[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[C. Special Rules or Orders]
[§ 16. Authority of Committee on Rules; Seeking Special Orders]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 4007-4040]
CHAPTER 21
Order of Business; Special Orders
C. SPECIAL RULES OR ORDERS
Sec. 16. Authority of Committee on Rules; Seeking Special Orders
Under Rule XI clause 17,(10) the Committee on Rules has
jurisdiction over the rules, joint rules, and order of business of the
House.(11) And under Rule XI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1973) [Rule X clause 1(q), House
Rules and Manual Sec. 686(a) (1979)].
11. The jurisdiction defined in the rule was made effective Jan. 2,
1947, as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.
The jurisdiction was further defined in the 90th Congress when
jurisdiction over rules relating to official conduct and
financial disclosure was transferred to the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (H. Res. 1099, 90th Cong.).
Prior to the 1946 act, Rule XI clause 35 provided that
``all proposed action touching the rules, joint rules, and
order of business shall be referred to the Committee on
Rules.'' And Rule XI clause 45 conferred privilege on reports
from the Committee on Rules.
For a short history of the Committee on Rules, including
its procedures, composition and authority in relation to the
current and past rules of the House, see 115 Cong. Rec. 9498-
501, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 17. 1969 (insertion in the
Record by Richard Bolling [Mo.], a member of the Committee on
Rules, of a short history of that committee prepared by Walter
Kravitz of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of
Congress).
See also Ch. 17, supra, for further information on the
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4008]]
clause 23, it is always in order to call up for consideration a report
from tile Committee on Rules on such matters,(~12) which
report may be adopted in the House by a majority vote. If the report is
called up the same day reported, it may not be considered unless so
determined by a two-thirds vote.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [Rule XI clause 4(b), House
Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)].
13. For the privilege of reports from the Committee on Rules, see
Sec. 17, infra. For consideration of and voting on such
reports, see Sec. 18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Rules may waive any rule which impedes the
consideration of a bill or amendment thereto, and points of order do
not lie against the consideration of such rules, as it is for the House
to determine, by a majority vote on the adoption of the resolution,
whether certain rules should be waived.(14) Thus an
objection that a report from the Committee on Rules changes the rules
of the House and thus should require a two-thirds vote rather than a
majority vote has no merit.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For the authority of the Committee on Rules as to waiving rules and
points of order, see Sec. Sec. 16.9-16.14, infra. Rules may
also be waived by unanimous-consent requests and motions to
suspend the rules; for discussion of motions to suspend the
rules and their effect, see Sec. 9, supra.
The power of the House to change or to waive its rules is
derived from U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2, which
authorizes each House of Congress to determine the rules of its
proceedings.
15. See Sec. 16.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major portion of the legislation considered in the House is
considered pursuant to resolutions, also called ``rules'' and ``special
orders,'' reported by the Committee on Rules. As most bills reported by
the other committees of the House are not privileged under the rules
for immediate consideration, the special order from the Committee on
Rules gives privilege to the bill sought to be considered in the
House,(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For a statement by Speaker Nicholas Longworth (Ohio) as to the
privilege conferred on a bill by the adoption of a special
order, see Sec. 16.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Rule XIII clause 1,(17) most bills require
consideration in the Committee of the Whole; therefore the special
order usually provides that it shall be in order, upon adoption of the
resolution to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of
the Whole for the consideration of the designated bill.(18)
But if the resolu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 742 (1979).
18. Special orders may also provide for the consideration of bills or
resolutions in the House, or in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole (see for example Sec. Sec. 20.16 and 20.17,
infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4009]]
tion is for the consideration of a bill not reported from committee,
the resolution may provide that the House shall immediately resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the
bill (since the committee of jurisdiction has in effect been discharged
from the further consideration of the bill). The resolution usually
provides for a certain period of general debate (one hour or more),
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the reporting committee, and for reading the bill for
amendment under the five-minute rule. A ``closed'' rule restricts or
prohibits the offering of amendments; an ``open'' rule allows the
offering of germane amendments from the floor. Whether a rule is
characterized as a ``modified open'' or a ``modified closed'' rule is a
matter of degree, the former describing rules permitting any germane
amendment with designated exceptions, and the latter prohibiting the
offering of amendments, with designated exceptions.
The resolution will generally provide that at the conclusion of the
reading of the bill for amendment, the bill shall be reported back to
the House, where the previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill to passage without intervening motion except the motion to
recommit. The resolution may provide that a separate vote may be
demanded on any amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to a
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as otherwise only
amendments in their perfected form are reported from Committee of the
Whole and voted on in the House. Frequently, the resolution provides
that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
the reported version of the bill may be read as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment.
Due to the numerous possible variations in the form of special
orders, only a representative sample is included in this and the
following sections.
The grant of jurisdiction to the Committee on Rules is necessarily
broad, in order that the rules may be temporarily waived in order to
consider and pass particular pieces of legislation. The only
restrictions on the power of the Committee on Rules in reporting rules,
under Rule XI clause 23,(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [Rule XI clause 4(b), House
Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4010]]
are as follows: ``The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or
order which shall provide that business under clause 7 of Rule XXIV
[the Calendar Wednesday rule] shall be set aside by a vote of less than
two-thirds of the Members present; nor shall it report any rule or
order which would prevent the motion to recommit from being made as
provided in clause 4 of Rule XVI.(20) The committee's
authority extends to reporting resolutions making in order the
consideration of bills not yet reported from standing or conference
committees,(1) and to reporting resolutions providing
certain procedures or waiving certain points of order during the
further consideration of bills already under consideration in the House
or Committee of the Whole.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Calendar Wednesday is a little-used procedure, and is customarily
dispensed with by unanimous consent rather than by the two-
thirds vote on a motion (see Sec. 4, supra).
Although the Committee on Rules may not prevent a motion to
recommit (see Sec. 16.19, infra), recommittal is not in order
when a bill is being considered under a motion to suspend the
rules.
Thus the Committee on Rules may report a resolution making
in order motions to suspend the rules on days not specified in
the suspension rule, which in effect precludes motions to
recommit on bills passed under that procedure (see 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 2267).
1. See Sec. Sec. 16.15-16.18, infra. A special order from the
committee may even provide for the consideration of a bill
which has not yet been introduced. 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 3388.
2. See Sec. Sec. 16.26, 16.27, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules or special orders are requested from the Committee on Rules,
usually, by the committee which has reported, or which has jurisdiction
over, the measure to be considered, and the Committee on Rules may hold
hearings and meetings on requested orders regardless of whether the
House is in session and reading for amendment under the five-minute
rule.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. Sec. 16.20-16.22, infra, for requests for special orders
from the Committee on Rules. See Sec. Sec. 16.23-16.25, infra,
for meetings and hearings by the committee, including the
provisions of the House rules and the rules of the committee
itself in the 93d Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power and Function of Rules Committee Generally
Sec. 16.1 During consideration of a resolution allowing legislation to
be included in an appropriation bill, the functions of the
Committee on Rules were discussed.
On Jan. 23, 1932, during consideration of a special order from
[[Page 4011]]
the Committee on Rules making in order on a general appropriation bill
certain legislative language, Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, of the
Committee on Rules discussed that committee's functions:
Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, this resolution was introduced
before the Committee on Rules by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Byrns], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations at the request
of his committee. We were informed that every member of the
Appropriations--Republican and Democratic members--favored it
except as to one gentleman objecting in one small particular. As
for the necessity for the resolution it was stated that there was a
probability that a point of order might be made against these
provisions of sections 2 and 3 now carried in this agricultural
appropriation bill. It was therefore thought best that the matter
be laid before the House so that the membership of the House could
determine whether the provisions of these two sections now in the
bill should remain in the bill.
