1. Rule XI clause 5(c)(2), House Rules and Manual Sec. 732 (c) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
any resolution providing in any Congress, for all of the
standing committees of the House, additional office equipment,
airmail and special delivery postage stamps, supplies, staff
personnel, or any other specific item for the operation of the
standing committees, and containing an authorization for the
payment from the contingent fund of the House of the expenses of
any of the foregoing items provided by that resolution, subject to
and until enactment of the provisions of the resolution as
permanent law.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Information with respect to the compensation of committee
employees, as well as particulars about their appointment and
employment may be found at Sec. 13,
infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation of Funds for Committee Personnel; for Minority Party Funding
Sec. 4.1 The 92d Congress by resolution adopted rules striking out the
statutory requirement (which was contained as a rulemaking exercise
in an Act passed the previous year) that not less than one-third of
funds for standing committee investigative personnel be made
available to the minority party, and inserting the requirement that
the minority be given fair consideration in the allocation of such
funds.
On Jan. 21, 1971,(3) Mr. William M. Colmer, of
Mississippi, offered a privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and asked for
its immediate consideration. The resolution provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 117 Cong. Rec. 14, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
first Congress, together with all applicable provisions of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, and the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, be, and they are hereby
adopted as the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-
second Congress, with the following amendments as part thereof. . .
.
Among the amendments which were then listed was the following:
In Rule XI, strike out clause 32(c) (4) and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. On July 16, 1970 [116 Cong. Rec. 24590, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.], by a
teller vote of 105 ayes to 63 nays, the Committee of the Whole
agreed to an amendment to the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970 (H.R. 17654), offered by Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of New
Jersey, which amended section (c) of the newly proposed clause
32, Rule XI, such that the latter provision [clause 32(c), Rule
XI] would read thusly: ``The minority party on any such
standing committee is entitled to if they so request not less
than one-third of the funds provided for the appointment of
committee staff personnel pursuant to each such primary or
additional expense resolution.'' This provision, frequently
referred to as the ``Thompson-Schwengel amendment'' owing to
its joint authorship by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Fred Schwengel, of
Iowa, remained intact when the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1970 became law [Pub. L. No. 91-510], and thus was in effect
as of Jan. 1, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2545]]
``(c) The minority party on any such standing committee is
entitled to and shall receive fair consideration in the appointment
of committee staff personnel pursuant to each such primary or
additional expense resolution.''
On Jan. 22, 1971,(5) as discussion of House Resolution 5
continued, much of the debate focused on the minority staffing
amendment. The Democratic Caucus had bound (6) its members
to vote to remove that provision of clause 32(c) [Rule XI which
entitled the minority party of an affected committee to control at
least one-third of the funds set aside for the appointment of committee
staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 117 Cong. Rec. 132, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
6. A brief discussion of the extent to which caucus members were
``bound'' was provided by Mr. Frank Thompson, of New Jersey
[Id. at p. 138]. For further details as to the role of party
caucuses, in general, see Ch. 3, supra, particularly Sec. 10,
discussing the extent to which party decisions could be made
binding on members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those in favor of modifying the ``one-third funding'' provision
cited that rule's inflexible and ``arbitrary'' standard which, it was
argued, would impose divisiveness and controversy into committees which
already had agreeable and workable arrangements.(7) It was
also felt that the rigid standard would be a step in the direction of a
``spoils'' system and away from the development of professional staff
careers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See remarks of Mr. John A. Blatnik (Minn.) at 117 Cong. Rec. 138,
92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those opposing change in the funding provision argued that the
``one-third funding'' provision ensured development of a minority staff
capable of constructively evaluating legislation offered by the
majority; offering intelligent alternatives in a strengthened adversary
system; fully clarifying or defending minority views; and protecting
against abuses in the executive branch.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See, generally, 117 Cong. Rec. 135140, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2546]]
After debate, the resolution was amended (9) in a manner
not affecting the minority staffing provision. As amended, House
Resolution 5 was agreed to,(10) on a roll call vote thereby
eliminating the ``one-third control'' proviso and substituting the
requirement of ``fair consideration'' in the allocation of such funds
to the minority.
Parliamentarian's Note: Subsequently, in the 93d Congress, the
House tentatively restored, effective Jan. 3, 1975, the requirement for
one-third minority staff funding (the Committee Reform Amendments of H.
