[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[F. Committee Reports]
[§ 58. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 3119-3136]
CHAPTER 17
Committees
F. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Sec. 58. In General
This division takes up the subject of committee reports as used in
the reporting of bills and resolutions to the House for floor
consideration.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Commentary and editing by John T. Fee, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House rules provide that ``. . . [A]ll bills, petitions,
memorials, or resolutions reported from a committee shall be
accompanied by reports in writing. . . .'' (5) It is the
duty of each committee chairman to promptly report approved measures to
the House.(6) Moreover, by virtue of a change brought about
by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act,(7) if the report
is not filed by the chairman of the committee, the report may be filed
by special direction of the committee. The rules provide that a
majority of the members of a committee may sign a written request for
the filing of a report on a measure it has approved. This request is
filed with the committee clerk, who then imme
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Rule XVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 821 (1979).
6. Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a (1979).
7. Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3120]]
diately notifies the committee chairman of the request. Within seven
calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is not in session)
after the filing of the request, the committee report itself is to be
filed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(B), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a (1979).
The rule also provides that it does not apply to a report of
the Committee on Rules, whose reports are to be presented to
the House within three legislative days after being ordered
reported by the committee, under Rule XI clause 4(c), House
Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a record vote is taken in committee on a motion to report a
public bill or resolution, the total number of votes cast for and
against the reporting of such bill or resolution is to be included in
the committee report.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. This requirement was added by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization
Act, Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140 (Oct. 26, 1970). It is
incorporated in Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(B), House Rules and
Manual Sec. 713d (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A change brought about by the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act
is the requirement that reports accompanying a public bill or joint
resolution contain an estimate, made by the committee, of the costs
anticipated in carrying out the measure, over a specified time, and a
comparison of this estimate with that submitted by a government
agency.(10) However, a bill may be reported without specific
recommendations on the part of the reporting committee as to the
passage or defeat of the proposed bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XIII clause 7(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 748(b) (1979).
See Sec. 61, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act also added the requirement
that the committee report include supplemental, additional or minority
views of any committee member who gives notice, at the time of the
committee approval of the report, of his intent to file such views
within three days.(11) Previously, such views were published
either through informal agreements within the committee or by obtaining
the unanimous consent of the House to have them included after the
report was filed.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual Sec. 714 (1979).
This provision does not apply to the Committee on Rules.
12. See Sec. Sec. 64.1-64.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A further requirement for committee reports is that they comply
with the Ramseyer rule, which provides that changes in existing law
that would be brought about by the proposed measure are to be printed
or shown in the report in distinctive typography.(l3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 60, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3121]]
Unless a report is privileged for immediate
consideration,(14) it is delivered to the Clerk for printing
and reference to the proper calendar under the direction of the
Speaker. Privileged reports are filed from the floor while the House is
in session (unless filed by unanimous consent while the House is not in
session), and referred to the appropriate calendar and ordered printed
by the Speaker.(15) Assuming that the report is apparently
valid and shows nothing on its face to impeach its
authenticity,(16) the Speaker assigns the report, with its
accompanying bill, to one of three calendars, for consideration in the
future.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Privileged reports are discussed in Sec. 63, infra.
15. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1979).
16. See 111 Cong. Rec. 27407, 27481, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19,
1965, where a report on a bill (S. 1698), was referred to the
Union Calendar, although the Chairman of the Committee on
Banking and Currency, Wright Patman (Tex.), later expressed
reservations about irregularities in the manner in which the
committee had considered and filed a report on the bill
17. Rule XIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 742 (1979). See Ch.
22 (calendars), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair does not rule on the sufficiency, insufficiency, or legal
effect of reports.(18) However, the Chair does rule on
points of order against consideration of a measure based on an alleged
failure of a committee report to comply with the Ramseyer rule, the
cost estimate requirement, or raising some question as to the alleged
privileged status of the report. Even if it appears that a point of
order would lie, defects in the reporting of a bill by a standing
committee may be remedied in a proper case by adoption of a special
rule from the Committee on Rules waiving that point of
order.(19) Alternatively, the House may grant unanimous
consent for the consideration of a bill and thereby waive all points of
order against consideration of the bill and its
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sec. Sec. 58.3, 58.4, infra.