It has always been my understanding that the Rules Committee is
not a committee that passes on the merits of measures. As has often
been said before, that committee merely determines whether or not a
measure is in accord with the program of the House and in answer to
a reasonable demand from the membership of the House, that they
have an opportunity to pass their judgment upon it. It is in that
customary spirit that the Rules Committee approached this
resolution without going into its merits to any extent. The entire
membership of the Appropriations Committee without regard to
politics wanted to give the House an opportunity to pass upon it.
In such a situation I believe it to be the duty of the Rules
Committee to lay the matter before the House for such action as it
shall see fit to take. That we have done in this
case.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 75 Cong. Rec. 2568, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.2 The Chairman of the Committee on Rules discussed that
committee's functions when calling up the first major special order
of the 73d Congress.
On Mar. 21, 1933, when William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, the
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up by direction of that
committee a special order providing for the consideration of a bill, he
delivered some remarks on the functions of the committee:
Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of a number of the
new Members of the House, it will be noticed that this is the first
time since the convening of the special session of Congress that
the consideration of a bill of major importance has been brought
forward under the provisions of the authority and jurisdiction of
the Committee on Rules.
So this resolution provides for the consideration of this
measure as it is presented. No doubt the distinguished minority
leader, as already indicated by some interviews in the newspapers,
[[Page 4012]]
will undertake to say that this is a very drastic rule. I admit it.
The minority will also say that it is a gag rule. In the common
acceptation of this term I admit it; but I want to say that many
years ago when, as a somewhat green Member of the House of
Representatives, I was assigned to service on the Committee on
Rules, under Republican administrations for many years, all that I
absorbed or learned about so-called gag rules I learned while
sitting at the feet of the distinguished gentleman from New York,
Mr. Snell, and his associates.
I may say to the new Members of this Congress, also, and we
might as well be candid and frank about the function and
jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York
and his associates well know what these functions are. The
Committee on Rules is the political and policy vehicle of the House
of Representatives to effectuate the party program and the party
policy. This is what it is, nothing more and nothing less, and
although, individually, I express the opinion here and now that we
regret the necessity sometimes of bringing resolutions upon the
floor of this House that will prevent the ordinary freedom of
action and freedom of offering amendments, there come times when,
under our system of party government, the Committee on Rules,
acting as I have suggested, is requested, as we have been requested
in this instance, by the leadership of the House, to bring in the
rule that we now have under consideration, for reasons which they
thought were wise and appropriate under the circumstances.
So if you adopt this rule for the consideration of this bill,
it provides for four hours of general debate which will give all
gentlemen who desire to do so a fairly reasonable opportunity to
express their views upon it, and at the end of that time we are
going to have a vote on this bill, if the rule is adopted, and we
are going to vote the bill as it is up or down (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 77 Cong. Rec. 665, 666, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.3 The failure of a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill
does not prejudice the status of a bill and the Committee on Rules
may subsequently bring in a special rule providing for its
consideration and requiring only a majority vote for its passage.
On June 5, 1933,(6) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill relating to the appointment
of the Governor of Hawaii; the motion failed to obtain two-thirds (yeas
222, nays 114). Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, responded to a
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 77 Cong. Rec. 5015, 5022, 5023, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Blanton: If that motion [to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider] is carried, then the Rules Committee
[[Page 4013]]
nevertheless will be able to bring in a rule tomorrow to take that
bill up when it can be passed by a majority vote?
The Speaker: The Rules Committee can bring in a bill suspending
the rules.
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to reconsider is no longer
utilized following a negative vote on a motion to suspend the rules
(see Sec. 15.7, supra).
On June 6, the Committee on Rules reported a resolution providing
for the consideration of the bill, and the resolution was adopted by
the House on June 7.
On Aug. 24, 1935,(7) there was called up by direction of
the Committee on Rules a resolution making in order the consideration
of a bill which had on that day failed of passage on suspension of the
rules. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, answered parliamentary
inquiries on the power of the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 79 Cong. Rec. 14652, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Maverick: After a bill has been passed on, can it be
brought up again the same day? What about the Puerto Rico bill,
which failed? If we can again bring up the bill made in order by
this resolution, we can do it with the Puerto Rico bill, or with
any other bill that has been defeated once during the day. This
bill was defeated a few hours ago.
The Speaker: The Chair will answer the gentleman's
parliamentary inquiry. This is an effort on the part of the
gentleman from New York, Chairman of the Rules Committee, to bring
this bill up under a special rule.
The question is up to the House as to whether or not that can
be done.
Mr. Maverick: I did not hear the Chair.
The Speaker: This is a special rule which is under
consideration and is in order.
Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McFarlane: Is it in order for the Chairman of the Rules
Committee to bring in a rule on a bill which we defeated this
afternoon and then move the previous question before the opponents
have an opportunity to be heard?
The Speaker: It is, under the rules of the House.
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, all the
opponents were heard today.
The Speaker: It is a question for the House itself to
determine.
Parliamentarian's Note: Jefferson's Manual states [at Sec. 515,
House Rules and Manual (1979)] that it is not in order to consider a
bill the same as one already rejected in the same session; this
prohibition may be waived by a resolution reported from the Rules
[[Page 4014]]
Committee providing for consideration.
Sec. 16.4 The question whether the House will consider a resolution
making in order the consideration of a bill which seeks to amend a
nonexisting law is a matter for the House and not the Chair to
decide.
On May 13, 1953,(8) Mr. Leo E. Allen, of Illinois,
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, a resolution
providing for the consideration of a bill to amend the ``Submerged
Lands Act,'' reported from the Committee on the Judiciary. Speaker
Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, overruled a point of order
against the consideration of the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 99 Cong. Rec. 4877, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Feighan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
consideration of this rule because it attempts to make in order the
consideration of the bill H.R. 5134, which is a bill to amend a
nonexisting act.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order that
has been raised by the gentleman from Ohio is not one within the
jurisdiction of the Chair, but is a question for the House to
decide, whether it wants to consider such legislation.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 16.5 Objection having been made to a unanimous-consent request to
take from the Speaker's table a bill with Senate amendments
thereto, disagree to the amendments and agree to a conference, the
Committee on Rules met immediately and reported out a resolution to
accomplish such action; it was agreed by a two-thirds vote to
consider the resolution and the resolution was adopted that day.
On Aug. 9, 1949, Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of Virginia, asked unanimous
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 4830 (foreign
aid appropriations) with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. Mr. Vito
Marcantonio, of New York, having objected to the request, the Committee
on Rules held a meeting, reported out a resolution making in order the
action requested by Mr. Gary, and the House agreed to consider the
resolution by a two-thirds vote and adopted the
resolution.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 95 Cong. Rec. 11139-46, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4015]]
Parliamentarian's Note: This function of the Committee on Rules has
been exercised less frequently since adoption (on Jan. 4, 1965, H. Res.
8, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.) of that portion of clause 1 Rule XX permitting
a motion to go to conference when authorized by the committee with
legislative jurisdiction.
Sec. 16.6 The effect of a special rule providing for the consideration
of a bill is to give to the bill the privileged status for
consideration that a revenue or appropriation bill has under Rule
XVI clause 9.
On June 28, 1930,(10) Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana,
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 264,
providing that upon the adoption of the resolution it be in order to
move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for
the consideration of a particular bill, and providing for that bill's
consideration. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, overruled a point
of order against the resolution and characterized the effect of such a
resolution from the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 72 Cong. Rec. 11994, 11995. 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl R.] Chindblom [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, if pressed,
I will make the point of order that the resolution from the
Committee on Rules is not in order because it relates to a bill
which is not now upon the calendar of the House under the
conditions and in the status which existed when this resolution was
adopted by the Committee on Rules.