Res. 988, 93d Cong.). This requirement,, however, was never
effectuated, being in turn superseded on Jan. 14, 1975, by clause 5(d)
Rule XI, in which the 94th Congress provided instead a new mechanism
for staff entitlement and selection. Thus, for example, one
subcommittee staff member is provided for each chairman and ranking
minority subcommittee member, to be counted against permanent staff
positions unless made available pursuant to an expense resolution
reported from the Committee on House Administration. (See future
editions for more detailed treatment of this rule.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Id. at p. 143.
10. Id. at pp. 143, 144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution Paying Expenses from Contingent Fund; Privilege of
Resolution
Sec. 4.2 A resolution reported by the Committee on House
Administration, providing for the payment of a standing committee's
expenses from the contingent fund of the House, is reported and
called up as privileged.
On Aug. 10, 1967,(11) Charles M. Price, of Illinois,
Chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, introduced
a resolution (H. Res. 871) authorizing funds for the operation of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct pursuant to House Resolution
418.(12) The measure was referred to the Committee on House
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 22340, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. See Sec. 2.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several weeks later, on Sept. 21, 1967,(13) Mr. Samuel
N. Friedel, of Maryland, was recognized by the Speaker (14)
and proceeded to make the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 26375, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House
Administration, I submit a privileged report (Repts. No.
[[Page 2547]]
651) on the resolution (H. Res. 871) authorizing funds for the
operation of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
pursuant to House Resolution 418, and ask for immediate
consideration of the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 871
Resolved, That, effective April 13, 1967, in carrying out
its duties during the Ninetieth Congress, the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct is authorized to incur such
expenses (not in excess of $10,000) as it deems advisable. Such
expenses shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House
on vouchers authorized and approved by such committee, and
signed by the chairman thereof.
Sec. 2. Funds authorized by this resolution shall be
expended pursuant to regulations established by the Committee
on House Administration under existing law.
Parliamentarian's Note: The rules provide that certain committees
shall ``have leave to report at any time'' on certain
matters.(15) Under this proviso, the Committee on House
Administration may report at any time ``on all matters of expenditure
of the contingent fund of the House,'' among other things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XI clause 22, House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Motion to Recommit Relative to Funding
Sec. 4.3 That which may not be done directly by amendment may not be
done indirectly by motion to recommit with instructions; thus,
where the amount of authorized funds provided in an investigatory
resolution is diminished by floor amendment, a motion to recommit
with instructions to restore the difference by again changing the
same sum is out of order.
On Apr. 5, 1967,(16) the House entertained consideration
of a privileged resolution (H. Res. 221) reported from the Committee on
House Administration providing investigatory funds from the contingent
fund for the Committee on Un-American Activities. The proposed
authorization having then been reduced by floor amendment
(17) from $400,000 to $350,000, Speaker John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio, who offered
the following motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 8419-43, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Id. at p. 8441.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ashbrook moves to recommit the resolution (H. Res. 221) to
the Committee on House Administration with instructions to report
the resolution forthwith with the following amendment: On page 1,
line 5, strike out ``$350,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$400,000.''
Immediately thereafter, the ensuing exchange took place:
[[Page 2548]]
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker----
The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
motion to recommit on the grounds that the House has just adopted
the committee amendment to cut the amount from $400,000 to
$350,000. The gentleman now offers a motion to recommit to restore
it from the $350,000 to $400,000 and it is clearly out of order.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashbrook] desire
to be heard?
Mr. Ashbrook: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that we voted to order the
previous question on the amendments and the motion to recommit, in
my opinion, would be a proper motion to recommit. I hope that the
Chair will so hold.
The Speaker: The Chair will call attention to that fact that
the previous question was ordered and the amendments were adopted
by the House.
It is not in order to do indirectly by a motion to recommit
with instructions that which may not be done directly by way of
amendment.
An amendment to strike out an amendment already adopted is not
in order. The subject matter of the motion to recommit has already
been passed upon by the House.
The Chair sustains the point of order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 8441, 8442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.4 The House having under consideration an investigatory, funding
resolution for the Committee on Un-American Activities, a motion to
recommit that resolution to the Committee on House Administration
with instructions that open hearings be held to justify such
funding, was rejected on a roll call vote.
On Apr. 5, 1967,(19) following lengthy consideration of
an investigatory funding resolution (H. Res. 221) for the Committee on
Un-American Activities, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
recognized Mr. Don Edwards, of California, who offered the following
motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 8442, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Edwards of California moves to recommit the resolution (H.
Res. 221) to the Committee on House Administration with
instructions that open hearings be held on justification for such
additional funds of the House Committee on Un-American Activities
as provided in House Resolution 221.
Immediately thereafter, the Chair put the question on the motion,
and on a roll call vote of yeas 92, nays 304, it was rejected.