19. Sec. 58.6, infra. report or consider the bill under suspension of
the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 imposed, effective Jan. 3,
1975, several new requirements for inclusion of matter in committee
reports [Rule XI clause 2(l)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(e)
(1975); Rule XI clause 2(l)(4), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(f)
(1975)]: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 988, 120 Cong. Rec. 34447-70, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8,
1974, effective Jan. 3, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The report of any committee on a measure which has been
approved by the committee (A) shall include the oversight findings
and recommenda
[[Page 3122]]
tions required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X separately set
out and clearly identified; (B) the statement required by section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out
and clearly identified, if the measure provides new budget
authority or new or increased tax expenditures; (C) the estimate
and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 403 of such Act, separately set out and
clearly identified, whenever the Director (if timely submitted
prior to the filing of the report) has submitted such estimate and
comparison to the committee; and (D) a summary of the oversight
findings and recommendations made by the Committee on Government
Operations under clause 4(c)(2) of Rule X separately set out and
clearly identified whenever such findings and recommendations have
been submitted to the legislative committee in a timely fashion to
allow an opportunity to consider such findings and recommendations
during the committee's deliberations on the measure.
(4) Each report of a committee on each bill or joint resolution
of a public character reported by such committee shall contain a
detailed analytical statement as to whether the enactment of such
bill or joint resolution into law may have an inflationary impact
on prices and costs in the operation of the national] economy.
Furthermore, Rule XI clause 2(l)(5) [House Rules and Manual
Sec. 714 (1979)], as amended by the Committee Reform Amendments
requires that a report bear upon its cover a recital that any
supplemental, minority, or additional views, and any material submitted
pursuant to Rule XI clause 2(l)(3)(C) from the Congressional Budget
Office and (D) from the Committee on Government Operations, are
included as part of the
report. -------------------
Form and Content of Report
Sec. 58.1 The form and content of a committee report is governed by the
rules of the House and not by a law requiring the submission of
certain reports by executive agencies. Thus, a point of order will
not lie against a committee report on the ground that an executive
agency has failed to report to Congress in accordance with law.
On July 12, 1967,(1) following a motion by Mr. Harold T.
Johnson, of California, that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill establishing a
commission, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of order against
consideration of the bill. Mr. Gross con
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 113 Cong. Rec. 18558, 18559, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under
consideration was S. 20, to establish a National Water
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3123]]
tended that an executive communication found in the report failed to
comply with executive agency reporting requirements with respect to the
legislation. Thereupon Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, sought
recognition to be heard on the point of order:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of order
made by the gentleman from Iowa.
The point of order, if it is a point of order at all, should
have come at the time the Executive communication was received. It
should not be made against the report which is now before the
Congress. The bill which we are considering is a bill from the
other body, received by this body in due course, and referred to
the committee which has jurisdiction over these matters, and it was
properly before the committee. It is now here in conformity with
the rules of the House.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of
order?
The Speaker: (2) The Chair will hear the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the issue is plain.
That is the issue in the point of order. No report accompanying
the bill conforms to the requirement of Public Law 801.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how, as suggested by the gentleman
from Colorado, a point of order could be made against a committee.
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The law referred to by the gentleman from Iowa places the
obligation upon the executive departments or agencies or
independent offices to prepare their recommendations with respect
to the information contained in the law referred to. However, this
does not change any rule of the House of Representatives, and this
matter is before the House in accordance with the Rules of the
House of Representatives.
Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
Filing of Multiple Reports
Sec. 58.2 Two reports may not be filed from the Committee on Rules on
the same resolution.
On Jan. 17, 1950,(3) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia,
attempted to report a resolution proposing an amendment to Rule XI to
repeal the 21-day rule, which resolution had just been filed by the
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois.
However, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated that the second
report was not necessary, and said that two reports could not be filed
on the same resolution at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 96 Cong. Rec. 499-501, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment of Paragraph (2)(c) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives
Mr. Sabath, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following
privileged resolution (H. Res. 133, Rept. No. 1477), which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
[[Page 3124]]
Resolved, That paragraph (2)(c) of Rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives is hereby amended to read as
follows:
``(c) The Committee on Rules shall present to the House
reports concerning rules, joint rules, and order of business,
within three legislative days of the time when ordered reported
by the committee. If such rule or order is not considered
immediately, it shall be referred to the calendar and, if not
called up by the Member making the report within seven
legislative days thereafter, any member of the Rules Committee
may call it up as a question of privilege and the Speaker shall
recognize any member of the Rules Committee seeking recognition
for that purpose. If the Committee on Rules shall make an
adverse report on any resolution pending before the committee,
providing for an order of business for the consideration by the
House of any public bill or joint resolution, on days when it
shall be in order to call up motions to discharge committees it
shall be in order for any Member of the House to call up for
consideration by the House any such adverse report, and it
shall be in order to move the adoption by the House of said
resolution adversely reported notwithstanding the adverse
report of the Committee on Rules, and the Speaker shall
recognize the Member seeking recognition for that purpose as a
question of the highest privilege.''
Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution concerning which
instructions were given by the Rules Committee this morning to the
effect that I should file it. I am stepping aside with the
understanding that the chairman file it and that he will ask the
Speaker to recognize him on Thursday to call it up, and in the
event he the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath] is not present
that I may call it up or some member of the committee favorable to
the resolution shall call it up. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Sabath: To be candid, I did not hear the statement. I did
not hear the gentleman's statement.
Mr. Cox: I said that the understanding between the chairman and
the committee is that I am stepping aside as the member designated
to file the report, leaving it to the chairman to file it and he
files it with the understanding that he will ask the Speaker to
recognize him on Thursday to call it up; and in the event the
chairman is not present, the understanding is that I shall call it
up or some other member of the committee favorable to the
resolution.
Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has considered
the rule on the fair employment practices bill today. The committee
ordered reported the resolution, House Resolution 133, introduced
by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox], on Friday, January 13,
which would eliminate the procedure under the rule which we adopted
on the first day of this Congress giving the committees the right,
when the Committee on Rules fails to act within 21 days, to file a
resolution to discharge the Committee on Rules.
Today we were considering a rule for the FEPC bill, this being
the third day of its deliberations on this measure. The rule on the
Cox resolution was granted, over my protest, of course, last
Friday. Under the rules of the House, the chairman of the Committee
on Rules has 3 days within which to file a report on a rule. I
intended to file the report within this time because I have never
violated the rules of the
[[Page 3125]]
House in my 44 years of service and 20 years as a member of the
Committee on Rules.
But today some members of the Committee on Rules thought the
report on the Cox resolution should be filed immediately and that
the right to file should be taken away from the chairman, and that
the rule should be called up by the gentleman who introduced it,
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox]. I felt that that was a
violation of the rules of the House, because the Rules of the House
plainly state as follows:
It shall be the duty of the chairman of each such committee
to report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate or
House of Representatives, as the case may be, any measure
approved by such committee--
The word ``promptly'' means within the rules--within 3 days--
which I did intend to do. I thought originally that the motion of
the gentleman from Georgia was out of order and so ruled, but it
being 12 o'clock we adjourned, but nevertheless some of the members
remained and wanted to act upon it.
In order to avoid any controversy that might develop I agreed
to file it today instead of tomorrow, and I am filing the report
today on the resolution.
The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] approached me on
the floor and wanted to know if I was not present Thursday, whether
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] could call up the resolution.
I said if I were not here Thursday, I would have no objection to
Mr. Cox calling it up.
Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sabath: I yield.
Mr. Cox: I have no desire to air publicly what took place in
the Rules Committee this morning. It is the understanding that the
gentleman will file the rule today and will ask the Speaker to
recognize him on Thursday to call it up, and, in the event he is
not here, it is agreeable that some other member of the committee
do so.
Mr. Sabath: That was an afterthought. I do not know. I know
that the committee agreed and the House agreed to take up another
bill in which I and the House are very much interested. I have
filed my report. As to the other procedure, I do not know whether
it would be in order for me to agree to call it up Thursday,
because I do not know whether that will give time enough for
Members to be here on this important question.
Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, that is not in accord with the agreement.
. . .
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, by direction of
the Committee on Rules I file a privileged resolution; and permit
me to make this statement; these differences may be ironed out
later.
The Speaker: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Georgia if
it is the same resolution that has already been reported to the
House.
Mr. Cox: I presume it is the same resolution.
The Speaker: The Chair doubts very seriously whether two
reports on the same resolution can be filed at the same time.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order against the filing of this rule at this time.