The calendar shows that H.R. 12549 was reported to the House on
June 24, 1930, Report No. 2016, and was placed on the House
Calendar. The resolution or rule now called up for consideration by
the Committee on Rules was presented to the House June 20, 1930,
and therefore before the bill on the calendar had been reported to
the House.
Of course, we all know that this bill is now upon the calendar
for the third time. A previous rule was adopted for its
consideration on June 12, 1930, and at that time a point of order
was made, when it was sought to take up the bill in Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, on the ground that the
report did not comply with the Ramseyer rule. Subsequently, after
the present rule was presented in the House on June 20, 1930, I
think it is well known that another irregularity in the adoption of
the report became known, so on June 23, if my recollection is
correct, the chairman of the Committee on Patents obtained
unanimous consent to withdraw the bill and the report, and the bill
was thereupon again reported the following day and placed upon the
House Calendar.
The situation is novel and arises, so far as I can learn, for
the first time, and it raises the question whether the Committee on
Rules has authority in advance of the report of a bill, and in
advance of the placing of a bill on any calendar of the House, to
bring in a
[[Page 4016]]
rule for the consideration of the bill under the general rules of
the House, as this resolution does, because the rule merely makes
it in order to move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the bill. As I construe the rule, it does not
suspend any of the rules of the House in reference to the
consideration of legislation. It does not suspend the rule which
requires bills to be upon the calendar of the House before they can
have consideration. It merely makes it in order to move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for the consideration of the bill.
Mr. [John Q.] Tilson [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Chindblom: Yes.
Mr. Tilson: Does not the effect of this resolution date from
the time it is adopted by the House, and not from the time it was
reported by the Committee on Rules? And if we to-day in the House
adopt the rule, is not the effect of the rule to be applied as of
to-day, and not three or four days ago, when the rule was reported?
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. It is not necessary
to pass upon the question of whether the original rule for the
consideration of this bill is still alive or not. The Chair, when
the matter was originally submitted to him, informally expressed a
grave doubt as to whether it would be considered alive. But this
rule is an entirely different rule. It appears now for the first
time for consideration. The Chair is aware that this bill has had a
rather stormy passage. It has been twice rereferred to the
committee, but as the bill now appears, so far as the Chair is
advised, it is properly on the calendar as of June 24, 1930, and
this special rule is properly reported to consider that bill. The
Chair thinks that all that special rules of this sort do is to put
bills for which they are provided in the same status that a revenue
or appropriation bill has under the general rules of the House.
Clause 9 of Rule XVI provides:
At any time after the reading of the Journal it shall be in
order, by direction of the appropriate committees, to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering bills
raising revenue, or general appropriation bills.
Now all that this special rule does is to give the same status
to this particular bill at this particular time. The Chair has no
hesitation in saying that the Committee on Rules has acted with
authority, and that it will be in order to move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union for the consideration of this bill after the
resolution is passed.
Rules Committee Jurisdiction Over Order of Business.
Sec. 16.7 The Speaker stated in overruling a point of order against a
special order from the Committee on Rules that the committee could
report a resolution to change the rules of the House on any
[[Page 4017]]
matter except that which is prohibited by the Constitution.
On Sept. 3, 1940,(11) there was pending before the House
a special order from the Committee on Rules providing for the
consideration of, and providing for two days of general debate on, a
bill. Speaker pro tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, overruled a point
of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 11359, 11360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that
the resolution is contrary to the unwritten law of the House. It
has been the universal practice, custom, and tradition of the House
to have debate fixed by hours. This resolution fixes general debate
by days. This is entirely meaningless, because a day may be
terminated by a motion that the Committee rise or by adjournment,
and for that reason I press my point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The
gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the
resolution is contrary to the unwritten rules of the House in that
general debate is fixed by days instead of hours.
In the first place, the point of order comes too late.
In the second place, this is a resolution reported by the
Committee on Rules to change the rules of the House, which is
permissible on anything except that which is prohibited by the
Constitution.
The point of order is overruled.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XI clause 17 gives jurisdiction to the
Committee on Rules over the rules, joint rules, and order of business
of the House. But under Rule XI clause 23, the Committee on Rules may
not report any order providing that business under Rule XXIV clause 7
(Calendar Wednesday) shall be dispensed with by less than a two-thirds
vote, or any order operating to prevent the motion to recommit being
made pursuant to Rule XVI clause 4.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XI clause 17, House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1973) [Rule X
clause 1(q), House Rules and Manual Sec. 686(a) (1979)]. Rule
XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [Rule XI
clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)]. Rule
XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1979). Rule XVI
clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.8 To a bill amending the rules of the House [Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970] being considered pursuant to a
resolution prohibiting amendments to the bill ``which would have
the effect of changing the jurisdiction
[[Page 4018]]
of any committee of the House listed in Rule XI,'' an amendment to
clause 23 [clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual (1979)] of Rule XI
proscribing the power of the Committee on Rules to report special
orders which would limit the reading of a measure for amendment or
the offering of amendments thereto, was ruled out of order as an
attempt to change the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.
On July 29, 1970, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (H.R.
17654) was being read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole
pursuant to a special order (H. Res. 1093) prohibiting the offering of
amendments which would change the jurisdiction of House committees.
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, sustained a point of order
against an amendment (and discussed the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Rules): (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 26414, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jacobs: On page 39, after line 4,
add the following new section:
``Sec. 123(a) Clause 23 of Rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following: `In addition, the Committee on Rules
shall not report any rule or order for the consideration of any
legislative measure which limits, restricts, or eliminates the
actual reading of that measure for amendment or the offering of
any amendment to that measure.'.''. . .
Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Chairman, I raise the
point of order that this very definitely limits the jurisdiction of
the Rules Committee and would prohibit us from issuing a closed
rule and other types of rules. The rule under which this measure
was considered strictly prohibits the changing of any jurisdiction
of any committee.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Indiana desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the term
``jurisdiction,'' it means the territory or subject matter over
which legal power is exercisable, not the rules by which such power
proceeds.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair would like to point out to the gentleman from Indiana
that under House Resolution 1093 we have the following language,
beginning in line 11:
No amendments to the bill shall be in order which would
have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee
of the House listed in Rule XI.
Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 4019]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is for some
enlightenment about the word ``jurisdiction'' itself, the
definition of the word ``jurisdiction''? Does it refer to subject
matter and territory, or relate to the manner in which the
Committee on Rules can make a report within its jurisdiction?
The Chairman: The Chair would like to point out to the
gentleman from Indiana that under the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana there is the following language:
The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or order
for the consideration of any legislative measure which limits,
restricts, or eliminates the actual reading of that measure for
amendment or the offering of any amendment to that measure.
Therefore the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana
restricts the jurisdictional powers of the Committee on Rules. For
that reason the point of order must be sustained.
Waiver of Rules by Special Orders
Sec. 16.9 Rules of the House may be changed or temporarily suspended by
a majority vote by the adoption of a resolution from the Committee
on Rules providing for such a change, such as waiving points of
order in the consideration of a bill.
On June 14, 1930,(14) Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New
York, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution
253, providing for the consideration of two conference reports on the
same bill together as one, for the purposes of debate and voting.
Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, overruled a point of order against
the resolution, where the point of order was based on the fact that the
resolution waived all points of order in the consideration of the
reports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 72 Cong. Rec. 10694, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
make a point of order against the resolution.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. O'Connor of New York: The resolution provides that ``in the
consideration of the reports all points of order shall be waived.''