Sec. 4.5 A resolution providing for payment of a standing committee's
expenses out of the contingent fund of the House is subject to a
motion to recommit (with instructions).
[[Page 2549]]
On Mar. 1, 1961,(20) after the previous question was
ordered on a resolution (H. Res. 167) providing $331,000 for the
operations of the Committee on Un-American Activities, the Speaker
(21) initiated the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 2989, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
21. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Roosevelt: Is it not proper to offer a motion to recommit
at this point?
The Speaker: If the gentleman can qualify.
Mr. Roosevelt: I think I can qualify, Mr. Speaker.
I offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
Mr. Roosevelt: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Roosevelt moves to recommit the resolution to the
Committee on House Administration with instructions to report
forthwith with the following amendment: On page 2, after the
period, line 1, add the following: ``Provided, That the
committee shall not use any of its funds to undertake any
investigation of any subject which is being investigated by any
other committee of the House.''
The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected and the resolution was agreed
to.
Contingent Fund Moneys for Subcommittee's Expenses
Sec. 4.6 The House refused to agree to a resolution authorizing the use
of contingent fund moneys to cover the expenses incurred by a
subcommittee on poverty created by the Committee on Education and
Labor.
On Aug. 14, 1964,(22) by direction of the Committee on
House Administration, Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, called up
House Resolution 663. The Clerk then read the resolution, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 110 Cong. Rec. 19711, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the expenses of an investigation authorized by
H. Res. 103, Eighty-eighth Congress, with respect to the proposals
for an attack on poverty recommended by the President in a special
message to Congress incurred by the ad hoc subcommittee of the
Committee on Education and Labor which was specially created to
make such investigation, not to exceed $20,000, including
expenditures for the employment of necessary professional and
stenographic assistance, and all expenses necessary for travel and
subsistence incurred by members and employees who will be engaged
in the ac
[[Page 2550]]
tivities of the subcommittee, shall be paid out of the contingent
fund of the House. All accounts authorized to be paid out of the
contingent fund by this resolution shall be paid on vouchers
authorized and signed by the chairman of the committee, and
approved by the Committee on House Administration.
With the following committee amendment:
Page 1, line 7, strike out ``$20,000'' and insert ``$10,000''.
Discussion ensued, and in an effort to clarify what had transpired,
Mr. James Roosevelt, of California, stated: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id. at p. 19712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Roosevelt: May I say again that I must emphasize what the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on House Administration
said, that the full committee did not envision any such activity as
was called for under the poverty program, and that the chairman of
the Committee on Education and Labor found it necessary to form an
ad hoc committee to undertake that work, and that we then went to
the Committee on House Administration and asked for a reasonable
sum, $10,000, in order that this very special work might be carried
out.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen, Jr., of New
Jersey, was recognized and responded to Mr. Roosevelt's statement,
saying:
. . . The only problem was that the Committee on House
Administration took no action with respect to that request for
additional funds. Yet the Committee on Education and Labor in
effect went ahead and spent the money anyway. It strikes me that
this is unconscionable procedure. I am not saying the bill should
not be paid, because that would just be making a bad matter worse,
but I am pointing out the irregularity under which our committee
operates. I am not pointing the finger of blame at any one
individual. I am just saying if we were in charge of that
committee, we would not be spending money unless it were available
and we had some positive assurance that our request for funds was
going to be honored. So far as I know, there was no such informal
understanding that something would be forthcoming and therefore,
the Committee on Education and Labor could go ahead and spend the
money and simply submit its bill.
Following additional discussion of the matter, Speaker pro tempore
Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, put the question on the
resolution.(2) The yeas and nays were then demanded and
ordered, the question was taken again; and there were--yeas 115, nays
156, answered ``present'' 1. Accordingly, the resolution was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at p. 19714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Contingent Fund Where Fiscal Year Expenses of Committees
Underestimated
Sec. 4.7 The House has authorized by resolution the transfer of certain
sums from the contingent fund to meet com
[[Page 2551]]
mittee payrolls where committee expenses had been underestimated
for the fiscal year, resulting in a shortage of appropriated funds.
On June 29, 1966,(3) Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, who called up the
following resolution (H. Res. 900, reported from the Committee on House
Administration on that day) and asked for its immediate consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 112 Cong. Rec. 14623, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the Clerk of the House be and is hereby directed
to pay such sum as may be necessary, from the contingent fund of
the House of Representatives, to meet the June 1966 payroll of
committee employees.
No objection was heard to Mr. Burleson's request, and shortly
thereafter the question was put,(4) and the resolution was
agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Id, at p. 14624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------