[[Page 3126]]
The Speaker: Permit the Chair to handle this matter.
Mr. Marcantonio: But I am making a point of order.
The Speaker: The Chair was clarifying the situation. The Chair
is of opinion that two reports cannot be filed on the same
resolution at the same time. . . .
Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Members are
fully informed as to the rule governing the calling up of
resolutions reported by the Rules Committee. Am I correct in my
understanding that the gentleman from the Rules Committee who files
a rule is the only one permitted to call up the resolution for a
period of seven legislative days?
The Speaker: That is true unless the committee directs
otherwise.
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, do not the rules of the House
provide that the gentleman who files a resolution with the Speaker
is the only one permitted to call up the resolution and does the
Speaker mean that the Committee on Rules can by a majority vote
override what is provided in the rules of the House?
The Speaker: Of course, the chairman could request another
member of the committee to call up a resolution in his absence.
That certainly could be done. Otherwise, if the chairman of the
Rules Committee were out of town continuously the Committee on
Rules could not offer a resolution and, as a matter of fact, the
House could not function either.
Mr. Eberharter: I beg the Chair's pardon?
The Speaker: If it were otherwise, and if the chairman of the
committee were out of town the whole session, the Committee on
Rules could not operate, neither could the House.
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, my point is that the gentleman who
files a petition has the privilege for seven legislative days to
call up the resolution and failing to call it up within that time,
after the 7 days any member of the Rules Committee can call it up;
is that correct?
The Speaker: That is what the rule says but that is not what we
have been talking about for the last half hour. The Chair trusts no
more parliamentary inquiries will be addressed to the Chair for the
simple reason that he would like to see these misunderstandings
composed.
Parliamentarian's Note: In this case, Mr. Cox was authorized to
file the report because it was evidently feared that the Chairman of
the Rules Committee, Mr. Sabath, would not immediately do so, and, if
he did file it, would not call it up within the seven days allowed him
under the rule. Mr. Cox stepped aside to permit Mr. Sabath to file the
rule under an alleged understanding that the chairman would call it up
on a specified day. During discussion of the matter, Mr. Cox attempted
to file a report on the same resolution and the Speaker expressed
serious doubt whether two reports
[[Page 3127]]
on the same resolution could be filed at the same time and declined to
recognize Mr. Cox. The question then arose as to whether the resolution
could be called up in the seven-day period in the absence of the
chairman by any other member of the committee. The Speaker stated that
in this event the chairman could designate another member of the
committee to call it up or the Committee on Rules could otherwise
provide.
Sufficiency of Report
Sec. 58.3 The sufficiency of a report of the Committee on Un-American
Activities relating the contempt of a witness was for the House and
not the Speaker to decide.
On June 26, 1946,(4) after Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia,
by direction of the Committee on Un-American Activities, presented a
privileged report declaring that a witness, Corliss G. Lamont, was in
contempt of the House of Representatives. Mr. Vito Marcan- tonio, of
New York, made a point of order against the report on the ground that
it did not contain all of the transcript of what transpired before the
committee with respect to the witness, but only what the committee
determined to be material. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that it
was for the House to determine the sufficiency, not the Speaker, and
overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 92 Cong. Rec. 7589-91, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against
the report on the ground that it does not contain all of the
transcript of what transpired before the committee with respect to
this witness. On page 2 of the report, at the end of the first
paragraph, the committee concedes that this is not a full
transcript. It states: ``The material parts of his testimony
follow.'' In other words, the House has before it only that portion
of the testimony which the committee conceives to be material. This
deprives the House of having the full proceedings before it;
consequently, the House will be asked to vote on whether or not
this witness is to be cited for contempt and whether or not the
House is to recommend prosecution of this witness, without having
the full story before it, without having all of the testimony
before it. All that is given is part of the testimony which the
committee describes as material.
I respectfully submit in support of my point of order, Mr.
Speaker, that what is material and what is not material should be
determined by the House, because the House has to pass on this
question and the majority of the Members of this House must vote in
the affirmative in order to rec
[[Page 3128]]
ommend these contempt proceedings. To do so it must have the entire
transcript before it. Consequently I submit that the report is
defective and that the report should be referred back to the
committee by the Speaker, directing it to produce the full
transcript of what transpired so that the House may have the entire
proceedings before it before the House Members cast their votes.