Points of order are based on the rules of the House, either the few
published rules or the precedents and rulings by presiding
officers. This resolution proposes to do what should be done by a
motion to suspend the rules. The difficulty is, however, that to
suspend the rules a two-thirds vote is required. This is not a
resolution brought in for the purpose of obtaining by a majority
vote the direct repeal of all of the rules of the House but is
intended to serve a certain specific purpose in reference to only
one measure of the House. For instance, the rule relating to
Calendar Wednesday requires that to set that aside there must be a
two-thirds vote. The rule prohibiting legislation on an
appropriation bill could not be set aside, in my opinion, by this
method,
[[Page 4020]]
and that applies to other rules of the House. Points of order being
rules of the House, in my opinion this resolution violates the
rules of the House, in that it sets aside all rules relating to
points of order.
Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to argue the
point of order with the gentleman if I knew what his point of order
is, but from anything my friend has said so far, I am unable to
identify it.
The Speaker: The Chair will state it is not necessary. This is
a very ordinary proceeding. It has been done hundreds of times to
the knowledge of the Chair. The Chair overrules the point of order.
On Oct. 27, 1971,(15) the House had under consideration
House Resolution 661, reported from the Committee on Rules and
providing for consideration of H.R. 7248, to amend and extend the
Higher Education Act and for other purposes. The resolution waived
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute for failure to comply with Rule XVI clause 7 (germaneness)
and Rule XXI clause 4 [clause 5 in the 96th Congress] (appropriations
in a legislative bill) and also provided that points of order could be
raised against portions of the bill whose subject matter was properly
within another committee's jurisdiction rather than within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor, which had
reported the bill. (Under normal procedure, a point of order based on
committee jurisdiction cannot be raised after a committee to which has
been referred a bill has reported it, the proper remedy being a motion
to correct reference.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 37768, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, indicated that a majority vote, and not a two-thirds vote,
would be required to adopt the resolution:
Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Speaker, at this point is it proper for the
Speaker to determine whether a two-thirds vote would be required
for the passage of this resolution, House Resolution 661, or merely
a majority?
The Speaker: The resolution from the Committee on Rules makes
in order the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7248) and a majority
vote is required for that purpose.
Mr. Matsunaga: Even with the reference to the last section, Mr.
Speaker, relating to the raising of a point of order on a bill
which is properly reported out by a committee to which the bill was
referred, which would in effect contravene an existing rule of the
House?
[[Page 4021]]
The Speaker: The Committee on Rules proposes to make in order
in its resolution (H. Res. 661) the opportunity to raise points of
order against the bill on committee jurisdictional grounds, but as
is the case with any resolution reported by the Committee on Rules
making a bill a special order of business, only a majority vote is
required.
Mr. Matsunaga: I thank the Speaker.
Sec. 16.10 The Speaker stated in overruling a point of order against a
special order from the Committee on Rules that the committee could
report a resolution to change the rules of the House on any matter
except that which is prohibited by the Constitution.
On Sept. 3, 1940,(16) there was pending before the House
a special order from the Committee on Rules providing for the
consideration of, and providing for two days of general debate on, a
bill. Speaker pro tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, overruled a point
of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 11359, 11360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that
the resolution is contrary to the unwritten law of the House. It
has been the universal practice, custom, and tradition of the House
to have debate fixed by hours. This resolution fixes general debate
by days. This is entirely meaningless, because a day may be
terminated by a motion that the Committee rise or by adjournment,
and for that reason I press my point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The
gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the
resolution is contrary to the unwritten rules of the House in that
general debate is fixed by days instead of hours.
In the first place, the point of order comes too late.
In the second place, this is a resolution reported by the
Committee on Rules to change the rules of the House, which is
permissible on anything except that which is prohibited by the
Constitution.
The point of order is overruled.
Sec. 16.11 It is for the House, and not the Chair, to decide upon the
efficacy of adopting a special rule which has the effect of setting
aside the standing rules of the House insofar as they impede the
consideration of a particular bill; it is not within the province
of the Chair to rule out, on a point of order, a resolution
reported by the Committee on Rules which is properly before the
House and which provides for a
[[Page 4022]]
special order of business (abrogating the provisions of Rule XX
clause 1).
On Nov. 28, 1967,(17) the previous question had been
moved on House Resolution 985, called up by direction of the Committee
on Rules, providing for concurring in a Senate amendment to a House
bill; the resolution was necessary in order to waive the requirement of
Rule XX clause 1 [House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1979)], that Senate
amendments be considered in Committee of the Whole if they would be
subject to that procedure where originating in the House. Speaker John
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled a point of order against the
resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 34038, 34039, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of
order against a vote on this resolution, and I make the point of
order based entirely on rule XX, which says that any amendment of
the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to a point of order
that it shall first be considered in the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union. If it originated in the House it
would be subject to that point of order. I believe there is no
question about it being subject to a point of order should it
originate here in this House. Until that issue is debated in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union I believe
that we are violating rule XX of the House rules.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has previously
[see footnote 18, infra] ruled on the point of order raised by the
gentleman, and the matter is one that is now before the House for
the consideration of the House, and the will of the House.
For the reasons heretofore stated and now stated, the Chair
overrules the point of order.
Mr. Jones of Missouri: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me under
what authority the House can consider this in the House rather than
in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, in
view of rule XX which says it shall first be considered in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House can change its
rules at any time upon a resolution that is properly before the
House reported by the Committee on Rules. The present resolution
has been put before the House by the Committee on Rules within the
authority of the Committee on Rules, therefore the matter presents
itself for the will of the House.
Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The reason I am making this is that I want to get some record
on this for this reason: The Chair has said that the Committee on
Rules may make a resolution which has not been adopted by the House
which summarily amends the Rules of the House which the Members of
the House are supposed to rely upon. This rule has not been adopted
as yet.
[[Page 4023]]
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Committee on Rules
has reported the rule under consideration--
Mr. Jones of Missouri: But it has never been voted upon.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that we are about to approach
that matter now.
Mr. Jones of Missouri: And I am challenging that, and the point
of order is made that we cannot vote on that because it says in
rule XX that this first shall be considered in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
The Speaker: The Chair cannot be any more specific or clear in
responding to the point of order or in answering the gentleman's
parliamentary inquiry.
The matter is properly before the House and it is a matter on
which the House may express its will.
The Speaker had previously, when the resolution was called up,
overruled the same point of order: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 34032, 34033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has given
serious consideration to the point of order raised by the gentleman
from Missouri. The Committee on Rules has reported out a special
rule. It is within the authority of the rules, and a reporting out
by the Rules Committee is consistent with the rules of the House.
Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 16.12 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution waiving
points of order against provisions in a legislative bill containing
appropriations in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (clause 5 in the
96th Congress) and it is not in order to make such points of order
when the resolution and not the bill is before the House.
On Aug. 1, 1939,(19) there was pending before the House
a resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the
consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on Banking and
Currency and waiving points of order against the bill (certain sections
of the bill contained appropriations in a legislative bill). Speaker
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled a point of order against the
resolution where the point of order was directed against those sections
of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 10710, 10711, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of
order against certain sections of the bill referred to in the rule.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman desire to make a point of order
against the resolution?
Mr. Taber: Against certain sections of the bill referred to in
the resolution.
The Speaker: The Chair will not entertain that point of order,
because the matter now pending before the House
[[Page 4024]]
is whether or not it should agree to the resolution making a
certain bill in order. . . .
The Chair has no disposition to limit the argument of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], but the Chair is very clearly
of the opinion that the points of order the gentleman seeks to
raise against certain provisions of the bill are not in order at
this time. The House is now considering a resolution providing for
the consideration of the bill against which the gentleman desires
to raise certain points of order. The resolution which is now being
considered itself provides, if adopted, that all points of order
against the bill are waived. This is no innovation or new matter.
Time after time the Committee on Rules has brought to the House
resolutions waiving points of order against bills. Under the
general rules of the House, the Chair will say to the gentleman,
aside from the considerations which the Chair has mentioned, points
of order cannot be raised against the bill until the section is
reached in the bill which attempts to make appropriations and
against which the point of order is desired to be made.
For those reasons the Chair does not feel like recognizing the
gentleman at this juncture to state points of order against the
proposed bill.
Mr. Taber: May I call the attention of the Chair to the last
sentence in clause 4 of rule XXI:
A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill,
joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any
time.
There have been decisions holding that the point of order would
not lie to the bill or to its consideration, but I have cited to
the Chair cases where such points of order have been made and have
been sustained when the bill itself was not under consideration.
The Speaker: The Chair has undertaken to make it plain that the
Chair's decision is based very largely upon the proposition that
the resolution now being considered specifically waives all points
of order that may be made against the bill, and includes those
matters evidently against which the gentleman has in mind in making
points of order.
Sec. 16.13 The House rejected a resolution reported from the Committee
on Rules, providing for the consideration of a bill improperly
reported (failure of a quorum to order the bill reported).
On July 23, 1973,(20) the House rejected House
Resolution 495, called up by Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, by
direction of the Committee on Rules and providing for the consideration
of H.R. 8929 (to amend title 39, on the reduced mailing rate for
certain matter). The resolution specifically waived Rule XI clause
27(e) (clause 2(1)(2)(A) in the 96th Congress) in relation to the bill;
that clause provided that a quorum must actually be present when a bill
is ordered reported by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 25482, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4025]]
a committee, a requirement that was not followed in the reporting of
the bill in question.
Sec. 16.14 Despite certain defects in the consideration or reporting of
a bill by a standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a
special rule from the Committee on Rules.
On May 2, 1939,(1) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York,
made a point of order against an order of business resolution reported
by the Committee on Rules and called up for consideration, on the
ground that the bill made in order by the resolution had been referred
to, considered by, and reported from a committee (the Committee on the
Judiciary) which had no jurisdiction over the subject matter involved.
After extended argument on the point of order, Speaker William B.
Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled the point of order on the ground that
after a public bill has been reported it is not in order to raise a
question of committee jurisdiction. The Speaker further commented that
even if there were defects in the committee consideration and report,
the rule from the Committee on Rules would have the effect of remedying
such defects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052-55, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, in order to
protect the rights of the Committee on Rules, will the Chair permit
this observation? The gentleman from New York slept on his rights
further until the Committee on Rules reported a rule making the
consideration of this measure in order. Even though the reference
had been erroneous and the point of order had been otherwise made
in time, the Committee on Rules has the right to change the rules
and report a rule making the legislation in order. This point also
might be taken into consideration by the Speaker, if necessary.
The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the statement
made by the gentleman from Michigan, although not necessary to a
decision of the instant question, is sustained by a particular and
special decision rendered by Mr. Speaker Garner on a similar
question. The decision may be found in the Record of February 28,
1933. In that decision it is held, in effect, that despite certain
defects in the consideration or the reporting of a bill by a
standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a special rule
from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion to consider
such bill. The Chair thinks that that decision by Mr. Speaker
Garner clearly sustains the contention made by the gentleman from
Michigan.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. For the Feb. 28, 1933, decision referred to by the Chair, see 76
Cong. Rec. 5247-49, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 23, 1942,(3) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
made a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 88 Cong. Rec. 6541, 6542, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4026]]
point of order against a bill ``not legally before the House,'' on the
grounds that the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Election
of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, had
never reported the bill with a quorum present. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, responded as follows:
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
At this time there is no bill pending before the House. A
resolution reported by the Committee on Rules will be presented to
the House, which, if adopted, will make in order the consideration
of H.R. 7416. If the Committee on Election of President, Vice
President, and Representatives in Congress had never taken any
action upon this bill and the Committee on Rules had decided to
report a rule making it in order and putting it up to the House
whether or not the House would consider the bill, they would have
been within their rights. Therefore, the Chair cannot do otherwise
than hold that there is nothing at the time before the House. It is
anticipated that a special rule will be presented, making in order
the consideration of H.R. 7416. If the House adopts the rule then
the House has decided that it desires to consider the bill at this
time, and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order of the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] and recognizes the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath].
Parliamentarian's Note: It is the present practice to waive points
of order against the consideration of a bill by reason of specific
defects in committee reports. For example, the failure of a committee
to comply with the ``Ramseyer'' rule (Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules
and Manual Sec. 745 [1979]) may be raised after the House agrees to a
resolution making the consideration of the bill in order and before the
House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider the
bill unless the rule has waived that point of order.
Orders for Considering Unreported Measures
Sec. 16.15 A point of order that the Committee on Rules has reported a
special rule providing for the consideration of a bill prior to the
time the bill to be considered was reported and referred to the
Union Calendar does not lie.
On June 28, 1930,(4) Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana,
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a resolution making in
order the consideration of a bill. Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois,
made a point of order against the report of the Committee on Rules, on
the ground that the committee had reported the resolution to the House
on June 20, 1930, whereas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 72 Cong. Rec. 11994, ll99a, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4027]]
the bill was first reported to the House on a later date, on June 24,
1930 (and was recommitted twice to the committee of jurisdiction in
order to correct errors in the report). Mr. Chindblom asserted that the
effect of the resolution was to make it in order to resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill, but not to
waive the ``rule which requires bills to be upon the calendar of the
House before they can have consideration.''
Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, overruled the point of order
and stated in part as follows:
. . . The Chair thinks that all that special rules of this sort
do is put bills for which they are provided in the same status that
a revenue or appropriation bill has under the general rules of the
House. Clause 9 of Rule XVI provides:
At any time after the reading of the Journal it shall be in
order, by direction of the appropriate committees, to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering bills
raising revenue, or general appropriation bills.
Now all that this special rule does is to give the same status
to this particular bill at this particular time. The Chair has no
hesitation in saying that the Committee on Rules has acted with
authority, and that it will be in order to move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union for the consideration of this bill after the
resolution is passed.
Sec. 16.16 The Committee on Rules may consider any matter that is
properly before them, including providing for the consideration of
a bill on which a majority report has not yet been made.
On July 30, 1959,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
answered parliamentary inquiries on the procedures of the Committee on
Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 105 Cong. Rec. 14743, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: I ask the question, under
the rules of the House, can the Committee on Rules report out a
bill before they get a majority report from the committee?
The Speaker: The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Barden]
asked unanimous consent, which was obtained, to have until midnight
tonight to file a report of the Committee on Education and Labor on
the so-called labor bill.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: My question is, until a majority of
the committee sign the report, can the Committee on Rules consider
the bill?
The Speaker: The Committee on Rules has the authority to
consider any matter which is properly before them. The Chair would
certainly hold that this is properly before the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Still, there is that word
``properly.'' I was asking a simple question.
[[Page 4028]]
The Speaker: The Chair has answered the question.
Sec. 16.17 The Committee on Rules may report resolutions providing for
the immediate consideration of bills not yet reported by the
committees to which referred.
On Aug. 19, 1964,(6) the House adopted House Resolution
845, reported by the Committee on Rules, providing for the immediate
consideration of H.R. 11926 (limiting the jurisdiction of federal
courts in apportionment cases) which was pending before, and not yet
reported by, the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 110 Cong. Rec. 20212, 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the adoption of the resolution, Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, held that a point of order against
consideration of the bill did not lie on the ground that the Committee
on the Judiciary had not compiled with the ``Ramseyer'' rule (requiring
comparative prints in committee report), since that rule only applies
where a committee has reported a bill, and not where it has been
discharged from consideration of the bill.