The Speaker: The Chair thinks that the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Marcantonio] has stated the point exactly, and that is that
this is not a matter for the Chair to pass upon but is a matter for
the House to pass upon. The Chair overrules the point of order.
Construing Restrictions in Report
Sec. 58.4 The Chair does not pass on the legal effect of restrictions
set forth in a report on an appropriations bill, but not spelled
out in the bill itself. This is a matter for the Committee of the
Whole to decide in its considerations of the bill.
On Apr. 14, 1955,(5) Mr. Robert C. Wilson, of
California, questioned certain limitations on spending for various
programs, which limitations were contained in the report on an
appropriation bill but not in the bill itself. Mr. Wilson questioned
whether such limitations would be legally effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 101 Cong. Rec. 4463, 4464, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration
was H.R. 5502, an appropriations bill for the Department of
State and certain other agencies for fiscal 1956. The committee
report contained recommendations as to maximum amounts to be
available to the U.S. Information Agency for certain specified
functions, as, for example, not to exceed $200,000 for exhibits
for which $334,000 was requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, replied that the omission of
the limitations from the bill was unimportant because the limitations
were expected to become law, Mr. Wilson inquired of Chairman Jere
Cooper, of Tennessee, whether the limitations were binding. As the
following exchange shows, Chairman Cooper was of the opinion that the
question was one to be resolved by the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Wilson of California: Are limitations written in a
committee report such as this, but not written into the wording of
the legislation, binding?
The Chairman: That is not a parliamentary inquiry. That is a
matter to be settled by the members of the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Wilson of California: I merely wanted it for my own
understanding and information, for I am fairly new here. It seems
to me rather unusual to
[[Page 3129]]
consider matter written into a report of the same finding effect on
an administrator as though written into the law itself.
The Chairman: It is not the prerogative of the Chair to pass
upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of a committee report.
Separate Committee Approval of Report
Sec.
58.5 A point of order that a committee did not vote to approve a
report accompanying a bill as required by its rules is properlymade
in the committee and not in the House, since no rule of the House
requires committees to separately approve legislative reports, and
because such reports are in the nature of argument and are not
directly acted upon by the House.
On Oct. 12, 1971,(6) after Mr. Chet Holifield, of
California, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of
the Whole for the consideration of a bill to establish an office of
consumer affairs, Mr. Benjamin S. Rosenthal, of New York, made a point
of order against the consideration of the bill. Speaker pro tempore
Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, heard the point of order, which Mr. Rosenthal
stated was based on a rule of the Committee on Government Operations
providing that every committee report be approved by majority vote of
the committee at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Mr. Rosenthal
stated that the accompanying report was not approved by a majority vote
of the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 117 Cong. Rec. 35820-24, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration
was H.R. 10835, the Consumer Protection Act of 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rosenthal: . . . Mr. Speaker, it is my humble view that
implicit in that House rule is the requirement that the report
accompanying the legislation be a valid report and if that report
is in violation of the rules of the committee and, thus, invalid,
the report being deficient, the entire legislative package is
deficient and thus cannot be considered by the House. . . .
Mr. Speaker, to restate my point as concisely and clearly as I
can, the Committee on Government Operations has a specific rule
requiring specific approval of every report. This legislative
package is deficient by virtue of the powers of that rule, and I
raise a point of order against the consideration of this
legislation.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from California
desire to be heard?
Mr. Holifield: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on the
point of order.
The Spearer Pro Tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Holifield: Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rosenthal) has no valid basis for his argument. I shall
make my points briefly:
[[Page 3130]]
First. The gentleman from New York does not validly interpret
the committee rule in question. . . .
Second. The action of the committee in approving H.R. 10835 and
directing the chairman to bring it to the floor governs in the
present situation. The motion to approve and report H.R. 10835
occurred as follows:
Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill H.R. 10835,
as amended, be reported to the House and that the Chairman take
the necessary steps to bring it to the floor.
Chairman Holifield: Is there a second?
Mr. Erlenborn: Second.
The Chairman: It has been moved and seconded that the bill
be approved and that the Chairman take the usual steps to bring
it up for consideration on the floor. We will have a roll call
vote on this.
The motion was made and voted upon without objection and
thereafter arrangements were made to allow Members 3 calendar days
to file additional views, again without objection.