Similarly on Mar. 29, 1961, the House agreed to a special order
from the Committee on Rules which provided for the immediate
consideration of S. 153; the Senate bill had been referred to the
Committee on Government Operations and had not yet been
reported.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 107 Cong. Rec. 5267, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.18 The Committee on Rules may report to the House a resolution
making in order the consideration of a conference report when
filed, although the conference report was not prepared at the time
of the action taken by the Committee on Rules.
On many occasions, the Committee on Rules has reported resolutions
making in order the consideration of conference reports on the same day
reported, notwithstanding the prohibition in clause 2, (a) and (b),
Rule XXVIII, against consideration of conference reports, and
amendments reported from conference in disagreement, until the third
day after the report is filed in the House and printed in the
Congressional Record. For example, on July 25, 1956, the House adopted
a resolution from the Committee on Rules providing as follows:
Resolved, That during the remainder of this week it shall
be in order to consider conference reports the same day
reported notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule
[[Page 4029]]
XXVIII; that it shall also be in order during the remainder of
this week for the Speaker at any time to entertain motions to
suspend the rules, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 1,
rule XXVII.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 102 Cong. Rec. 14456, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 1951, the House adopted a resolution from the Committee
on Rules which not only provided for a conference on an appropriation
bill but also provided for the consideration of the conference report
when reported:
Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules I submit a privileged report (H. Res.
309, Rept. No. 667) and ask for its immediate consideration.
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 277) making
temporary appropriations for the fiscal year 1952, and for
other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto be, and the
same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate
amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to by the House;
that the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the said joint resolution be, and
hereby is, agreed to by the House, and that the Speaker shall
immediately appoint conferees without intervening motion.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order to consider the conference
report on the said joint resolution when reported
notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule
XXVIII.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 97 Cong. Rec. 7538, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Orders May Not Prevent Motion to Recommit
Sec. 16.19 The Committee on Rules may not report any order or rule
which operates to prevent the offering of a motion to recommit as
provided in Rule XVI clause 4, but such restriction does not apply
to a special rule prohibiting the offering of amendments to a title
of a bill during its consideration and thus prohibiting a motion to
recommit with instructions to include such an amendment.
On Jan. 11, 1934,(10) Mr. William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a resolution
providing for the consideration of an appropriation bill; the
resolution prohibited the offering of amendments to title II of the
bill. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made a point of order against
the rule on the ground that it violated Rule XI clause 45 [Rule XI
clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)] since it would
operate to prevent certain motions to recommit, such as to recommit
with instructions to include an amendment in title II. Speaker
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 78 Cong. Rec. 479-83, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4030]]
Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, overruled the point of order:
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from
New York makes the point of order that the Committee on Rules has
reported out a resolution which violates the provisions of clause
45, rule XI, which are as follows:
The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or order .
. . which shall operate to prevent the motion to recommit being
made as provided in clause 4, rule XVI.
The pertinent language of clause 4, rule XVI is as follows:
After the previous question shall have been ordered on the
passage of a bill or joint resolution one motion to recommit
shall be in order and the Speaker shall give preference in
recognition for such purpose to a Member who is opposed to the
bill or resolution.
The special rule, House Resolution 217, now before the House,
does not mention the motion to recommit. Therefore, any motion to
recommit would be made under the general rules of the House. The
contention of the gentleman from New York that this special rule
deprives the minority of the right to make a motion to recommit is,
therefore, obviously not well taken. The right to offer a motion to
recommit is provided for in the general rules of the House, and
since no mention is made in the special rule now before the House
it naturally follows that the motion would be in order.
A question may present itself later when a motion to recommit
with instructions is made on the bill H.R. 6663 that the special
rule which is now before the House may prevent a motion to recommit
with instructions which would be in conflict with the provisions of
the special rule. It has been held on numerous occasions that a
motion to recommit with instructions may not propose as
instructions any-thing that might not be proposed directly as an
amendment. Of course, inasmuch as the special rule prohibits
amendments to title II of the bill H. R. 6663 it would not be in
order after adoption of the special rule to move to recommit the
bill with instructions to incorporate an amendment in title II of
the bill. The Chair, therefore, holds that the motion to recommit,
as provided in clause 4, Rule XVI, has been reserved to the
minority and that insofar as such rule is concerned the special
rule before the House does not deprive the minority of the right to
make a simple motion to recommit. The Chair thinks, however, that a
motion to recommit with instructions to incorporate a provision
which would be in violation of the special rule, House Resolution
217, would not be in order. For the reasons stated, the Chair
overrules the point of order.
Mr. Snell: Will the Chair allow me to make a parliamentary
inquiry?
The Speaker: Certainly.
Mr. Snell: Do I understand from the ruling of the Chair the
minority will be allowed to offer the usual motion to recommit?
The Speaker: The usual simple motion to recommit provided by
the rules.
On appeal, the House upheld the decision of the Chair by a rollcall
vote of 260-112.
Parliamentarian's Note: The language of the resolution in ques
[[Page 4031]]
tion prohibited the offering of amendments to title II of the bill
``during the consideration'' of the bill (both in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole). Normally, such resolutions only prohibit
certain amendments during consideration in Committee of the Whole,
allowing a motion to recommit with instructions in the House to add
such amendments. This is apparently the only ruling by the Speaker on
the authority of the Committee on Rules to limit, but not to prohibit,
the motion to recommit.
Requesting Resolutions on the Order of Business
Sec. 16.20 Any Member may request that the Chairman of the Committee on
Rules call a meeting of that committee to consider reporting a
resolution making in order disposition of a House bill with Senate
amendments which require consideration in Committee of the Whole,
but a motion to send the bill to the Committee on Rules is not in
order.
On Aug. 13, 1957,(11) objection was made to a unanimous-
consent request to take from the Speaker's table a House bill with a
Senate amendment, disagree to the amendment, and ask for a conference
with the Senate, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered parliamentary
inquiries on requesting a special order from the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 14568, 8ath Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Would the Speaker
recognize me to move to send the bill to the Rules Committee?
The Speaker: The Chair would not. It is not necessary to do
that.
Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Keating: Would the Speaker advise what action is necessary
now in order to get the bill to the Committee on Rules?
The Speaker: Anyone can make the request of the chairman of the
Committee on Rules to call a meeting of the committee to consider
the whole matter.
Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, if that were done, would the bill
which is now on the Speaker's desk be before the Rules Committee?
The Speaker: It would not be before the Committee on Rules. The
Committee on Rules could consider the matter of what procedure to
recommend to the House for the disposition of this whole matter.
Requesting ``Closed Rule''
Sec. 16.21 Members discussed, during debate on a resolu
[[Page 4032]]
tion from the Committee on Rules providing a ``closed'' rule for a
bill, the requirements of the Democratic Caucus rules as to seeking
such rules and as to the procedures of the Committee on Rules in
reporting such rules.
On Nov. 13, 1973,(12) the House was considering House
Resolution 695, providing for the consideration of H.R. 11333,
increasing social security benefits and reported from the Committee on
Ways and Means. The resolution permitted only committee amendments to
the bill. The following colloquy took place during the debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 36861-63, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Phillip] Burton [of California]: Mr.
Speaker,(13) first I would like to state that I think,
given the time constraints, that the Committee on Ways and Means
has enacted essentially a very thoughtful set of changes to the
Social Security Act. However, there is one aspect of this procedure
that is potentially disturbing, so that the record can be clear in
this one respect, I would like to pose a question to the
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman) the acting
chairman of the committee. The question I pose is this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand the rules of the majority party caucus, there
are certain procedures clearly delineated to be followed in the
event a closed rule is to be sought. As I understand, the gentleman
from Oregon indicated to the Rules Committee that because of this
unexpected time crunch and for that reason only, that the seeking
and obtaining of a closed rule in this one instance is not intended
in any way, nor should it be considered to be a precedent for any
future such effort by any committee to seek a closed rule without
complying with whatever the ground rules as explicitly stated in
the caucus recommendations.
Is that essentially a fair statement of the situation?
Mr. [Albert C.] Ullman: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend
from California that the sole motivation of the Committee was to
meet the timetable that was before the Congress. It certainly is
not our intention to change any rules or procedures of any
institution in this body, but we were under a time frame of action
that demanded that we go to the Rules Committee and get a rule
immediately.
I say to the gentleman that we have no present intention but to
get this bill passed just as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Burton: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the gentleman's
response, it is in no way his intention, nor should it be construed
by anyone in terms of establishing a precedent in overriding the
rule I referred to earlier, is that correct?
Mr. Ullman: Yes.
Sec. 16.22 Pursuant to clause 17 of the Addendum of the Rules of the
Democratic Caucus, a Member inserted in
[[Page 4033]]
the Record notice of his intention to request the Committee on
Rules to report to the House a ``modified closed rule'' for the
consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on the
Judiciary.
On Nov. 12, 1973,(14) William L. Hungate, of Missouri, a
member of the Committee on the Judiciary who would be managing a bill
reported from that committee on the floor, made an announcement
regarding the request for a special order from the Committee on Rules
for the consideration of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 36601, 36602, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hungate: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 6, 1973, the
Committee on the Judiciary ordered favorably reported the bill H.
R. 5463, to establish rules of evidence for certain courts and
proceedings.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 17 of the Addendum to the
Rules of the Democratic Caucus for the 93d Congress, I am hereby
inserting in the Congressional Record notice of my intention to
request, following the expiration of 4 legislative days, the
Committee on Rules to report to the House a resolution providing
for a ``modified closed rule'' on the bill H.R. 5463. The rule I
will be requesting would provide in effect that after an extensive
period of general debate not to exceed 4 hours, on the bill,
further consideration of the bill for amendment would be postponed
to a time certain to give Members an opportunity to draft and to
insert in the Record any amendments which they proposed to offer to
the bill. Those amendments, if offered, would not be subject to
amendment on the floor, and article V of the bill, the
``Privilege'' article, would not be subject to amendment. Such a
rule would I believe, best permit the House of Representatives to
work its will on this important and complicated piece of
legislation.
Parliamentarian's Note: Addendum 17 to the Rules of the Democratic
Caucus read as follows in the 93d Congress, first session:
17. (a) It shall be the policy of the Democratic Caucus that no
committee chairman or designee shall seek, and the Democratic
Members of the Rules Committee shall not support, any rule or order
prohibiting any germane amendment to and bill reported from
committee until four (4) legislative days have elapsed following
notice in the Congressional Record of an intention to do so. (b)
If, within the four (4) legislative days following said notice in
the Congressional Record, 50 or more Democratic members give
written notice to the chairman of the committee seeking the rule
and to the chairman of the Rules Committee that they wish to offer
a particular germane amendment, the chairman or designee shall not
seek and the Democratic Members of the Rules Committee shall not
support, any rule or order relating to the bill or resolution
involved until the Democratic Caucus has met and decided whether
the proposed amendment should be allowed to be consid
[[Page 4034]]
ered in the House. (c) If 50 or more Democratic Members give notice
as provided in subsection (b) above, then, notwithstanding the
provisions of Caucus Rule No. 3, the Caucus shall meet for such
purpose within three (3) legislative days following a request for
such a Caucus to the Speaker and the chairman of the Democratic
Caucus by said committee chairman or designee. (d) Provided,
further, that notices referred to above also shall be submitted to
the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the chairman of the
Democratic Caucus.
Meetings of Committee
Sec. 16.23 The Chairman of the Committee on Rules announced that the
committee would meet in a larger than usual committee room in order
to hear the application for a special order on controversial tax
bill.
On Sept. 17, 1963,(15) Howard W Smith, Chairman of the
Committee on Rules, made an announcement relative to a meeting of the
committee on a tax bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 17210, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
address the House for 1 minute.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, on tomorrow the Committee
on Rules will hear the application of the Committee on Ways and
Means for a rule on the tax bill. There is considerable interest in
this subject matter and our quarters in the Rules Committee are
rather confining for a large crowd. For the convenience of the
Members of the House who wish to be informed on the subject, and
through the courtesy of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, the Committee on Rules will meet not in our own chamber
tomorrow but in the chamber of the Committee on Ways and Means in
the New House Office Building in order to hear the application of
the committee for a rule on the tax bill. There are many Members
interested in this who would like to hear the discussion that will
be carried on by the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means,
the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Mills], and the ranking minority
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Byrnes]. This meeting
will be at 10:30 tomorrow morning.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XI clauses 2 (b) and (c) [House Rules
and Manual Sec. 705 (1979)] provides for regular meeting days, pursuant
to written rules adopted by committees, and for additional meetings of
committees to be called by the chairman thereof for the consideration
of any bill or resolution pending before the committee.
Sec. 16.24 Rules were adopted by the Committee on Rules in the 93d
Congress to govern meeting procedures.
[[Page 4035]]
In the 93d Congress, the Committee on Rules adopted (on Mar. 27,
1973) rules to govern its proceedings, including the following
provisions to govern meetings:
(a) The Committee on Rules shall meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday
of each week when the House is in session. Meetings and hearings
shall be called to order and presided over by the Chairman or, in
the absence of the Chairman, by the Ranking Majority Member of the
Committee present as Acting Chairman.
(b) A minimum 48 hours' notice of regular meetings and hearings
of the Committee shall be given to all members except that the
Chairman, acting on behalf of the Committee, may schedule a meeting
or hearing for the consideration of emergency and/or procedural
measures or matters at any time. As much notice as possible will be
given to all members when emergency meetings or hearings are
called; provided, however, that an effort has been made to consult
the Ranking Minority Member.
(c) Meetings, hearings, and executive sessions of the Committee
shall be open to the public in accordance with clause 16 and clause
27 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, as
amended by H. Res. 259, 93d Congress.
(d) For the purpose of hearing testimony, a majority of the
Committee shall constitute a quorum.
(e) For the purpose of executive meetings, a majority of the
Committee shall constitute a quorum.
(f) All measures or matters which have been scheduled for
consideration by the Committee on which any Member of the House
wishes to testify, and so requests, will be the subject of
hearings, at which time all interested Members who are proponents
or opponents will be provided a reasonable opportunity to testify.
(g) There shall be a transcript of regularly scheduled hearings
and meetings of the Committee which may be printed if the Chairman
decides it is appropriate, or if a majority of the members request
it.
(h) A Tuesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with
where, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need therefor,
and additional meetings may be called by the Chairman, or by
written request of a majority of the Committee duly filed with the
Counsel of the Committee.
(i) The Committee may permit, by a majority vote on each
separate occasion, the coverage of any open meeting or hearing, in
whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and
still photography under such requirements and limitations as set
forth in the Rules of the House of Representatives.
(j) The five-minute rule in the interrogation of witnesses,
until such time as each member of the Committee who so desires has
had an opportunity to question the witness, shall be followed.
(k) When a recommendation is made as to the kind of rule which
should be granted a copy of the language recommended shall be
furnished to each member of the Committee at the beginning of the
meeting where such language is to be considered or as soon
thereafter as such recommendation becomes available.
[[Page 4036]]
Sec. 16.25 The Speaker held that the Committee on Rules had authority
to sit during sessions of the House and was not included in a
previous ruling of the Speaker that committees could not sit while
bills were being read for amendment.