The motion and the other arrangements reflect the committee's
longstanding understanding that House Rule XI, 27(d)(1) governs the
reporting of legislation rather than Committee Rule 4.
In any event, the motion was accepted and voted upon without
any objection having been made and with a quorum present and
voting. Every provision of the House rules was complied with. The
chairman is bound by the terms of the motion adopted by the
committee. Even if a timely point of order on the failure to vote
on the report under the committee rule would have been in order, it
was not raised until 3 days after the committee accepted and
adopted the motion without objection.
The precedents of the House hold that where a motion not in
order under the rules is made without objection and agreed to by
the House by majority vote, the action is binding on the House and
the Speaker and is no longer subject to a point of order. In fact,
it is the duty of the Speaker to proceed to the business as
indicated by the House--IV Hinds' sec. 3177; V Hinds' sec. 6917.
These precedents are applicable to the committee action on H.R.
10835.
Third. Where a committee action violates certain rules of the
House, for example-voting to report a measure without a quorum
being present, Rule XI, 27(e)--a point of order may be made at an
appropriate time on the House floor. In some situations such as
violation of a House rule governing the conduct of hearings, the
rules specifically require that the point of order be first made in
the committee (House Rule XI, 27(f)(5)).
In the present instance, if any rule was violated--and we
believe this did not occur--it was a committee rule and not a House
rule. Under these circumstances the point of order should have been
made before and decided upon by the committee. All House rules
having been met, the forum for deciding the issue is the committee,
not the House.
The Speaker has repeatedly ruled against points of order based
upon alleged irregularities in Committee procedures which did not
violate a rule of the House. See IV Hinds' Precedents sections
4592, 4593, and 4594.
Fourth. Finally, I would not want it to be thought that the
desires of the
[[Page 3131]]
committee members are ignored in the preparation of the chairman's
report. The suggestions of at least four Members, including the
gentleman from New York, were taken into account and included in
the report. Very often points to be included in the report are
discussed at the subcommittee and full committee meetings and
almost always the suggestions are adopted. I note that other
committees of the House have various types of procedures to allow
members to make similar suggestions. In no case, however, have I
found that the committees actually vote on the reports themselves.
As the precedents point out--IV Hinds' sec. 4674--the report of a
committee is in the nature of an argument or explanation and does
not come before the House for amendment or other action. There is
wisdom behind the rule and precedents here, because if the
committee had to come to agreement on every word in the legislative
report, very little business would get done. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rosenthal) care to be heard further?
Mr. Rosenthal: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard
further on this, briefly.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that as I interpret the rules,
there is no burden on me, on this Member or any other Member, to
see to it that the rules are appropriately enforced. It would seem
to me that that burden rightfully is placed on the chairman of the
respective committee and it is his obligation to abide by the
rules.
Second, my distinguished chairman said that this rule has been
in existence since 1953 and we have been violating it since 1953--
we have never complied with it since 1953. So far as I am concerned
that is most regrettable.
The chairman went on to say that what the committee rule means
is that only investigative reports should be voted on by the
committee. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I again assert the position I have stated that the
rule is precise and clear and that no Member of the Congress has
the right to waive that rule.
If the rule needs to be changed, then the change ought to have
been made at the appropriate time and place.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from New York has raised a point of order against
the consideration of H.R. 10835 on the ground that the Committee on
Government Operations did not meet to approve the report on that
bill, House Report No. 92-542, as allegedly required by rule 4 of
that committee.
The Chair has listened carefully to the arguments on this point
of order and has referred to the committee rule cited by the
gentleman from New York. The Chair has also reexamined the
provisions of rule XI of the rules of the House with respect to the
procedures for reporting bills to the House. He has also examined
the precedents cited in the argument. The ruling of the Chair is in
three parts:
First, the right of members of the Committee on Government
Operations to file minority views, as guaranteed by clause 27(d)(4)
of rule XI, was protected in this instance. The bill was ordered
reported on Monday, September
[[Page 3132]]
27. The chairman did not file the report until late on Thursday,
September 30. Those members wishing to file minority views were
afforded the opportunity to do so.