On May 27, 1946,(16) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the power of the Committee on Rules
to meet while the House was in session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 5863, 5864, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James P.] Geelan [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Geelan: In view of the previous ruling by the Chair that he
would recognize reports of no committee which was meeting while the
House was in session, what would be the situation?
The Speaker: If the Chair made any such ruling today he does
not remember it.
Mr. Geelan: I distinctly recall the Chair's prohibiting any
committee's being in session or holding hearings while the House
was in session.
The Speaker: The Committee on Rules is exempt from that rule.
Parliamentarian's Note: ln the 79th Congress, when the Speaker made
the ruling cited, Rule XI clause 46 read as follows:
No committee, except the Committee on Rules, shall sit
during the sitting of the House, without special leave.
That rule was adopted in 1794, and the exception for the Committee on
Rules was inserted in 1893.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4546.
In the 73d Congress, the Speaker ruled that he could order
stricken from the calendar a bill where it was shown that the
committee reporting it had sat during the session of the House
without permission. 78 Cong. Rec. 7057, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.,
Apr. 20, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 93d Congress, Rule XI clause 17 [now Rule X clause 1(q)(4),
House Rules and Manual Sec. 686(a) (1979)] specifically provided that
the Committee on Rules was authorized to sit and act whether or not the
House was in session, and Rule XI clause 31 [now Rule XI clause 2(i),
House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1979)] provided that five committees,
including the Committee on Rules, could sit without special leave while
the House was reading a measure for amendment under the five-minute
rule.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The rule formerly provided that no committee except those named in
the rule could sit without special leave at any time when the
House was in session. The form of the rule in the 93d Congress
was derived from the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
(see House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 [1979] for the history of
the provision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4037]]
Granting Special Order Governing Bill Already Under Consideration
Sec. 16.26 Where a section in a bill pending before the Committee of
the Whole was struck out on a point of order (as constituting an
appropriation on a legislative bill), the Committee rose, the House
took a recess, and the Committee on Rules met and reported to the
House a resolution which the House adopted, making in order an
amendment to such bill in Committee of the Whole to reinsert the
section which had been stricken out.
On Mar. 29, 1933, the Committee of the Whole was considering S. 598
(reforestation and unemployment relief) pursuant to a unanimous consent
request that the Senate bill be in order for consideration, instead of
a similar House bill (H.R. 3905) which had previously been made a
special order of business for that day (also by unanimous consent).
Chairman Ralph F. Lozier, of Missouri, sustained a point of order
against section 4 of the Senate bill on the grounds that it constituted
an appropriation on a legislative bill in violation of Rule XXI clause
4 [now Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1846 (1979)], and
section 4 was thus stricken from the bill. Immediately following the
Chair's ruling the Committee rose and a motion for a recess was adopted
(at 5:42 p.m.).(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 77 Cong. Rec. 988-90, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recess having expired at 5:52 p.m., Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of
Illinois, called the House to order and Mr. William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, reported and called up by direction of the Committee on Rules
(which had met during the recess) a special order making in order an
amendment to the Senate bill pending before the Committee of the Whole:
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Recess
The recess having expired (at 5 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.),
the House was called to order by the Speaker.
Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I report a privileged resolution, which I send to the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. [Joseph B.] Shannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker does not the
rule have to lie over for a day?
The Speaker: It does not.
The Clerk will report the resolution.
[[Page 4038]]
The Clerk read as follows:
House Resolution 85
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to offer as an amendment in Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union to the bill S. 598 the
following language:
``Sec. 4. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of
this act, there is hereby authorized to be expended, under the
direction of the President, out of any unobligated moneys
heretofore appropriated for public works (except for projects
on which actual construction has been commenced or may be
commenced within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for
river and harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as
may be necessary; and an amount equal to the amount so expended
is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes
for which such moneys were originally appropriated.''
All points of order against said amendment shall be
considered as waived in the House and in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union. . . .
The Speaker: It requires a two-thirds vote to consider it. The
question is, Shall the House consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Snell) there were--ayes 189; noes 71.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House
determined to consider the resolution.
Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
adoption of the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution. The
resolution was agreed to.
The Committee of the Whole resumed its sitting and proceeded to
consider the amendment: (21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill
(S. 598) for the relief of unemployment through the performance of
useful public work, and for other purposes.
The resolution was agreed to.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill S. 598, with Mr. Lozier in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ramspeck: Page 3, after line 21,
insert the following:
``Sec. 4. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of
this act there is hereby authorized to be expended, under the
direction of the President, out of any unobligated moneys
heretofore appropriated for public works (except for projects
on which actual construction has been commenced or may be
commenced within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for
river and harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as
may be necessary, and an amount equal to the amount so expended
is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes
for which such moneys were originally appropriated.''. . .
Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, this simply puts back in the bill
section 4
[[Page 4039]]
exactly, which was ruled out on the point of order.
I move that all debate on this section do now close.
Sec. 16.27 A resolution waiving points of order against a certain
provision in a general appropriation bill was considered and agreed
to by the House after the general debate on the bill had been
concluded and reading for amendment had begun in Committee of the
Whole.
On May 21, 1969, general debate had been concluded in Committee of
the Whole on H.R. 11400, the supplemental appropriations bill, and the
first section of the bill had been read for amendment when the
Committee rose.
The House then adopted a special order from the Committee on Rules
which waived points of order against one section of the bill:
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 13246-51, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William: M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 414
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 414
Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R.
11400) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, all points of
order against title IV of said bill are hereby waived.
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to
the minority, to the very able and distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Smith). Pending that I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not use all the time on this resolution.
This is a rather unusual situation that we find ourselves in,
parliamentarily speaking. We have debated the supplemental
appropriation bill at some length under the privileged status of
the Appropriations Committee. Now we come in with a resolution from
the Rules Committee for one purpose and one purpose alone; that is,
to waive points of order against a particular section of the bill.
Special Rule With Continuing Effect
Sec. 16.28 Form of resolution waiving points of order against certain
legislative provisions in a general appropriation bill and
providing that during the remainder of the Congress no amendments
shall be in order to any other general appropriation bill which
conflict with the provisions of the legislative language made in
order by the special rule.
[[Page 4040]]
On Jan. 11, 1934,(2) the following resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules was called up and adopted by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. H. Res. 217, 78 Cong. Rec. 479, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That during the consideration of H.R. 6663, a bill
making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry
independent bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1935, and for other purposes, all
points of order against title II or any provisions contained
therein are hereby waived; and no amendments or motions to strike
out shall be in order to such title except amendments or motions to
strike out offered by direction of the Committee on Appropriations,
and said amendments or motions shall be in order, any rule of the
House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments shall not be in
order to any other section of the bill H.R. 6663 or to any section
of any general appropriation bill of the Seventy-third Congress
which would be in conflict with the provisions of title II of the
bill H.R. 6663 as reported to the House, except amendments offered
by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, and said
amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary
notwithstanding.
Parliamentarian's Note: Title II of the bill proposed permanent and
legislative amendments to a variety of statutes, to limit the salaries
of federal officials, allowances and pensions, and was entitled
``Economy Provisions.'' The effect of the resolution was to prohibit
certain amendments to general appropriation bills during the remainder
of the Congress, regardless of whether such amendments would have been
in order under the general rules of the House. This special rule also
prohibited the inclusion in a motion to recommit with instructions, on
H.R. 6663 or any other general appropriations bill during the remainder
of the Congress, of the type of amendment prohibited by the rule, since
the special rule prohibited such amendments ``during the
consideration'' of the bill (in both the Committee of the Whole and the
House) and prohibited such amendments to any other general
appropriation bill (by implication in both the Committee of the Whole
and the House).