Second, the gentleman from California has stated that in the
more than 18 years since this rule was first adopted in the
Committee on Government Operations, the consistent interpretation
of the committee has been that while investigative reports require
committee approval, legislative reports on bills or resolutions do
not. This interpretation conforms with that of the House, where the
report accompanying a bill or resolutions is in the nature of an
argument or explanation of the reported measure, the committee
report itself is not brought before the House for action or
amendment.
The Chair might also add that even if the committee wishes to
put a different interpretation of its rule, it is a matter which
should be decided in the committee. The record seems clear that the
point was not raised at the time this bill was ordered reported.
Finally, the Chair would like to point out that even if the
committee rule were to be construed as applicable to reports on
legislative matters, the motion directing the chairman of the
committee to report the bill to the House was a later expression of
the committee's will. The chairman of the Committee on Government
Operations before submitting the motion to the committee, stated
the question as follows:
It has been moved and seconded that the bill be approved
and that the Chairman take the usual steps to bring it up for
consideration on the floor.
This motion carried in the committee by a vote of 24 to 4.
Subsequently, the Chair did, in fact, take the usual steps to bring
the matter to the floor. His actions were in accord with the
established practices of the committee and were taken in compliance
with the rules of this House.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
Remedying Defects in Reporting of Bill
Sec. 58.6 Defects in reporting a bill by a standing committee may be
remedied by adoption of a special rule from the Committee on Rules
making in order consideration of such bill and waiving appropriate
points of order.
On May 2, 1939,(7) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York,
made a point of order against House Resolution 175, which provided that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House for
consideration of H.R. 5643 (a bill giving federal circuit courts
jurisdiction over orders of deportation of aliens). Mr. Dickstein
contended that the bill did not have a hearing before the appropriate
legislative committee, and that there was no proper report from the
committee authorized to conduct the hearings. Mr. Dickstein argued that
although the bill was
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052-55, 76th Cong. 1st Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3133]]
``100 percent immigration,'' it was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary instead of the Committee on Immigration.
Following debate on the point of order, Speaker William B. Bank
head, of Alabama, overruled the point of order on the ground that Mr.
Dickstein had ``slept upon his rights'' and should have provoked a
motion to rerefer the bill from the Committee on the Judiciary to the
Committee on Immigration before it was reported. An additional basis
for overruling the point of order was then suggested by Mr. Carl E.
Mapes, of Michigan, who stated:
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.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. For a full discussion of special rules, see Ch. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waivers of Points of Order
Sec. 58.7 Where the House grants unanimous consent for consideration of
a bill and provides that all points of order against the bill shall
be considered as waived, such waiver applies also to the committee
report on the bill.
On July 19, 1947,(9) after Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole for the consideration of H.R. 4214, providing for a Secretary of
Defense and other national defense measures, Mr. W. Sterling Cole, of
New York, made a point of order against consideration of the bill on
the ground that at least 24 hours had not intervened between the time
the bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 93 Cong. Rec. 9396, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3134]]
was available and the time the bill was called up.
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, overruled the
point of order, noting that all points of order against the bill had
been waived by a unanimous-consent agreement by the
House.(10) Mr. Cole then raised several parliamentary
inquiries as to whether a point of order would lie against the
committee report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 93 Cong. Rec. 9095, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1947, where
Mr. Charles A. Halleck (Ind.), asked unanimous consent, in
pertinent part, as follows: ``Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it may be in order on Friday next and thereafter
to consider the bill H.R. 4214, that all points of order
against the said bill be considered as waived.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. I am further
advised that although the bill is available this morning, the
report accompanying the bill is not. Would it be in order to raise
a point of order against the motion of the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Hoffman] upon the ground that the report is not now available?
The Speaker: It would not be in order because the same ruling
would apply. All points of order were waived under the unanimous-
consent agreement.
Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Speaker a further parliamentary
inquiry. I am informed that the report does not comply with the
rules of the House in that it does not set forth alterations
proposed by the bill to existing law. My inquiry is whether the
request of the gentleman from Indiana, the majority leader, that
points of order against the bill be waived also carried with it the
waiving of points of order against the report which is supposed to
accompany the bill.
The Speaker: The Chair is compelled to make the same ruling in
this instance also. All points of order were waived under the
unanimous-consent agreement and, therefore, the raising of that
point of order at this time would not be in order.
Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Speaker without undertaking to
dispute the decision, I call your attention to the fact that the
request for waiving points of order was directed to the bill
itself. Does the Speaker rule that the waiving of points of order
against the bill carried with it the waiving of points of order
against the report?
The Speaker: Yes. -------------------
Improper Action in Committee as Affecting Reporting
Sec. 58.8 The Chair has overruled, on the ground that the Chair had no
information as to what occurred in a committee, a point of order
alleging that a bill was not properly before the House because it
had not been read for amendment in committee prior to reporting.
On Apr. 23, 1934,(11) the Committee on Banking and
Currency
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 78 Cong. Rec. 7151-61, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3135]]
reported a bill, H.R. 7908,(12) which was on the Calendar of
Motions to Discharge Committees. Despite the reporting of the measure
by the Committee on Banking and Currency, Mr. Clarence J. McLeod, of
Michigan, attempted to call up the motion to discharge the committee of
H.R. 7908. It developed in the debate that Mr. McLeod and Mr. Jesse P.
Wolcott, of Michigan, viewed the reporting of the bill by the committee
as void ab initio on the grounds that the committee ordered the
reporting of the measure at a time when it sat during a session of the
House without the permission of the House and also because the measure
reported was not read before the committee. In fact, argued the
proponents of the discharge motion, the bill that was reported by the
committee was a committee substitute, the former H.R. 9175, which the
committee had inserted after striking all but the enacting clause of
the original bill that had been the subject of the discharge petition
signed by the requisite number of Members.(13) After Speaker
Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, sustained a point of order against the
calling up of the motion to discharge the committee, on the basis that
``inasmuch as the Committee on Banking and Currency has reported the
bill, that the effect of that action nullifies the motion to discharge
and makes it inoperative,(14) Mr. Carroll L. Beedy, of
Maine, then raised a point of order against the bill as reported by the
committee because it had never been read for amendment in the committee
and was, he argued, not regularly before the House. Mr. Beedy stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The bill concerned payments of assets in closed banks.
13. At that time, only 145 signatures were required on a discharge
petition. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual (1934).
See also Ch. 18, infra.
14. 78 Cong. Rec. 7161, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 23, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment to
the McLeod bill, so called, was not introduced in the House until
the 17th of April subsequent to the time when any bill of the kind
was ever read for amendment in the committee. This fact is
undenied.
The bill that was reported never was read for amendment in the
committee. It is not legally or validly upon the calendar of the
House. While the decision of the Chair well presents the fact,
assuming that the bill were legally before the House, the Chair has
not touched upon the question as to whether it may be in order to
call up the discharge rule if the bill attempted to be reported by
the committee concerned was not regularly before the House, not
having been considered according to the rules of the House.
[[Page 3136]]
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order, therefore, that the
bill alleged to have been reported is not legally reported, is in
violation of the rules of the House and of the committees of the
House and has no valid standing in the House.(l5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In overruling the point of order, the Speaker advised that he had
no knowledge as to what had occurred in committee, stating:
The House passed on that question a few moments ago in a
resolution raising the question of the privileges of the House, and
passed upon the question adversely to the position taken by the
gentleman from Maine.
The Chair has no information as to what occurred in the
committee. The only thing the Chair knows is that the McLeod bill,
bearing the number it has always borne and with the same title, and
with some amendments in which the Chair is not interested, has been
reported out, is on the calendar, and can be taken up under the
general rules of the House when an opportunity presents itself.
The Chair overrules the point of order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the Speaker's ruling was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Beedy's contention that the bill was
not properly before the House, since it had not been read for amendment
in committee prior to reporting, had been raised on the resolution
referred to by the Speaker (see H. Res. 349, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr.
23, 1934, H. Jour. 429). The contention was based on the requirement of
Jefferson's Manual (see House Rules and Manual Sec. 412 [1979]) that,
in the case of bills originating with or referred to committees, ``in
every case the whole paper is read . . . by paragraphs, pausing at the
end of each paragraph, and putting questions for amending, if
proposed.''
A point of order based on this requirement, however, lies only in
committee, not in the House, in accordance with the general principle
that a point of order does not ordinarily lie in the House against
consideration of a bill by reason of defective committee procedures
occurring prior to the time the bill was ordered reported to the House.
Determinations as to proper committee procedure are for the committee
to make, except where the House rules specifically permit such
objections to consideration.